UPC CFI 52/2023
Jun 30, 2023·EP1838002 +1 more · Programmable hybrid transmitter
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedOperating co.
Representatives- Bernd Allekotte-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
Respondents- Tesla Germany GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Marcus Grosch-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringTelecommunications · Digital communication
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Aug 25, 2023
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tatyana Zhilova | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Klaus Loibner | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Broadcom Group (52 cases)·Tesla Group (25 cases)
This dispute contains 10 other proceedings
UPC CoA 637/2024·UPC CoA 638/2024·UPC APP 53895/2024·UPC CFI 504/2024·UPC CFI 208/2024 and 5 more
5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 78/2026·UPC CFI 2282/2025·UPC CFI 755/2024·UPC CoA 639/2024·CC 581179/2023
- 2025-01-27Application RoP262.1 (b)Public
Summary: Procedural order (in German) granting patent attorney Christian Läufer of Fuchs Patentanwälte access to the written submissions and exhibits of the counterclaim for revocation proceedings (CC_581177/2023) in the case of Avago Technologies v Tesla, for professional/educational purposes. Neither party opposed. Access limited to the revocation counterclaim workflow.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Third-party access to court file (Rule 262.1(b) RoP)
- Professional/educational interest
- Scope of access limited to revocation counterclaim
- 2024-08-30Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Munich Local Division found EP 1 838 002 B1 invalid (revoked for the territory of Germany) on the counterclaims for revocation filed by Tesla, finding the patent anticipated by prior art D3. The patent amendment requests were dismissed. The infringement action was dismissed as the patent lacks validity. Avago (claimant) bears all costs.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Patent infringement (dismissed for lack of validity)
- Counterclaim for revocation
- Novelty / anticipation
- Claim interpretation
- Patent amendment request
- 2024-04-03
Summary: The Local Division Munich issued a procedural order in the main infringement proceedings between Avago Technologies and Tesla entities concerning European Patent EP 1 838 002, addressing case management steps following the interlocutory proceedings stage.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Case management in main infringement proceedings
- Procedural order post-interlocutory stage
- 2023-08-25Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Munich Local Division issued a preliminary order clarifying that postal handover for service purposes occurs approximately two days after the document is handed to the court's postal channel, addressing a preliminary objection deadline in Avago v. Tesla.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Service timing Rule 271 RoP
- Postal handover date
- Deadline calculation
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-04-03 | Not public |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-04-03 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-04-03 | Not public |
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-04-03 | Public |
| 462984-2023_OH_AH_MUN-LOC_37074-2024 | 2025-01-20 | Not public |
| 462984-2023_OH_AH_MUN-LOC_37074-2024 | 2025-01-20 | Not public |
| 462984-2023_OH_AH_MUN-LOC | 2025-01-20 | Not public |
| 462984-2023_OH_AH_MUN-LOC | 2025-01-20 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-16 | Not public |
| R 265 final | 2025-01-16 | Public |
Avago Technologies sued Tesla entities for infringement of EP 1838002 B1 (a programmable hybrid transmitter patent) before the Munich Local Division. Tesla counterclaimed for revocation, arguing the patent was anticipated by prior art document D3. The court found claims 1 and 7 (and all dependent claims) fully anticipated by D3, revoked the patent for Germany, and dismissed the infringement action. Avago's auxiliary request to amend claim 1 to clarify that all three outputs are produced simultaneously was rejected as not introducing any substantive additional restriction.
EP 1838002 is anticipated (lacks novelty) over prior art document D3
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 54 EPC; Art. 65(2) UPCANote: Munich Local Division found claims 1 and 7 (and dependent claims) of EP 1838002 B1 (programmable hybrid transmitter) fully anticipated by D3; patent revoked for Germany.
Auxiliary request to amend claim 1 to require all three outputs (normalized complex signal, offset information, and transmit property information) simultaneously
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 30 RoP; Art. 65(3) UPCAReason: The proposed amendment (feature 1.1.2bis) introduced no additional restriction on the claim scope because the original claim, properly construed, already required all three outputs; amendment therefore did not overcome the anticipation finding.
Tesla's vehicles infringe EP 1838002 (programmable hybrid transmitter patent)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65(2) UPCAReason: Infringement action dismissed due to invalidity of patent; whether infringement would have existed in case of a valid patent was left open.
Browse other cases on this principle.
- D3Novelty-destroying
The Munich Local Division construed claim 1 of EP 1838002 (a programmable hybrid transmitter with first and second modes) to require that offset information and transmit property information are necessarily associated with normalization of the complex signal. On this construction, the auxiliary request's amendment (explicitly requiring all three outputs) was found to introduce no additional restriction since the original claim was already construed to require this relationship.