UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 539/2025

Jun 17, 2025·EP2819131: Inductor layout for reduced VCO coupling

Parent infringement case:UPC CFI 757/2024

Case details
Status
Interim Phase
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counter Claim for Revocation
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Wim Maas (Taylor Wessing); Mark Goorts (Taylor Wessing); Tim Mimpen (Taylor Wessing); Karlijn van Laar (Taylor Wessing)
Respondents
Reps: Alexander Wiese (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB); Eva Geschke (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB); Eva Maria Thörner (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB); Christian Koeker (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB); Sara Nazaré (nlp Nazaré, Lima, Piriquito Santos & Associados, Sociedade de Advogados, SP RL); Joana Piriquito Santos (nlp Nazaré, Lima, Piriquito Santos & Associados, Sociedade de Advogados, SP RL); Rudolf Reichold (Bosch Jehle Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH); Thomas Hell (Bosch Jehle Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH); Matthias Drews (Bosch Jehle Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH)
Division
Lisbon LD
Judges
Technology
Semiconductors · RF Components · Electrical Components
Language
English
First decided
May 6, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
Maintained1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
Amended1
Infringed1
Notes: The patent was upheld as valid in its amended form (auxiliary requests). The main claim 1 was found infringed by products incorporating Intel AX201 and AX211 modules. The counterclaim for revocation based on added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step was dismissed. The patent expired on 15 February 2025 before the decision.
Decisions
  • 2026-05-06
    InfringedRevocation meritsCounterclaim for revocation

    The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) found that AsusTek infringed EP 2 819 131 B1 by offering and placing on the market laptops incorporating Intel Wi-Fi modules AX201 (from Q2 2019) and AX211 (from Q3 2021) until the patent's expiry on 15 February 2025 in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden. AsusTek's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed as the patent was found valid in its amended form. Damages were referred to separate proceedings.

    Legal issues:Legal interest of defendant to pursue revocation counterclaim after patent expiryAdded matterNovelty over prior art (Zhou, Jovenin, Einzinger, Bhattacharjee, Taniguchi, Lees)Inventive stepClaim interpretation (inductor, substantial symmetry, terminal connection to second loop)Technical infringement of claim 1 features by Intel AX201 and AX211 modulesActs of infringement via domain and sub-domain websites (Art. 25 UPCA)Liability of domain holder for sub-domain contentScope of declaratory infringement for expired patent
    Damages: Liability declared, amount deferred
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-03-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-23Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Receipt2026-03-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-23Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-23Not public
Receipt2026-03-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-10Not public
Document2026-03-10Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-02-25Not public
action.phaseChange.interimPhaseOpen2026-01-21Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-01-21Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-21Not public
Order2026-01-21Not public
Receipt2026-01-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-21Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-21Not public
action.communication.general2026-01-20Not public
Receipt2026-01-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-19Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-19Not public
Application document Claimant2026-01-19Not public
Receipt2026-01-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-06Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-06Not public
Receipt2025-12-29Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-29Not public
Statement of rejoinder2025-12-29Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-29Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-27Not public
Counterclaim rejoinder2025-11-27Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-11-27Not public
Receipt2025-11-27Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-27Not public
Counterclaim reply2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Exhibit2025-10-27Not public
Receipt2025-10-27Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-01Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-09-01Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-08-28Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-08-27Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-08-27Not public
Annex F7 - Auxiliary Request 72025-08-26Not public
2025-08-26 - Reply to SOD and Defence to CC - EP 131 - Final version - signed2025-08-26Not public
Annex F5 - Auxiliary Request 52025-08-26Not public
Annex F3 - Auxiliary Request 32025-08-26Not public
2025-08-26 - Application to amend a patent - EP 131 - Signed WM2025-08-26Not public
Annex F4 - Auxiliary Request 42025-08-26Not public
Annex F6 - Auxiliary Request 62025-08-26Not public
Annex F2 - Auxiliary Request 22025-08-26Not public
Annex F1 - Auxiliary Request 12025-08-26Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-08-26Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-08-26Not public
Annex E4 - English machine translation of UPC_CFI_363.2023 LD Dusseldorf decision of 10 October 20242025-08-26Not public
Annex E1 - Ericssons Reply to the EPO dated 10 September 2018 (Annex E11 to the PI proceedings)2025-08-26Not public
Annex E3 - ASUSTeKs Financial Report of 2025 Q1 (English)2025-08-26Not public
Annex F1 - Auxiliary Request 12025-08-26Not public
2025-08-26 - Reply to SOD and Defence to CC - EP 131 - Final version - signed2025-08-26Not public
Annex E2 - Ericssons Response EPO dated 9 June 2015 (Annex E10 to the PI proceedings)2025-08-26Not public
Annex F4 - Auxiliary Request 42025-08-26Not public
Annex F2 - Auxiliary Request 22025-08-26Not public
Annex F6 - Auxiliary Request 62025-08-26Not public
Annex F5 - Auxiliary Request 52025-08-26Not public
Annex F7 - Auxiliary Request 72025-08-26Not public
Annex F3 - Auxiliary Request 32025-08-26Not public
Application-RoP2932025-08-13Not public
Application (ROP 293)2025-08-13Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-14Not public
EPO_Communication_check_Outcome2025-07-09Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-08Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-02Not public
Document from EPO2025-07-01Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-06-30Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2025-06-26Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-06-26Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-06-18Not public
Exhibit ASU-022025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-162025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-082025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-052025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-09.B2025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-172025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-09.A2025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-132025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-112025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-142025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-182025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-012025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-122025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-072025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-192025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-032025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-102025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-062025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-152025-06-17Not public
Exhibit ASU-042025-06-17Not public
Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation2025-06-17Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • AsusTek has legal interest in pursuing revocation counterclaim despite patent expiry because the infringement action concerns past acts and potential retroactive damages

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 47(6) UPCA; Art. 65(4) UPCA

  • The patent is valid in its amended form; main claim and auxiliary requests survive challenges of added matter, novelty, and inventive step

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC; Art. 65 UPCA

  • The accused Intel AX201 and AX211 modules satisfy all features of claim 1 including the inductor with two loops with opposite current directions and terminals connected to the second loop

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA

  • AsusTek as holder of the domain and sub-domains is responsible for offering and placing products on market via those websites

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; UPC_CoA_534/2024 Belkin/Philips

  • The term 'offer' under Art. 25 UPCA is interpreted broadly in an economic sense, not requiring a legally binding contractual offer or price specification

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA; CoA UPC_CoA_534/2024 and 19/2025
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • AsusTek argued it has no legal interest in revocation because the patent has expired

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 363 RoP

  • AsusTek argued the accused modules do not satisfy feature 1.1B (inductor) because functionality depends on frequency and environment, and images are insufficient to prove inductive function

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • AsusTek argued feature 1.2 (substantial symmetry) is not met because current flow is not symmetric about the axis

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • AsusTek argued feature 1.5 (terminals connected to second loop) is not met and cannot be confirmed from the provided images

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

  • AsusTek argued it cannot be liable for offers and sales on local sub-domains because it has no operational control over those sub-domains

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

  • AsusTek argued by analogy with the Belkin/Philips decision on directors' liability that lack of operational control over sub-domains should shield it from liability

    RespondentLegal basis: UPC_CoA_534/2024 para. 190