UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 63/2024

Mar 4, 2024·EP1552669 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Mar 11, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Daniel VossLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked
Judge Georg WernerLockedLocked
Judge Andrea ScillettaLockedLocked

At the UPC: Network System Technologies LLC (77 cases)·Samsung Group (57 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 13 other proceedings

UPC CoA 68/2026·UPC CoA 69/2026·UPC CoA 70/2026·UPC CoA 71/2026·UPC CoA 72/2026 and 8 more

22 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 265/2024·UPC CoA 217/2024·UPC CoA 218/2024·UPC CoA 219/2024·UPC CoA 220/2024 and 17 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-03-11
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Court dismissed the Infringement action concerning EP 1 552 669, holding both that the patent-in-suit is invalid (per the companion Counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_449/2024, revoked in its entirety for inadmissible added matter) and, independently, that Qualcomm's accused Arteris-based Network-on-Chip integrated circuits do not realise claim 1's 'connection' feature. In the same 61-page ruling the Court revoked EP 1 552 669 with effect for France and Germany and rejected the Claimant's attempt to save the patent through four auxiliary requests, each found to suffer from the same added-matter defect.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • inadmissible extension of subject-matter / added matter affecting independent claims 1 and 5 and all four auxiliary requests (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 65(2) UPCA)
    • claim construction of 'connection', 'communication manager' and 'resource manager'
    • R.190 RoP application to produce evidence (source code) - plausibility threshold
    • geographic scope of a UPC revocation order (France and Germany)
Documents
Show all 470 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-04-14Not public
Order2026-04-14Public
Receipt2026-04-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-13Not public
Application document Applicant2026-04-13Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-04-01Not public
Decision2026-03-16Public
Case closed2026-03-11Not public
Decision2026-03-11Not public
Decision2026-03-11Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Independent claim 1 (and consequently independent method claim 5) as granted contains added subject-matter extending beyond the application as filed, because feature group 3 ('at least one network interface means ... coupled between one of the modules and the network [on chip]') combined with feature 6 is not disclosed in the application as filed; none of the four auxiliary requests cures the defect because each retains the same offending feature combination in its independent claims.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 65(2) UPCA (inadmissible extension); paras 156-179

  • The accused Qualcomm NoC ICs, built on Arteris NoC technology, do not establish a 'connection' with a communication manager and resource manager as required by claim 1.

    RespondentLegal basis: claim construction of features 2-6, mirroring the parallel EP1552399 ruling's non-infringement analysis; para 181
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The patent should be maintained, at least in the form of one of the four auxiliary requests, because independent claim 5 (or claim 4 in the later auxiliary requests) does not suffer from the alleged extension.

    ClaimantLegal basis: the Court found feature group 3 and feature 6 present in every auxiliary request's independent claims, so all four requests suffer from the same added-matter defect (paras 177-179)

  • The Defendants should be ordered under Art. 59(1) UPCA / R.190 RoP to produce further technical documents/source code to prove infringement.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R.190 RoP plausibility threshold not met, mirroring the parallel ruling's evidence-production reasoning