UPC CFI 64/2024
Mar 1, 2024·EP1875683 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT WITH DATA COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND IC DESIGN METHOD
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Respondents
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Operating co.
- Samsung Semiconductor Europe GmbHOperating co.
- Qualcomm IncorporatedOperating co.
- Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.Operating co.
- Qualcomm Germany GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Johannes Heselberger-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Denise Benz-A&O Shearman
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Mar 11, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Voss | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Pierluigi Perrotti | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Georg Werner | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Andrea Scilletta | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Network System Technologies LLC (77 cases)·Samsung Group (57 cases)
This dispute contains 10 other proceedings
UPC CoA 68/2026·UPC CoA 69/2026·UPC CoA 70/2026·UPC CoA 71/2026·UPC CoA 72/2026 and 5 more
9 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CoA 217/2024·UPC CoA 218/2024·UPC CoA 224/2024·CC 24453/2024·UPC CFI 167/2024 and 4 more
- 2026-03-11Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) dismissed Network System Technologies' infringement action against Qualcomm's NoC-based chips under EP 1875683, finding that the Arteris-derived width converters and rate adapters relied on do not delay whole data packages by M*N clock cycles as required by claims 1 and 8, and rejecting infringement by equivalence and the request to order production of Qualcomm's source code under R.190 RoP. On the linked counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_450/2024), the Court rejected Qualcomm's added-matter, novelty (over “Bertozzi”) and inventive-step attacks and held the patent valid as granted.
Show the legal issues (7)
- Claim construction of ‘M*N data storage elements’ introducing a delay of M*N clock cycles on the first communication channel (feature group 4)
- Non-infringement: width converters and rate adapters do not delay whole data packages by M*N clock cycles
- Infringement by equivalence rejected for failure to identify a specific substitute means, its function and technical effect
- Request to produce evidence (source code) under Art. 59(1) UPCA / R.190 RoP rejected as an impermissible ‘fishing expedition’
- Added matter / inadmissible extension (intermediate generalisation), Art. 65(2) UPCA, Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 123(2) EPC
- Novelty over “Bertozzi” (“Xpipes: A Network-on-Chip Architecture for Gigascale Systems-on-Chip”), Art. 54 EPC
- Inventive step, Art. 56 EPC
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-04-14 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-04-14 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-04-13 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-13 | Not public |
| Application document Applicant | 2026-04-13 | Not public |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-04-01 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-03-16 | Public |
| Case closed | 2026-03-11 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-03-11 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-03-11 | Not public |
Width converters and rate adapters used in the accused NoC architecture do not delay whole data packages by M*N clock cycles as required by feature group 4 of claim 1 (and correspondingly claim 8); each data element is delayed by a different number of clock cycles, and data packages of varying size have no fixed correspondence to a fixed number of M*N data storage elements.
RespondentLegal basis: Non-infringement – claim construction of feature group 4 of claim 1 / claim 8The patent-in-suit is not inadmissibly extended: the requirement that a complete data package is transmitted within N clock cycles is implicit in (a clear and unambiguous consequence of) the application as filed, so the amendment of claims 1 and 8 during examination is not an impermissible intermediate generalisation.
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65(2) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC (added matter)The claimed subject matter is novel over “Bertozzi” and involves an inventive step, because “Bertozzi” is not a suitable/realistic starting point in the prior art and does not point the skilled person toward the claimed solution.
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC (novelty), Art. 56 EPC (inventive step)
The Arteris NoC Chapter, together with Qualcomm's acquisition of Arteris technology and personnel, plausibly evidences that the accused NoC ICs use M*N data storage elements to delay whole data packages, warranting an order to produce Qualcomm's source code and technical documents.
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 59(1) UPCA, R.190.1 RoP – rejected for lack of plausible evidence in support of the claim and as amounting to a US-style ‘fishing expedition’In the alternative, the Qualcomm NoC ICs infringe feature group 4 by equivalence.
ClaimantLegal basis: Doctrine of equivalence – rejected because the Claimant did not specifically explain which feature is realised by which substitute means, its function and its technical effectThe amendment of claims 1 and 8 during examination constitutes an inadmissible intermediate generalisation of the application as filed, and the claims lack novelty over “Bertozzi” and lack an inventive step.
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC (added matter); Art. 54 EPC (novelty); Art. 56 EPC (inventive step) – all rejected, patent maintained as granted