UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 65/2024

Mar 8, 2024·EP1552399 · 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
    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 Munich Local Division (Panel 2) dismissed Network System Technologies' infringement action against Qualcomm's NoC-based chips under EP 1552399 (a patent that had already expired on 7 October 2023), finding that the Arteris NoC's QoS signalling (the ‘prs’ and ‘Tag’ signals) does not request, determine, notify or establish a ‘connection’ via a communication manager and a resource manager as required by claim 1, and again rejecting the R.190 RoP request to order production of Qualcomm's source code. On the linked counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_451/2024), the Court rejected Qualcomm's novelty and inventive-step attacks (including combinations of ‘Goossens’/‘Goossens 2’/‘Rijpkema 2’ with ‘Drake’) and held the patent valid as granted, refusing a stay pending the German Federal Patent Court's parallel national revocation of the German part of the patent.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Claim construction of ‘connection’ established via a communication managing means and a resource managing means (claim 1)
    • Non-infringement: Arteris NoC's QoS / ‘prs’ / ‘Tag’ signalling does not request, determine, notify or establish a claimed ‘connection’
    • Request to produce evidence (source code) under Art. 59(1) UPCA / R.190 RoP rejected as an impermissible ‘fishing expedition’
    • Novelty, Art. 54 EPC
    • Inventive step over combinations of ‘Goossens’ / ‘Goossens 2’ / ‘Rijpkema 2’ with ‘Drake’, Art. 56 EPC
    • Stay of proceedings under R.295(a) RoP pending the German Federal Patent Court's national nullity decision – refused
Documents
Show all 461 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.

  • The Arteris NoC's QoS mechanisms (the ‘prs’ and ‘Tag’ signals, NIUs, bandwidth limiters and rate regulators) do not request, determine, notify or establish a ‘connection’ as defined by claim 1 – a temporary state with guaranteed resource allocation set up via a dedicated process involving a communication manager and a resource manager – because the described signalling operates without any prior connection request or determination/notification of resource availability.

    RespondentLegal basis: Non-infringement – claim construction of ‘connection’, features 2 to 6 of claim 1

  • The claimed subject matter is novel and involves an inventive step over the cited prior-art combinations, because none of ‘Goossens’, ‘Goossens 2’ or ‘Rijpkema 2’ discloses communication managing means or resource managing means (features 1.3, 1.4, 3, 4, 5.2), so the skilled person would not be led to combine them with ‘Drake’ to arrive at the claimed solution.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC (novelty), Art. 56 EPC (inventive step)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The Arteris NoC Chapter, together with Qualcomm's acquisition of Arteris technology and personnel, plausibly evidences infringement and warrants 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’

  • The claimed technical teaching lacks novelty and an inventive step over combinations including ‘Goossens’ / ‘Goossens 2’ / ‘Rijpkema 2’ with ‘Drake’, and in any event the proceedings should be stayed pending the German Federal Patent Court's parallel decision revoking the German part of the patent.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54/56 EPC (validity – rejected, patent maintained as granted, para 261: since the patent is valid as granted the auxiliary requests are no longer relevant); R.295(a) RoP (stay – refused)