UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 755/2024

Dec 3, 2024·EP1770912 · Method and system for 10BASE-T start-up

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
German
First decided
Dec 9, 2024
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.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Ulrike VoßLockedLocked
Judge Daniel VossLockedLocked
Judge Walter SchoberLockedLocked

At the UPC: Broadcom Group (52 cases)·Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (3 cases)

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC APP 223/2025·UPC APP 2740/2025

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 2282/2025·UPC CFI 504/2024·UPC CFI 208/2024·UPC CFI 52/2023

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-12-09
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division issued a rectification order (R. 353 RoP) correcting a factual error in the anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction order of 9 December 2024 against Realtek Semiconductor, clarifying language about the prior license agreement between Avago's predecessor and Realtek.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Rectification of decision (R. 353 RoP)
    • Anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction
  • —

    Summary: The Munich Local Division granted Avago Technologies an anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction preventing Realtek Semiconductor from pursuing an anti-enforcement injunction in US proceedings that would block Avago from enforcing EP 1 770 912 before UPC courts, holding the UPC has jurisdiction for such provisional measures under Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • anti-suit injunction / anti-enforcement injunction Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA
    • UPC jurisdiction for AASI/AAEI
    • Art. 47 EU Charter access to justice
Documents
Show all 54 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-01-29Not public
Berichtigung2025-01-28Public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-01-27Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-01-27Not public
Gebührenerstattung2025-01-27Public
20250127_63549.2024_App_2740.2025_EIP StN2025-01-27Not public
Hinweis2025-01-20Not public
Receipt2025-01-16Not public
20250116_63549.2024_App_2740.2025_EIP_Antrag2025-01-16Not public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-01-16Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited sought provisional measures from the Munich Local Division against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation concerning EP 1 770 912 B1 (a 10BASE-T automotive Ethernet start-up method), after Realtek obtained a Taiwanese anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction to block UPC proceedings. The court accepted jurisdiction and issued an anti-anti-suit protective order, finding that foreign anti-suit injunctions violate EU and German rights of access to justice; a subsequent rectification order (R. 353 RoP) corrected factual language about the predecessor's licence agreement.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • UPC has jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) UPCA to grant anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunctions against foreign anti-suit injunctions

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA; Art. 47 EU Charter; Art. 2(1) / 19(4) GG; §823(1) BGB

    Note: Munich Local Division accepted that foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunctions threaten access to justice under EU and German constitutional law, giving the UPC jurisdiction to issue protective provisional measures.

  • Anti-suit injunction obtained by Realtek in Taiwan is contrary to the general European right to access to justice

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 47 EU Charter; German Justizgewährungsanspruch

    Note: Court accepted that foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement prohibitions violate the general European right to access courts and the German constitutional right to court access.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Special circumstances under R. 211.5 RoP can be established by the allegedly long duration of obtaining security

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoP

    Reason: Special circumstances for purposes of R. 211.5 RoP cannot be founded merely on the purportedly long time to obtain security.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
UPC jurisdiction extends to provisional measures protecting applicants from foreign anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions (Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA)Foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunctions violate Art. 47 EU Charter and German constitutional access-to-justice rightsR. 213.1 RoP leaves the court no discretionSpecial circumstances under R. 211.5 RoP require more than the duration of obtaining security

Browse other cases on this principle.