UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Dec 3, 2024

UPC_CFI_755/2024

Method and system for 10BASE-T start-up

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresMunich LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.