Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Local Division Munich, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_449/2024

Local Division Munich, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_449/2024

3 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The claimant can exemplify infringement on a sample product. The burden then shifts to the defendant to specifically dispute why other listed products do not fall under this definition.

Merely disputing the validity of a patent purchase agreement without presenting compelling facts is insufficient for a defendant to rebut the presumption of the claimant’s proprietorship.

The term “coupled between” was found to imply a physical separation not supported by the original disclosure’s term “associated to,” leading to the patent’s revocation.

Attributing a function to a different entity (the network interface) than disclosed in the application also constituted added matter, invalidating the patent.

The request was rejected as the claimant’s initial evidence was implausible. The court found the request was aimed at finding a basis for infringement, not substantiating an existing claim.

Division

Local Division Munich

UPC number

UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_449/2024

Type of proceedings

Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation

Parties

Claimant / Counterdefendant: Network System Technologies LLC

Defendants / Counterclaimants: Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 1 552 669

Jurisdictions

France, Germany

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 8.5 RoP

Rule 190 RoP

Art. 47 UPCA

Art. 59 UPCA

Art. 65 UPCA

Art. 123(2) EPC

Art. 138(1)(c) EPC


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

  • German and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative, Senior Associate

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field