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