2025-10-09 - LD Mannheim - Total Semiconductor v. Texas Instruments - UPC_CFI_132/2024

ENGLISH: 1. In an infringement action, if the defendant disputes the implementation of a feature of the patent claim in a sufficiently substantiated manner, the claimant must submit specific facts about the design of the attacked embodiment, which, if these facts are proven, would lead to the assessment that the feature in question is implemented. The required degree of specification and substantiation depends on the degree of substantiation with which the defendant disputes the implementation. 2. Regularly, it cannot be expected from a defendant to defend himself against an assertion of indirect infringement that is raised in the oral hearing for the first time on the spot. In consequence, granting leave for such an amendment is regularly to be excluded, according to R. 263.2 (b) RoP and the right to defence. 3. When invoking general common knowledge (GCK) with regard to a certain subset of the features of a patent claim, it is not sufficient that all individual elements for themselves may be part of the GCK. Rather, the specific combination thereof as laid down in the patent claim has to be part of the GCK as well. 4. When relying on the allegation that the skilled person would arrive at a certain design that realizes a subset of the features of the patent claim when applying general known principles and combining general known elements, it has to be demonstrated that the skilled person would inevitably arrive at such design without applying inventive steps.

Mannheim LD dismissed both infringement and revocation counterclaim for multiprocessor patent. Infringement: claimant failed to substantiate DVFS features. Indirect infringement amendment at oral hearing blocked (R. 263.2(b)). Validity: GCK of individual elements insufficient — specific combination must be part of GCK. Each side bears own costs. Case value EUR 10m.