2026-03-11 - LD Munich - Qualcomm et al. v. Qualcomm et al. - UPC_CFI_449/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_449/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Final Decision
- Parteien:
- Network System Technologies LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-03-11 - LD Munich - Qualcomm et al.
v.
Qualcomm et al. - UPC_CFI_449/2024
ENGLISH:
The “attacked embodiment” is regularly determined by the factual design of a certain product
or a process with regard to the features of the invoked patent claim as asserted in the
Statement of Claim. This can be a specific product determined, for example, by its product
name, product sheet and technical design. However, the attacked embodiment may also
comprise all products that generally have the technical features specified by the Claimant,
which allegedly realise the technical teaching of the patent claim. This may also include
products unknown to the Claimant or, in the case of an injunction, future products insofar as
they essentially correspond to the features of the product presented by the Claimant in his
Statement of Claim, which he considers decisive for the patent infringement. In such a case,
it is usually sufficient if the Claimant has exemplified the infringement on a sample of the
attacked embodiment.
notable
The Munich LD revoked EP 1 552 669 (NoC address translation) for added matter and dismissed the infringement action in this third companion case to UPC_CFI_65/2024 and UPC_CFI_64/2024. The court found two added matter defects: (1) 'network interface means coupled between one of the modules and the network' implied a structural distinction not derivable from the application, which only used 'associated to' (a functional description); (2) attributing the determination of the addressed module's selected location to the 'network interface' was not supported — only the 'address translation means' (a subcomponent of the network interface) was disclosed for this function. All four auxiliary requests failed for containing the same problematic features. Infringement was independently denied because the attacked embodiment's route/path information was not a 'single address' within claim feature 4.2, and no subsequent determination steps (features 5 and 6) were performed. Evidence production was denied on the same fishing expedition grounds as the companion cases.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCAdded Matter
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“The patent was revoked for added matter under Art. 138(1)(c)/123(2) EPC on two grounds: (1) 'coupled between' implied structural separation not derivable from the application's 'associated to' language, which was merely functional; (2) attributing the determination of the addressed module's location to the 'network interface' was not supported — only the address translation means (a subcomponent) was disclosed for this function. All auxiliary requests failed for containing the same features. [161]-[179]”