2026-03-11 - LD Munich - Qualcomm et al. v. Qualcomm et al. - UPC_CFI_450/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_450/2024
- 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_450/2024
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 dismisses both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in this NoC patent dispute. On validity, the court upholds the patent finding no added matter (implicit features derived from correct claim construction), novelty over Bertozzi (no disclosed correlation between data storage elements and data elements), and inventive step (Bertozzi teaches away from periodicity-dependent networks). On infringement, the claimant failed to conclusively demonstrate that Qualcomm's chips implement the patented M*N data storage element feature — the Arteris NoC Chapter (a third-party publication) was insufficient evidence, and the defendants' own submissions confirmed variable packet sizes incompatible with the claim requirements. The evidence production request under R. 190 RoP was denied as a fishing expedition lacking plausible evidence. The headnote clarifies that an 'attacked embodiment' may be defined broadly to encompass all products sharing specified technical features, including unknown and future products.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty attack based on Bertozzi (BP-CR 1) rejected. Feature group 4 (M*N data storage elements correlated with data elements per packet) not disclosed — Bertozzi's relay stations are determined by timing requirements, not by flit count. Figure 4's four flits merely illustrative, not teaching a correlation. [157-171]”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Inventive step attacks based on Bertozzi + Nowatzyk, Bertozzi + Hassoun, and Dielissen + Nowatzyk/Hassoun all rejected. Bertozzi is not a suitable starting point as it teaches latency-insensitive operation (arbitrary pipeline depth), teaching away from the patent's periodicity requirement. Nowatzyk's temporal alignment buffer is inside the node, not the communication channel. Hassoun addresses buffer insertion for timing closure, unrelated to whole-packet delay. [172-200]”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Counterclaim for revocation based on inadmissible intermediate generalization dismissed. Court held that the features not explicitly in the claims (complete data package transmitted within N clock cycles) are implicitly required by correct interpretation — no added matter under Art. 123(2)/138(1)(c) EPC. [144-155]”