2026-03-11 - LD Munich - Qualcomm v. Network System Technologies - UPC_CFI_451/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_451/2024
- 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
v.
Network System Technologies - UPC_CFI_451/2024
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 dismissed both the infringement action brought by NPE Network System Technologies against Qualcomm and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 1 552 399 (NoC interconnect technology). The court provided detailed claim construction of 'connection', 'network', and 'communication/resource managing means' under Art. 69 EPC, finding that patent claim 1 requires a connection-oriented approach with dedicated connection setup involving a communication manager and resource manager — distinguishing this from distributed hop-by-hop arbitration known from prior art. The patent was held novel over Goossens, Levy, and Rijpkema (none disclosed the full CM/RM connection setup flow), and inventive over combinations with Drake (architectural incompatibility between LAN and NoC contexts). Infringement was denied because the claimant's case rested entirely on third-party Arteris NoC documentation that did not describe Qualcomm's actual products, and the Arteris NoC approach (distributed arbitration per router) was fundamentally different from the patent's connection-oriented approach. The court also denied evidence production under Rule 190 RoP, finding the request amounted to a fishing expedition.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The defendants' novelty challenge was rejected. The court held the patent novel over three prior art documents: Goossens (failed to disclose independently adjustable channel properties, transactions, and the CM/RM connection setup process), Levy (no network within the meaning of claim 1, no set of connection properties), and Rijpkema (no connections with multiple channels having independently adjustable properties). [180]-[233]”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The defendants' inventive step challenge was rejected. Combinations of Goossens or Rijpkema with Drake did not render the invention obvious. Drake's LAN-based QoS architecture was architecturally incompatible with NoC — placing the communication manager in the source station contradicted Goossens' separation of computation and communication. Drake also did not disclose connections with independently adjustable channel properties. [234]-[265]”