2026-03-16 - 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:
- Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH v. Network System Technologies LLC
Kernaussage: 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).
2026-03-16 - LD Munich - Qualcomm
v.
Network System Technologies - UPC_CFI_451/2024
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]”