Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 11 March 2026, common to the infringement action (UPC_CFI_63/2024) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_449/2024), the Munich Local Division revokes for France and Germany Network System Technologies LLC’s EP 1 552 669 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions, expired on 4 July 2023) and dismisses the infringement action against Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and Qualcomm Germany GmbH. The patent contains added matter, and infringement is not shown because the claimant did not establish how the chips actually work. The decision also applies the presumption of proprietorship arising from registration and refuses a request for production of source code as a fishing expedition.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed by Philips in 2003 and granted in 2007, was acquired by the claimant, a patent licensing company, under an agreement of 24 June 2022 followed by assignments recorded in the registers in May 2023 (paragraphs 3, 6 and 7). It asserts claim 1, and in the alternative claims 2 to 4, against Qualcomm integrated circuits with a network on chip (paragraphs 4, 5 and 9). The action against two Samsung companies was withdrawn (paragraph 2). The defendants seek revocation for Germany and France. The claimant filed four auxiliary requests (paragraphs 42 and 43).

The applicable law

Article 47(1) UPCA entitles the patent proprietor to bring an infringement action. Rule 8.5 RoP presumes the person entered in the registers to be the proprietor. Claims are interpreted under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, from the perspective of the skilled person (paragraphs 122 and 123).

Question

Does disputing a recorded assignment deprive the claimant of standing, does the patent extend beyond the application, and can a claimant that bases its case on third-party documentation obtain production of the defendant’s source code?

Decision

The presumption in Rule 8.5 RoP requires the defendant to prove specific facts showing that the claimant is not the proprietor. Disputing the assignment is not enough (paragraphs 100 to 104). The network of claim 1 means a network on chip (paragraphs 126 and 128), and determining the location of the addressed module is a separate step (paragraphs 145 to 155). The words « coupled between one of the modules and the network » require a structural separation that the application does not directly and unambiguously disclose, and attributing to the network interface the determination of the location is also added matter. Since every auxiliary request contains these features, the patent is revoked in its entirety (paragraphs 156 to 179). The attacked embodiment covers all chips described in the statement of claim, the Snapdragon 8+ Gen. 1 being only an example (paragraphs 183 to 187). But the assertion that those chips use the Arteris technology described in a 2009 book is unsubstantiated, and features 4.2, 5 and 6 are not met (paragraphs 188 to 215). The request for production of source code under Art. 59(1) UPCA and Rule 190.1 RoP is rejected for want of plausible evidence and of specific facts to be proven (paragraphs 222 to 234). The claimant bears the costs. The value in dispute is EUR 3,000,000 for the infringement action and EUR 4,500,000 for the counterclaim.

Key points for practice

• A defendant challenging the title of a registered claimant must plead specific facts. A general challenge to the assignment does not rebut the Rule 8.5 presumption (paragraphs 100 to 104).
• A request for production under Rule 190.1 RoP requires plausible evidence of infringement and the identification of the facts to be proven. It cannot be used to discover how a product works (paragraphs 225 to 231).
• The attacked embodiment is defined by the statement of claim and may cover all products with the features relied on, a sample being in principle sufficient (paragraph 183).
• Practical point: in chip architecture disputes, the construction of the claim’s structural terms (network, interface, address translation) drives the outcome and should be prepared from the first pleadings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 47(1), 59(1) and 65(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 171.2 and 190.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation, Art. 123(2), Art. 138(1)(c)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_335/2023, order dated in the decision 23 February 2023, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024, Munich Central Division, UPC_CFI_1/2023, 16 July 2024, Paris Local Division, DexCom v Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, 4 July 2024, Munich Local Division, UPC_CFI_233/2023, 31 July 2024, Hamburg Local Division, Avago International Sales Pte v Tesla Germany, 26 August 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_363/2023, 10 October 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_373/2024, 31 October 2024, Mannheim Local Division, Centripetal v Keysight, 5 December 2025, Court of Appeal, Abbott v Sibio, 14 February 2025, Court of Appeal, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys, 2 October 2025, Court of Appeal, Panasonic v Oppo, 24 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_298/2024), Mannheim Local Division, Dish v Aylo, 20 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_471/2023), Munich Local Division, Promosome v BioNTech, 3 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_846/2024)

Related decisions

• Network System v Qualcomm, 11 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_64/2024), decision of the same day on EP 1 875 683.
• Network System v Qualcomm, 11 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_65/2024), decision of the same day on EP 1 552 399.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.