Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CFI, ORD_26353/2024, 8 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_515/2023, ACT_597693/2023), common to applications App_11795/2024, 11861/2024, 11863/2024, 12104/2024 and 12111/2024, the Munich Local Division ruled on the preliminary objections (Rule 19 RoP) and the applications to dismiss the action as manifestly unfounded (Rule 361 RoP) brought by Volkswagen, Audi, Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland against Network System Technologies’ (NST) infringement action on EP 1 552 399. A withdrawal of the opt-out by a registered representative was held valid without a mandate, and the jurisdictional objections were left to the main proceedings.

Question

Is an opt-out withdrawal lodged by a representative without a mandate valid, does NST have standing for the period before it acquired the patent from Koninklijke Philips, and must the division rule now on its jurisdiction over UK-related damages and over damages claimed from Texas Instruments, already sued in the United States?

Decision

A representative on the Article 48 UPCA list need not attach a mandate (Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP), the withdrawal, lodged on 20 December 2023, took effect on entry in the register (paragraph 1). The 2022 purchase agreement and assignments also transfer the claims for past infringement, so NST has full standing (paragraph 2). A detailed infringement read on one example (the DRA79x SoC) suffices at this stage (paragraph 3). The jurisdictional objections were deferred to the main proceedings (Rule 20.2 RoP), since validity must first be resolved in the counterclaims and the revocation action pending before the Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_170/2024), for reasons of efficiency (Art. 41(3) UPCA) (paragraph 4). The Rule 361 applications were dismissed, costs were reserved to the main proceedings and leave to appeal was granted to the extent of the dismissal.

Key points for practice

• Withdrawing an opt-out through a representative on the Article 48 list does not require a mandate to be filed.
• Practical point: objections to jurisdiction over damages may be deferred until validity and infringement have been decided.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 41(3), 48, 73(2)(b)(ii), 83(3) and 83(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5.3(b), 5.7, 19, 20.2, 21.1, 125, 220.2, 224.1(b), 361 and 363.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 71b(2) and (3)

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.