Avago Technologies International Sales v Hyundai Motor Deutschland (CFI, 16 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 6 August 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division stayed Avago Technologies International Sales’ infringement action against seven Hyundai companies, together with the counterclaim for revocation, until the EPO’s final decision on the appeal against the revocation of EP 3 651 429 by the Opposition Division on 9 July 2026. The order confirms that a stay remains exceptional, but grants one where the patent has been revoked at first instance without any obvious defect and the Board of Appeal will not rule before the UPC.

Question

Should the infringement action and the counterclaim be stayed where the Opposition Division has revoked the patent and the appeal, even if accelerated, will only be decided in summer 2027?

Decision

The judge applied Rule 295(a) by analogy and read Article 33(10) UPCA in light of the right to an effective remedy (Article 6 ECHR, Article 47 of the Charter): since the oral hearing should normally take place within a year, a stay is only compatible with that aim in exceptional circumstances (paragraphs 13 and 14). Such circumstances were present: the appeal decision would not precede the UPC decision (paragraph 15), no serious and obvious defect in the revocation decision was alleged (paragraph 18), and proceeding could lead to measures proving unjustified ex tunc (paragraph 22). The claimant, aware of the opposition, had accepted that risk (paragraph 17). The counterclaim was stayed together with the action (paragraph 20).

Key points for practice

• A revocation in opposition with no obvious defect, coupled with an appeal timetable running beyond the UPC hearing, may justify staying both the infringement action and the counterclaim (paragraphs 15 to 22).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 33(10), 41(3), 42 and 52(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 102.2, 118.2(b), 295(a), (g) and (m), 296.3 and 333

Other provisions

European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47

Case law cited

Carrier v Bitzer, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024

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.