Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 6 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 June 2024 (ACT_462984/2023, APP_27571/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, Matthias Zigann, in Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited’s infringement action on EP 1 838 002 against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, ordered in part the production of the board resolutions referred to in the powers of attorney filed by the claimant to establish its standing. The order frames the use of Rule 190.1 RoP to test the chain of title to the patent.

Question

May a defendant contesting the registered proprietor’s standing obtain production of the corporate resolutions underlying the powers of attorney and the assignment of the patent?

Decision

Production requires that the party has presented the reasonably available and plausible evidence and identified evidence held by the other side (Rule 190.1 RoP). Standing depends on substantive entitlement, registration creating a rebuttable presumption (Rule 8.5 RoP), in line with the Court of Appeal’s order of 26 February 2024. The defendants offered no concrete indication of a lack of authority, but the claimant’s internal decision-making was wholly closed to them. They were therefore entitled to inspect the resolutions relied on, all the more as they alleged self-dealing. Three resolutions had to be produced within one week, including the one authorising the assignment of the patent, which power of attorney K30 requires. The request was refused for the resolution under power of attorney K29 concerning the acquisition of rights, since that document requires board authorisation only for outgoing transfers. The division noted that the Hamburg Local Division had issued an equivalent order on 4 June 2024 in the parallel case.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant challenging the chain of title should tie each production request to a requirement appearing in the proprietor’s own documents, absent such a requirement, the request fails.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 47(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.4, 8.5 and 190.1

Case law cited

10x Genomics v Nanostring, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Bundesgerichtshof, 7 May 2013, X ZR 69/11, Fräsverfahren

Related decisions

• Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany, 4 June 2024, equivalent order of the Hamburg Local Division in the parallel case (UPC_CFI_54/2023).
• Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany, 16 June 2024, confidentiality order in the same proceedings.

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.