Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 4 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 4 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_54/2023, ACT_463258/2023, App 27608/2024, ORD_28831/2024), the Hamburg Local Division, in Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited’s infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, ordered the claimant to produce, within one week, three board resolutions referred to in powers of attorney EIP 11 and EIP 12, and dismissed the remainder of the defendants’ application. The defendants disputed the claimant’s standing and the validity of the powers of attorney, alleging self-dealing.

Question

To what extent does Rule 190.1 RoP allow a defendant to obtain the corporate resolutions underlying the powers of attorney and the assignment of the patent relied on by the registered proprietor?

Decision

Production requires that the party has presented the reasonably available and plausible evidence and identified the evidence held by the other side. Standing is a matter of substantive entitlement. Registration carries considerable indicative weight and creates a rebuttable presumption (Rule 8.5(c) RoP). In the absence of any concrete indication of a lack of authority the request might seem insufficient, but the claimant’s internal decision-making is wholly withheld from the defendants, who may therefore check the resolutions on which the registered proprietor relies, in connection with the self-dealing objection. The resolution authorising the assignment of the patent must be produced, since power of attorney EIP 12 requires board authorisation for any transfer of rights. By contrast, EIP 11 requires such authorisation only for transferring rights owned by the company, not for acquiring them, so the corresponding request was dismissed.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the presumption attached to registration does not prevent scrutiny of the internal chain of title documents, but only to the extent that the proprietor’s own documents make the act subject to authorisation.

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, 6 June 2024, equivalent order of the Munich Local Division in the parallel case on EP 1 838 002.

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.