Lionra v Cisco Systems (CFI, 19 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 19 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_58/2024), the Hamburg Local Division ruled on the action brought by Lionra Technologies Ltd. against Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of EP 2 201 740 B1, and on the counterclaim for revocation. The reasons open with a twofold finding: the action, while admissible, is unfounded, and the counterclaim for revocation is unfounded too. The part of the decision that could be read is chiefly useful on three points: the presumption of entitlement attached to the register entry, the admission of late prior art where the claimant changes its infringement case in its reply, and claim construction under Art. 69 EPC. The action fails because the Cisco switches contain no DMA device. Lionra bears 40% and the defendants 60% of the costs, and the total value in dispute was set at EUR 3,750,000.

Facts and procedure

The patent, entitled ‘fast packet processing in a wireless network’, was filed on 11 September 2008 by Harris Corporation. It seeks to reduce header processing latency through a direct memory access (DMA) device that writes the headers both into a packet buffer and into memories dedicated to each protocol layer. Lionra alleged that Cisco Catalyst 9×00 switches fitted with at least one UADP chip directly infringed claim 6 and indirectly infringed claim 1, and defended the patent with six auxiliary requests. The defendants disputed Lionra’s standing, sought dismissal and asked for claims 1 and 6 to be revoked. The oral hearing took place on 11 December 2024 before the panel presided over by Judge Klepsch (Judge Schilling as rapporteur, with Judge Agergaard and technically qualified Judge Keller).

The applicable law

On entitlement, the division applied Rules 8.5 and 8.4 RoP and Art. 47(1) UPCA: the register entry raises a presumption of entitlement, and the burden of proving otherwise lies with the defendants. On the counterclaim, it based jurisdiction on Art. 32(1)(e) UPCA and Arts 24(4), 71a and 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. On construction, it followed the Court of Appeal in NanoString v 10x Genomics: the claim is the basis of protection, the description and drawings are always consulted, and the same principles apply to infringement and validity.

Question

Does the register entry suffice to establish standing in the face of objections to the chain of assignments, is prior art filed after the counterclaim admissible, and are claims 1 and 6 valid over the prior art relied on?

Decision

The division held that Lionra could rely on its register entry: the 2017 intra-group assignment was undisputed, the 2021 assignment was registered on 16 March 2023, and the allegation that the price had not been paid was mere speculation. It admitted four further documents (BP-CR5 to BP-CR8) in the exercise of its discretion, since Lionra had changed its infringement case in its reply, which the defendants could not have anticipated when filing their counterclaim. The auxiliary requests were held admissible under Rule 30, with no requirement for complete claim sets. On the merits, it construed ‘egress node’ as covering both intermediate and end nodes, and ‘concurrent’ writing as requiring not strict simultaneity but that the headers be stored in readable form in the layer memory. None of the prior art examined (Cornett, Bechtolsheim, Zemach, Wilford, Moll) disclosed a DMA device performing those parallel writes without the processor, so claims 1 and 6 were held valid. Leung, the 2004 Cisco handbook and the Network Processor Design book do not disclose such a device either, and no combination is obvious, there being no reason to graft a DMA onto self-contained solutions. The auxiliary requests did not need to be considered.

Infringement was rejected: a DMA device within the meaning of the patent requires control logic (programmed registers or channels) enabling targeted and simultaneous writing into the packet buffer and the layer memories. The ingress FIFO of the UADP chips is a mere data line, and the extraction of headers by the parser of the forwarding controller comes too late, with a delay inconsistent with the aim of the patent, so neither indirect infringement of claim 1 nor direct infringement of claim 6 was made out. Whether the defendants were the proper parties did not need to be decided. Lionra bears 40% and the defendants 60% of the costs, the action was valued at EUR 1,500,000 and the counterclaim, increased by 50%, at EUR 2,250,000. The defendants’ request for an interim award of costs was refused, since they bear the larger share of the costs (Rule 150.2).

Key points for practice

• The register entry creates a presumption of entitlement which the defendant must rebut with concrete evidence, not with doubts about the assignments.
• A defendant may have late prior art admitted where the claimant has changed its infringement case in its reply.
• Auxiliary requests to amend need not take the form of complete claim sets.
• Practical point: the infringement case should be settled in the statement of claim, failing which the defendant may reopen the validity debate.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 26(1), 32(1)(e), 36(3), 47(1), 63(1) and 83(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.4, 8.5, 24, 25, 30, 150 and 370.6

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and the Protocol on its Interpretation, Art. 54, Art. 56

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 24(4), 71a and 71b(1)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Avago v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 26 August 2024, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 April 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.