Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_451/2024, 11 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 11 March 2026 in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_65/2024 and UPC_CFI_451/2024, the Munich Local Division dismissed both Network System Technologies’ infringement action against three Qualcomm companies, based on EP 1 552 399 concerning an integrated circuit and a method for establishing connections in a network on chip, and Qualcomm’s counterclaim for revocation. The patent was held valid as granted, despite its revocation for Germany by the Federal Patent Court, but not infringed. The decision matters for practice on the refusal to stay proceedings in view of a national decision that is not final and on the rejection of a request for source code based on mere assumption.

Facts and procedure

Network System Technologies acquired the patent from Koninklijke Philips in 2022, the patent expired on 7 October 2023. It argued that Qualcomm’s network-on-chip circuits, including Snapdragon SoCs, use Arteris technology, relying on a document describing that technology, the « Arteris NoC Chapter » (Exhibit P 11). The action against two Samsung companies was withdrawn on 6 September 2024. The Federal Patent Court revoked the German part of the patent on 8 October 2025, and Qualcomm sought a stay under Rule 295(a) RoP. The oral hearing took place on 16 December 2025 before a panel presided over by Ulrike Voß, with Daniel Voß, Pierluigi Perrotti and Andrea Scilletta as technically qualified judge.

The applicable law

Standing is governed by Art. 47(1) UPCA and Rule 8.5 RoP. Validity is assessed under Arts 54 and 56 EPC following the Court of Appeal’s approach (paragraphs 181 and 235 to 244), the stay under Rule 295(a) RoP (paragraph 263), and the production of evidence under Art. 59(1) UPCA and Rule 190.1 RoP (paragraphs 316 to 320).

Question

Does the registered assignee have standing, is the patent valid, should the proceedings be stayed in view of the German decision, and do the Qualcomm chips establish « connections » within the meaning of claim 1?

Decision

Both claims were admissible, the presumption of entitlement in Rule 8.5(c) RoP not having been rebutted (paragraphs 118 to 128). A connection within claim 1 is a temporary state of the network, characterised by the guaranteed allocation of resources between two modules and set up through a dedicated process involving a communication manager and a resource manager (paragraphs 152 to 178). Goossens, Levy and Rijpkema do not anticipate the invention (paragraphs 179 to 233). Inventive step was upheld: Levy is not a realistic starting point because it does not concern a network on chip, Goossens and Rijpkema are, but nothing would prompt the skilled person to combine them with Drake, which in any event does not disclose feature 2.1 (paragraphs 245 to 260). As the patent is valid as granted, the auxiliary requests are moot (paragraph 261). The stay was refused: the Federal Patent Court’s decision is not final, does not bind the UPC, and does not affect the French part of the patent (paragraphs 262 to 265). Infringement was rejected: in the Arteris technology, arbitration takes place in each router on the basis of local information, as in the prior art described in paragraph [0024] of the patent, with no connection request and no connection set up over the whole route (paragraphs 273 to 298), the Linux kernel drivers relied on make no difference (paragraphs 299 to 308). The request for production of the source code and of documents produced in the Texas action was refused for want of plausible evidence (paragraphs 309 to 327). The claimant bears the costs of the infringement action and the defendants those of the counterclaim. The value in dispute is set at EUR 3,000,000 for the action and EUR 4,500,000 for the counterclaim.

Key points for practice

• A national revocation decision that is not final does not in itself justify a stay: the UPC assesses validity itself, and the proprietor’s interest in the other States weighs in favour of proceeding (paragraphs 263 to 265).
• Several realistic starting points may coexist, since the UPC applies its own approach rather than the problem-solution approach (paragraph 247).
• Rule 190 RoP does not allow a claimant to obtain the defendant’s source code on the strength of third-party documentation and historical links between companies (paragraphs 322 to 325).
• Practical point: the claimant must tie every claim feature to the actual operation of the attacked product, a fragmented, feature-by-feature approach is not enough (paragraph 297).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 47(1), 59(1) and 72

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 171.2, 190.1 and 295

European Patent Convention

Arts 54, 56 and 69(1)

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025, Alexion v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2025, OTEC v Steros, Court of Appeal, 7 November 2025, Centripetal v Keysight, Mannheim Local Division, 5 December 2025, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Sanofi v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Panasonic v Oppo, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_298/2024), Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 22 November 2024

Related decisions

• Network System v Qualcomm, 11 March 2026, parallel decision on EP 1 875 683.

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.