Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_64/2024, 11 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 11 March 2026 in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_64/2024 and UPC_CFI_450/2024, the Munich Local Division dismissed both Network System Technologies’ infringement action against three Qualcomm companies, based on EP 1 875 683 concerning an integrated circuit with an on-chip communication network, and Qualcomm’s counterclaim for revocation. The patent is valid but not infringed: the data packets in the accused chips do not contain a fixed number of elements. The decision matters for practice on the presumption of entitlement of a registered assignee and, above all, on the refusal of a Rule 190 order for the production of source code where the request rests on no more than an assumption about how the product works.

Facts and procedure

Network System Technologies acquired the patent from Koninklijke Philips in 2022. 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 The action against two Samsung companies was withdrawn on 6 September 2024. Qualcomm also relied on exhaustion, covenants not to sue, limitation and lack of proportionality. 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 158 and 173 to 182), infringement under Art. 25 UPCA, and the production of evidence under Art. 59(1) UPCA and Rule 190.1 RoP (paragraphs 258 to 262).

Question

Does the registered assignee have standing, is the patent valid, do the Qualcomm chips fall within claims 1 and 8, and should Qualcomm be ordered to produce its source code?

Decision

Both claims were admissible (paragraphs 99 and 109). The presumption in Rule 8.5(c) RoP required the defendants to establish specific contrary facts, which mere criticism of the assignment deeds did not do (paragraphs 101 to 107). A statement made at the hearing is not a conditional counterclaim (paragraph 108). The patent does not contain added matter (paragraphs 152 to 155), it is novel over Bertozzi, which does not link the number of storage elements in the channel to the number of elements in a packet (paragraphs 157 to 171), and inventive, Bertozzi even teaching away and no combination with Nowatzyk, Hassoun or Dielissen leading to the invention (paragraphs 172 to 197). Infringement was rejected. The attacked embodiment covers all Qualcomm network-on-chip circuits of the Arteris type, the Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 being only an example (paragraphs 199 to 204). The packets described both in the Arteris chapter and in Qualcomm’s own account vary in size, so feature 2.1.1 (a fixed number N of elements) is not met, and no fixed number of M*N storage elements delaying the whole package in the channel was shown (paragraphs 207 to 245). Equivalence failed because no substitute means was identified (paragraphs 246 to 250). The request for production of the source code and of documents produced in the Texas action was refused: the Arteris chapter, which does not originate from Qualcomm, is not plausible evidence, and the request was aimed at finding out how the chips work (paragraphs 257 to 269). The claimant bears the costs of the infringement action and the defendants those of the counterclaim. The value in dispute is set at EUR 8,000,000 for the action and EUR 12,000,000 for the counterclaim.

Key points for practice

• A registered assignee benefits from a presumption of entitlement that the defendant cannot rebut by mere challenges to the assignment (paragraphs 101 to 107).
• A conditional counterclaim requires a formal request filed in good time (paragraph 108).
• Rule 190 RoP requires reasonably available and plausible evidence of infringement. Third-party documentation of a related technology is not enough to obtain the defendant’s source code (paragraphs 260 to 266).
• Practical point: a claimant with no technical evidence on the product itself should consider a saisie or an inspection before bringing the merits action, rather than relying on an order to produce evidence during the proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

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

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 171.2 and 190.1

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 1 552 399.

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.