Network System Technologies v Volkswagen (CFI, ORD_26319/2024, 8 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 8 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_513/2023, ACT_597691/2023), the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, T. Pichlmaier, P. Perrotti), hearing an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) on EP 1 552 669 against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, dismissed the applications to reject the action as manifestly unfounded (Rule 361 RoP) and partly dismissed the preliminary objections (Rule 19 RoP), leaving the remainder to the main proceedings.

It holds that a listed representative may withdraw an opt-out without a mandate and that a single detailed infringement read suffices at the statement of claim stage.

Question

Was the opt-out validly withdrawn, did NST have standing, was the infringement case pleaded in sufficient detail, and did the jurisdictional objections (UK damages, claims against Texas Instruments in view of parallel US proceedings) have to be decided at once?

Decision

The withdrawal of the opt-out, lodged by a representative entered on the Art. 48 UPCA list since 21 March 2023, was valid without a mandate under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP and took effect on entry in the register on 20 December 2023. The patent purchase agreement of 24 June 2022 and the assignments of 5 July 2022 transferred the patent and associated rights to NST, including claims for past infringement. A detailed infringement read on one example chip (TI DRA79x) is sufficient at this stage. The jurisdictional objections were deferred to the main proceedings (Rule 20.2 RoP), since validity must be decided first in view of the counterclaims for revocation (CC_24451/2024 and CC_24753/2024) and the revocation action pending before the Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_171/2024) and procedural efficiency (Art. 41(3) UPCA). Costs follow the main proceedings and leave to appeal was granted to the extent of the dismissal.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the Munich Local Division defers to the main proceedings jurisdictional objections whose assessment depends on validity and infringement.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 41(3), Art. 48, Art. 73(2)(b)(ii) and Art. 83(3) and (4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5.3(b), 5.7, 19, 20.2, 125, 220.2, 224.1(b), 361 and 363.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 71b (relied on by the defendants)

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.