Opens in a new tab

Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 16 June 2024)

Date16 June 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_30430/2024 · ORD_34041/2024
PartiesTesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 16 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_52/2023, ACT_462984/2023, APP_30430/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, Matthias Zigann, declared confidential under Rule 262A RoP the group-internal information contained in the written submission lodged on 24 May 2024 by Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, defendants in the infringement action on EP 1 838 002 brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. The order holds that protection must be decided even for a late submission.

Question

Must the court rule on the confidentiality of information in a submission lodged out of time, and can figures that are partly public be protected?

Decision

The submission, lodged outside the timetable of the written procedure, could be disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP, the confidentiality request must nonetheless be decided, as the panel or the Court of Appeal might admit it. The claimant disputed the secrecy of data it said were public. The judge accepted that total production volumes and sales prices are public, but found it credible that the number of vehicles and the average sales price used by the defendants are not. Protection extends in particular to the security amount, the number of vehicles held, the sales period, the assumed average price, lost profit and conversion costs. The information may not be used or disclosed outside the proceedings, even after they end, on pain of a penalty payment of up to EUR 250,000 per breach.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.2 and 262A

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Confidentiality club.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les informations internes du mémoire de Tesla du 24 mai 2024 sont déclarées confidentielles, la demande devant être tranchée bien que le mémoire ait été déposé hors délai.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 1 838 002
Programmable hybrid transmitter
recorded proprietor: Broadcom Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Avago International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 30 August 2024) · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 27 Januar · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 23 Decemb · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 6 June 20 · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 4 June 20 · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 3 April 2 · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 25 August
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.