Opens in a new tab

Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 25 August 2023)

Date25 August 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_52/2023
Registry referenceORD_567008/2023 · UPC_CFI_52/2023
PartiesTesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany u.a. 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 provisional order of 25 August 2023 (UPC_CFI_52/2023, ACT_462984/2023, application 566218/2023), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, on an application by Tesla Germany and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg to extend the time limit for the defence in Avago Technologies International Sales’ infringement action on EP 1838002, fixed the date of service of the statement of claim at 17 July 2023 for both defendants and set a short exchange of comments on the extension, without yet ruling on it. The order is of interest for its method of calculating postal service.

Question

How is the deemed date of service of a statement of claim sent by post determined under Rule 271.6(b) RoP?

Decision

The documents were handed to the post office of the Munich Higher Regional Court on 5 July 2023. Under the division’s settled practice, handover to the postal service is assumed to take place two days later, on 7 July 2023, and service is deemed effected on the tenth day after that, on 17 July 2023, even though the documents were actually received on 10 and 11 July. The time limit for a preliminary objection expired on 17 August 2023, the unextended time limit for the defence would expire on 17 October 2023. The claimant may comment by 30 August and the defendants by 31 August 2023.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rule 271.6(b)

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_52/2023 official number

Follow this case

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
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le juge rapporteur fixe au 17 juillet 2023 la date de signification présumée pour les deux défenderesses, en présumant la remise à la poste deux jours après le dépôt au service postal du tribunal, et réserve la décision sur la prorogation.
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, 16 June 2 · 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
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.