Texas Instruments EMEA Sales v TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR (CFI, 9 July 2025)
| Date | 9 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Counterclaim for revocation |
| Registry reference | CC_51398/2024 · ORD_69376/2024 |
| Parties | Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v. TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
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.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
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
- defendantTOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantTexas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantTexas Instruments IncorporationFollow this party
- claimantTexas Instruments Deutschland GmbH12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
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
- Counterclaim for revocation
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La mise en état est close, les parties sont convoquées à l'audience du 22 juillet 2025 et la valeur du litige est fixée à 5 000 000 euros pour l'action en contrefaçon comme pour la demande reconventionnelle.
- 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
EP 2 746 957mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments (CFI, 9 October 2025) cited in this record
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
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 746 957Intelligent interrupt distributor recorded proprietor: NXP BV | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments (CFI, 9 October 2025) · TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments (CFI, 15 September 2025) · Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (CFI, 22 May 2025) · Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (CFI, 14 May 2025) · TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments (CFI, 14 May 2025) · Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (CFI, 1 April 2025) · TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 14 January 2 | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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.