Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (CFI, 1 April 2025)

Date	1 April 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_7563/2025 · ORD_7652/2025
Parties	TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC

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 order of 1 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_132/2024, ORD_7652/2025, reissued as ORD_15972/2025 for technical reasons), Judge-rapporteur Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division refused Total Semiconductor, LLC leave to file a further written submission of 13 February 2025 in reply to the rejoinder of Texas Instruments Incorporated and two German group companies, in the infringement action on EP 2 746 957. The claimant argued that the rejoinder raised numerous new points that were technically incomplete or incorrect.

Question

On what conditions may a party be allowed to file a brief beyond those provided for in Rule 12 RoP (Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP)?

Decision

Rule 12 RoP provides for two mandatory and two optional briefs in the interest of efficient proceedings (Preamble, recital 4), with due regard to proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity (recitals 3 and 5). Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP require the application itself to give sufficient details, with reference to specific paragraphs of the pleadings. Failing that, the application is dismissed on that formal ground alone. In any event, the AVS class point had already been addressed in Exhibit D6 to the statement of defence, as had the allegedly new arguments on features 8 and 6.4.

Key points for practice

Practical point: an application for leave to file a further brief must identify, paragraph by paragraph, the new points in the rejoinder that call for a response.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Preamble (recitals 3 to 5), Rules 12, 12.5 and 36
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

claimantTOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC9 decisions in the corpus Follow 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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de dépôt d'un mémoire supplémentaire est rejetée, faute d'indiquer précisément les points nouveaux de la duplique, et ces points étaient au demeurant déjà débattus.
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 2 746 957 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 2 746 957` Intelligent 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) · Texas Instruments EMEA Sales v TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR (CFI, 9 July 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 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.