Opens in a new tab

TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments (CFI, 14 May 2025)

Date14 May 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionAmend Document
Registry referenceApp_18494/2025 · ORD_18870/2025
PartiesTOTAL 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 an order of 14 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_132/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division deferred to the oral hearing of 22 and 23 July 2025 the decision on TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR’s application, filed on 16 April 2025 under Rule 263, to extend its infringement action against Texas Instruments (EP 2 746 957) to a new product, the AM67x. The defendants may respond on the substance until 11 June 2025. The order sets out the criteria that will govern a late extension of an action to a new embodiment.

Question

How should an application to extend an infringement action to a new product be handled when it is filed after the written exchanges on the merits have closed, a few months before the hearing?

Decision

The judge must weigh the parties’ interests in the light of all the circumstances, in particular whether the new product shares the actual characteristics of the claim features or is a fundamentally different product, which can only be assessed after claim construction and fact-finding. A shared characteristic not previously in issue may not be introduced under the guise of an extension, and late circumstances are disregarded for the originally attacked embodiment too. Deferral does not unduly hinder the defendants, who must analyse the AM67x anyway, and it is not manifest that the requirements of Rule 263.2 are not met, the publication date of 10 December 2024 and the date of market placement may be relevant under Rule 263.2(a). Four weeks, as proposed by the defendants, is a reasonable period. There is no room for a written reply by the claimant.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 263, 263.2 and 263.2(a)

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

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
Amend Document
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La décision sur l'extension de l'action à l'AM67x est reportée à l'audience. Les défenderesses peuvent répondre au fond jusqu'au 11 juin 2025.
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

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 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, 1 April 2025) · TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 14 January 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.