TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments (CFI, 9 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 9 October 2025, given in infringement action UPC_CFI_132/2024 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_524/2025, the Mannheim Local Division dismissed both claims between Total Semiconductor and three Texas Instruments companies concerning EP 2 746 957, on an intelligent interrupt distributor for a multiprocessor system. The patent survived the inventive step attack, but infringement was not established: the proprietor had not shown that the attacked chips dynamically adjust voltage during operation. The claimant bears the court fees of the infringement action, the defendants those of the counterclaim, and each party otherwise bears its own costs. The decision is a reminder that a functional feature must be proven on the product itself, the reference architecture not being enough.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 12 December 2013 claiming US priority of 21 December 2012, is in force in France and Germany. Total Semiconductor, a licensing company, targeted processors based on ARM Cortex-A53 and A72 cores (including AM62Ax, AM68x and AM69x) and sought an injunction, recall, information, penalty payments and damages. Adding the AM67x product during the proceedings was allowed (paragraphs 38 to 45), but the auxiliary claim for indirect infringement raised at the hearing of 22 July 2025 was refused (paragraphs 46 to 49 and 182). The defendants relied on several prior art combinations.

The applicable law

Jurisdiction and admissibility were assessed under Articles 31 and 33 UPCA and Regulation 1215/2012 (paragraphs 31 to 35). The counterclaim rests on Article 65(2) UPCA and Articles 138(1)(a) and 56 EPC, the amendment of claims on Rule 263.2.

Question

Is the claimed interrupt distributor inventive over Panda, Wolfe, Uchiyama and Hoang, Lee and Belleudy, and do the Texas Instruments chips implement the in-operation frequency and voltage adjustment required by feature 8?

Decision

The division construed the « intelligent interrupt distributor » as one that must distribute interrupts to idle processors and adjust frequency and voltage during operation to maintain single-processor throughput, static reduction not being enough (paragraphs 72 to 85). On validity, a textbook may be a starting point (paragraphs 93 and 94), but none of the combinations relied on discloses all the features or provides a motivation to combine (paragraphs 96 to 164), known elements are not enough without an incentive to bring them together (paragraphs 165 and 166). The counterclaim was dismissed. On infringement, the attacked products do not implement feature 8: the documentation mentions only frequency scaling, the claimant’s tests revealed no voltage scaling software and AVS Class 0 is static compensation (paragraphs 168 to 178). Appointing a court expert was refused as a fishing expedition (paragraph 180). The action was dismissed, entitlement being left open (paragraph 183). No reimbursement of costs was ordered, both claims having failed (paragraphs 184 and 185), the value in dispute was set at EUR 10,000,000, that is EUR 5,000,000 for each claim (paragraph 186). The operative part dismisses the action and the counterclaim, puts the court fees of each claim on the party that brought it and otherwise leaves each party to bear its own costs. The panel was presided over by Judge Tochtermann.

Key points for practice

• For a functional feature, the proprietor must prove implementation in the attacked product. Compatibility of the reference architecture alone is not enough.
• The UPC will not use a court expert to make up for gaps in the claimant’s evidence.
• A new claim for indirect infringement raised at the hearing is inadmissible.
• Practical point: before suing over chips, the proprietor should gather tests showing the claimed behaviour in operation rather than relying on datasheets.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 26, 31, 33, 63(1), 65(2) and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 36, 118.5, 263.2 and 333

European Patent Convention

Art. 56 and Art. 138(1)(a)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2), 26 and 71b

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_188/2024), OrthoApnea v ***, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024, Fujifilm v Kodak, Mannheim Local Division, 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_359/2023), Munich Central Division, 16 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_14/2023), Paris Central Division, 21 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_311/2023)

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.