ARTICLE
24 March 2026

Local Division Munich, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_449/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The claimant can exemplify infringement on a sample product. The burden then shifts to the defendant to specifically dispute why other listed products do not fall under this definition.
Worldwide Intellectual Property
Maggie Huang’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • with readers working within the Transport industries
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Transport topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

The “attacked embodiment” is defined by the claimant’s asserted technical features, not just specific product examples, and can include unknown or future products.

The claimant can exemplify infringement on a sample product. The burden then shifts to the defendant to specifically dispute why other listed products do not fall under this definition.

Registration in the patent register creates a rebuttable presumption of standing to sue under Rule 8.5(c) RoP, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

Merely disputing the validity of a patent purchase agreement without presenting compelling facts is insufficient for a defendant to rebut the presumption of the claimant’s proprietorship.

A patent can be revoked for inadmissible extension (Art. 123(2) EPC) if claim language implies a physical structure not unambiguously disclosed in the original application.

The term “coupled between” was found to imply a physical separation not supported by the original disclosure’s term “associated to,” leading to the patent’s revocation.

Attributing a function to a different entity (the network interface) than disclosed in the application also constituted added matter, invalidating the patent.

An order to produce evidence under Rule 190 RoP requires the claimant to first present plausible evidence of infringement; it is not for “fishing expeditions.”

The request was rejected as the claimant’s initial evidence was implausible. The court found the request was aimed at finding a basis for infringement, not substantiating an existing claim.

2. Division

Local Division Munich

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_449/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation

5. Parties

Claimant / Counterdefendant: Network System Technologies LLC

Defendants / Counterclaimants: Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH

6. Patent(s)

EP 1 552 669

7. Jurisdictions

France, Germany

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 8.5 RoP

Rule 190 RoP

Art. 47 UPCA

Art. 59 UPCA

Art. 65 UPCA

Art. 123(2) EPC

Art. 138(1)(c) EPC

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More