Executive Summary
Network System Technologies LLC successfully withdrew its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, as permitted under UPC Rule 265 RoP. The court formally closed these proceedings while leaving the claims against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG unaffected. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach private settlements.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court permitted the partial withdrawal of the infringement action against specific defendants (Defendants 1 and 2) based on Rule 265 RoP, provided consent was given by those defendants. The decision confirmed that a settlement agreement allows for the closure of proceedings against consenting parties.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
LIFE 365 S.R.L.vsLAMA FRANCE
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an intervention application filed by LIFE 365 in a complex infringement and revocation case involving LAMA France and HPDC. The court ruled that because the main procedure had already been closed following the parties' agreement, the request for withdrawal was valid. This ruling clarifies the procedural mechanism for withdrawing interventions when the underlying litigation has concluded.
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This UPC decision confirms the closure of a complex dispute between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company following a settlement agreement. Although the core patent issues were resolved outside of court, the Court provided specific rulings on procedural matters, particularly concerning the withdrawal of actions and the reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights how settlements are formally processed within the UPC framework.
Valeo Systèmes d’EssuyagesvsRobert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC procedural order addressed a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction in an infringement case involving Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages against various Robert Bosch entities. The court rejected the argument that the Central Division had universal competence due to cross-border infringements and instead applied Article 33(1)(b) of the UPC Agreement, transferring the case to the local division of Düsseldorf. This decision highlights the strict application of jurisdictional rules when defendants are domiciled within contracting states.
ALD France S.A.SvsNanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC decision, the Central Division addressed a challenge to the standing of the claimant in a revocation action. The court firmly established that for an independent interest in revocation proceedings, the claimant's own business activity is paramount, regardless of corporate group structures or control relationships. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'party identity' under EPC Art. 33(4) within the UPC framework, rejecting arguments based solely on parent-subsidiary links.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGEvsROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH S.A; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE appealed a decision from the UPC Central Division (Paris) concerning an infringement action against various Robert Bosch entities regarding patent EP 2671766. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction and procedural language set by the initial division. This Order of Procedure confirms that the Court of Appeal will first assess the admissibility of VALEO's appeal before examining its merits, a standard procedure for managing complex UPC litigation. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedures within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.