Short Summary
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application with the Court of First Instance of the UPC Paris Central Division seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 10 July 2024, made in carrying out tasks under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. The Court forwarded the application for interlocutory revision to the EPO, which subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with the Claimant's request. As the Claimant did not identify any particular circumstances justifying reimbursement, the Court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties.
Detailed Summary
This matter concerned an application filed by Qualcomm Incorporated (the Claimant), a company based in San Diego, United States, represented by Francesco Celluprica. The patent at issue was European Patent No. EP3516914, owned by Qualcomm Incorporated. The proceedings were conducted in English before the Paris Central Division of the Court of First Instance, presided over by Judge Florence Butin.
On 19 July 2024, Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application (App_42538/2024) requesting the Court of First Instance to annul a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) rendered in the performance of tasks referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. The contested EPO decision was dated 10 July 2024. The application was brought pursuant to Rule 88 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), which governs actions against decisions of the EPO.
& Analysis
The Court processed the application and forwarded it to the EPO for interlocutory revision pursuant to Rule 88 RoP. By a notification issued on 13 August 2024 (EPO interlocutory revision No 46904/2024), the EPO informed the Court under Rule 91(1)(b) RoP that the contested decision had been rectified in accordance with the order or remedy sought by the Claimant. The EPO also provided the communication dispatched to Qualcomm Inc. accordingly. Under Rule 91(2) RoP, where the court is informed that the contested decision has been rectified, it shall inform the Claimant that the action is closed and may order full or partial reimbursement of the fee for the action. The Court noted that the Claimant's submission did not mention any particular circumstances justifying a decision of reimbursement. Consequently, the Court determined that the case should be closed without prior consultation of the parties.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court issued its order on 13 September 2024, ordering that Qualcomm Incorporated be informed that the action is closed. The order further stated that an appeal may be brought against the present order pursuant to Rule 220(b) RoP. No reimbursement of fees was ordered, as the Claimant had not identified circumstances warranting such an order.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in QUALCOMM INCORPORATED vs EPO is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
bioMérieux UK LimitedvsLabrador Diagnostics LLC
This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbHvsSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a cost assessment procedure following the revocation of European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. had sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for patent infringement, but the Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent on October 10, 2024, and dismissed the infringement action. The defendants subsequently filed a cost assessment application on December 12, 2024, seeking recovery of €111,000 in total costs, comprising €100,000 for proceedings costs and €11,000 for court costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLCvsINFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
Discord Netherlands B.V., Discord Inc.vsRespondent
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 July 2025 App_32933/2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr
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.