Dispute between ParTec and Nvidia threatens to escalate after dismissal

Today’s decision concerns one of three lawsuits filed by ParTec against the US chip giant at the Unified Patent Court. ParTec is backed by former IPCom founder Bernhard Frohwitter. ParTec claims infringement of EP 3 743 812 and sought an injunction requiring Nvidia to refrain from distributing essential products of its GPU product portfolio in patent-protected countries in Europe.

In addition, the Munich-based company sought information about Nvidia’s sales activities carried out to date and demanded damages, among other things. However, the second panel of the Munich local division under presiding judge Daniel Voß has now dismissed the claim (case ID: UPC_CFI_180/2025). The court has not yet published the judgment.

The second panel of the local division also comprised Dutch judge Andras Kupecz, who recently took over from the Munich central division, and Georg Werner. Alain Dumont acted as technically qualified judge.

The panel is still very fresh in its composition, as Georg Werner joined the UPC at the beginning of 2026. Previously he was presiding judge at Munich Regional Court. Additionally, Daniel Voß also took over as head of the panel at the turn of the year, after Ulrike Voß was promoted to the Court of Appeal.

The oral hearing on the case just over a month ago was therefore one of the first hearings of the newly composed panel. Nvidia had also filed a counterclaim for revocation. However, the judges apparently had no doubts about the validity of the patent.

ParTec goes on the offensive

As stated in a press release, ParTec sees this as a success. Only a few hours after the negative infringement ruling from Munich, Frohwitter, CEO of ParTec AG and the company’s exclusive licensee BF exaQC AG, announced ParTec was extending the dispute to include more modern processors from Nvidia. Frohwitter says, “To drive processor utilisation from the low 20% range up to 60% and beyond, it is absolutely necessary to use more qualified information than was still the case in the A100 and H100 products.”

This is already happening in Nvidia’s modern products, Frohwitter claims. He mentions Nvidia’s GH200 Grace Hopper superchip and above all the Blackwell and Vera Rubin architecture. According to Frohwitter, the first-instance lawsuit concerned the older A100 and H100-based DGX systems.

“Since Nvidia — like other companies — keeps the precise operation of its processors confidential, we have until now been unable to provide the evidence required for court proceedings. That has now changed. In the course of marketing these cutting-edge products, Nvidia has published sufficient information to allow us to demonstrate the patent infringement.”

Bernhard Frohwitter

ParTec now wants to use this new information in the appeal proceedings. “The appeal proceedings will therefore focus on these products. Taking the ruling in all its details as a basis, it concerns a conviction of Nvidia for infringement of the patent through its latest products,” says Frohwitter.

ParTec specialises in the development and construction of modular supercomputers and the integration of quantum computers. The company was involved in the construction of the first European exascale supercomputer “JUPITER” at the Jülich Research Centre. It was inaugurated in September 2025.

JUVE Patent has not yet received a statement from Nvidia.

Larger dispute at the UPC

In October 2024 ParTec sued Nvidia at the Munich local division for infringement of EP 812 and EP 2 628 080. EP 812 protects an “application runtime determined dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources”. EP 080 protects “a computer cluster arrangement for processing a computation task and method for operation thereof”.

A third suit followed in summer 2025. ParTec and BF exaQC AG filed a third complaint with the UPC against semiconductor manufacturer Nvidia. Like the two previous actions, the suit filed with the Munich local division seeks injunctive relief and damages (case ID: ACT_34542/25) for infringement of ParTec’s EP 3 614 263. The patent concerns the core of AI supercomputers, specifically the microprocessors used and their cooperation to provide AI. The EPO only granted the patent with unitary effect in July 2025.

ParTec claims EP 812 and EP 080 are central to high-performance computing and artificial intelligence applications. Essentially, they relate to supercomputers crucial for future AI applications.

However, since filing cases with the UPC, ParTec has had little luck with EP 080, which is the original patent of a family that includes EP 812. The EPO Opposition Division and then the Boards of Appeal revoked EP 080 due to formal errors. Outside Europe, however, the patent remains valid in many countries.

In the US, ParTec is taking legal action against Microsoft, accusing the company of infringing its intellectual property with supercomputers for AI as part of the Azure cloud computing platform.

Legal team reshuffled

ParTec has retained a team comprising several law firms for the dispute with Nvidia. This team has also changed repeatedly since the initial action.

Currently, the legal team includes lawyer Roman Sedlmaier as main representative of the claims regarding EP 812 and EP 080. Sedlmaier and patent attorney Jan Giegerich were previously at Frohwitter’s side during his time at IPCom before founding their own patent firm IPCGS.

For the third claim regarding EP 263, ParTec brought in London law firm Powell Gilbert. Partner Rajvinder Jagdev is registered as main representative with support from partner Peter Fitz-Patrick and associate Jodie Goonawardena.

German lawyer Stefan Richter and Lisa Philipps from Clifford Chance are part of the team, as is patent attorney David Molnia from df-mp, who previously worked for IPCom. Lastly, the team also includes patent attorney Matthias Himmelsbach from Frohwitter’s own firm. He primarily handles the EPO proceedings.

Bardehle Pagenberg is representing Nvidia in all three lawsuits. Patent attorney Christof Karl and lawyer Johannes Heselberger are leading the defence. The Bardehle team also consists of lawyers Stefan Lieck, Henri Kirner, Saskia Mertsching and patent attorneys Philipp Bovenkamp, Martin Hohgardt, Sabrina Hütt, and Michael-Wolfgang Waschak.

Nvidia is also facing another lawsuit at the UPC. Eysematch sued the semiconductor manufacturer over infringement of a patent for gaze correction technology. But it is Klaus Haft from Hoyng ROKH Monegier representing Nvidia in this case.