Well this seems important (google translated, so take with a grain of salt): >Rather, for procedural reasons, the board had to base its decision on the fact th

Well this seems important (google translated, so take with a grain of salt): >Rather, for procedural reasons, the board had to base its decision on the fact that the chip works as the claimant asserts (see section "Background" in this press release). Therefore, in the opinion of the Chamber, no witnesses were allowed to be heard who had been brought by the defendant on the last date - without charge of the court - nor was the Chamber allowed to examine the schematics of the attacked chip. It sounds like due to the law in Germany, they HAD to assume that Qualcomm was correct in their assessment of the situation. The court didn't actually find in fact that there was infringement.