ACT 3932/2024
—·EP3110069: DEVICE- ASSISTED SERVICES FOR PROTECTING NETWORK CAPACITY
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Michael Schneider (Eisenführ Speiser); Jochen Ehlers (Eisenführ Speiser)Beklagte
- Samsung Electronics GmbH
- Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
- Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Vertreter: Martin Köhler (Hoyng Rokh Monegier) - Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Richter
- Ronny Thomas · Presiding judge
- Berenice Thom · Legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
- Peter Agergaard · Legally qualified judge
- Eric Augarde · Technically qualified judge
- Technology
- Telecoms · Cellular/SEP · Telecommunications
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 30. Juli 2025
- 2025-07-30Nichtig erklärtVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research LLC's infringement action against Samsung and revoked European patent EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1, on the basis of a successful counterclaim for revocation; all costs were borne by the claimant. The court also rejected a new argument on added matter as inadmissible under R. 9.2 RoP.
Rechtsfragen:Patent revocation on counterclaimAdmissibility of new arguments under R. 9.2 RoP (front-loaded procedure)Added matter as ground for revocation
- 0A97CD9F3A63D6D676A6721E60B6734C_en.pdf2025-07-30EN
Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against Samsung entities regarding EP 3 110 069 B1 (device-assisted services for protecting network capacity). Samsung's counterclaim for revocation succeeded and the patent was revoked as to claim 1, causing the infringement action to be dismissed. The court also issued important procedural guidance, rejecting Headwater's attempt to introduce a new added-matter argument based on different passages of a document already in the proceedings, finding it incompatible with the front-loaded procedure required by the Rules of Procedure.
Counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 110 069 B1 claim 1 is well-founded
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCAHinweis: Samsung's counterclaim for revocation succeeded, with the court revoking EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1 and consequently dismissing the infringement action.
New line of arguments on added matter based on different passages of a lengthy document should be admitted
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Rule 9.2 RoPBegründung: The court rejected the new added-matter argument under Rule 9.2 RoP because the issue had been raised from the outset but the new argument relied on entirely different passages of a lengthy document, undermining the front-loaded procedure; neither the court nor the other party could be forced to deal with it from scratch.