ACT 3932/2024

—·EP3110069: DEVICE- ASSISTED SERVICES FOR PROTECTING NETWORK CAPACITY

Case details: Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties: Claimants
Headwater Research LLC
Reps: Michael Schneider (Eisenführ Speiser); Jochen Ehlers (Eisenführ Speiser)
Respondents
Samsung Electronics GmbH
Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Reps: Martin Köhler (Hoyng Rokh Monegier)
Division: Dusseldorf LD
Judges: 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
Language: —
First decided: Jul 30, 2025

Claims

At issue1

Revoked1

Notes: EP3110069 revoked to the extent of claim 1 per operative order II; infringement action dismissed as a consequence of successful counterclaim for revocation.

Decisions

2025-07-30
RevokedInfringement meritsInfringement 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.
Legal issues:Patent revocation on counterclaimAdmissibility of new arguments under R. 9.2 RoP (front-loaded procedure)Added matter as ground for revocation

Documents

0A97CD9F3A63D6D676A6721E60B6734C_en.pdf2025-07-30EN

Coverage: Thin.Reasoning extracted with limited coverage — see decisions tab for full text.

Plain-English summary

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 Samsung's counterclaim for revocation succeeded and the patent was revoked as to claim 1, causing the infringement action to be dismissed.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.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 110 069 B1 claim 1 is well-founded
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA
Note: 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.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

New line of arguments on added matter based on different passages of a lengthy document should be admitted
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 9.2 RoP
Reason: 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.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

front-loaded procedure under RoP inadmissibility of late new arguments under Rule 9.2 RoP even on the same broad issue revocation of patent claim as counterclaim defeats infringement action

Browse other cases on this principle.