UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_3932/2024

DEVICE- ASSISTED SERVICES FOR PROTECTING NETWORK CAPACITY

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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 Samsung's counterclaim for revocation succeeded and the patent was revoked as to claim 1, causing the infringement action to be dismissed.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 RoPinadmissibility of late new arguments under Rule 9.2 RoP even on the same broad issuerevocation of patent claim as counterclaim defeats infringement action

Browse other cases on this principle.