UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 100/2024

Mar 14, 2024·EP2263098 · POSITIONING OF MOBILE OBJECTS BASED ON MUTUALLY TRANSMITTED SIGNALS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Measurement
Language
English
First decided
Oct 13, 2025
Last decision
Jan 15, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Gérard MyonLockedLocked

At the UPC: Ona Patents SL (16 cases)·Google Ireland Limited (12 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 7 other proceedings

UPC CoA 41/2026·UPC CFI 628/2026·UPC CFI 411/2024·UPC CoA 349/2024·UPC APP 26544/2024 and 2 more

3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 392/2024·UPC CoA 354/2024·UPC CFI 99/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-01-15
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: Final decision on the merits in the infringement action by Ona Patents SL against Google Ireland Limited and others (EP 2 263 098 B1, Wi-Fi positioning patent). The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct infringement (the accused product did not possess every claimed component). The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed (patent maintained as valid). Claimant to bear costs of the infringement action; 80% of counterclaim costs to defendants, 20% to claimant. Value in dispute: EUR 6,000,000 (infringement) and EUR 9,000,000 (counterclaim). Key headnotes: register governs proprietor standing; each component of a product must be present for direct infringement.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Direct infringement (Art. 25 UPCA)
    • Indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA)
    • Patent proprietor standing (Rule 25, Rule 42, Rule 8.6 RoP)
    • Register as determining proprietor
    • Product components and direct infringement
  • 2025-10-14
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further procedural order under R. 35 and 36 RoP in the Ona Patents v Google infringement proceedings (EP 2 263 098), addressing procedural steps in the case.

    Show the legal issues (1)
    • Case management order (R. 35, 36 RoP)
  • 2025-10-13
    Application RoP 333Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a R. 333 RoP review order in the Ona Patents v Google infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 (Wi-Fi positioning), addressing procedural aspects of the case management.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Review of procedural order (R. 333 RoP)
    • Wi-Fi positioning patent
  • 2025-08-01
    Public

    Summary: Procedural order requiring further written submissions from the parties in the infringement action concerning patent ownership and the presentation of exhibits. The court noted inconsistencies in the claimant's statements on patent ownership and directed supplementary presentations.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Patent ownership and standing (Rule 9.1, Rule 35 RoP)
    • Presentation of exhibits
    • Inconsistent claimant statements on proprietorship
  • 2025-04-14
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division exercised its discretion under Art.33(3)(a) UPCA to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly in the Ona Patents v Google case concerning EP2263098, finding that a joint hearing was appropriate for reasons of efficiency and enabling simultaneous decision on validity and infringement.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Bifurcation decision (Art. 33(3) UPCA, R.37 RoP)
    • Joint hearing of infringement and revocation counterclaim
    • Procedural efficiency
Documents
Show all 326 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-01-15Not public
Order2026-01-15Public
Decision2026-01-15Not public
Decision2026-01-15Not public
Decision2026-01-15Not public
Order2025-12-05Not public
Order2025-12-05Public
Communication2025-10-27Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-27Not public
Fee2025-10-27Not public
Plain-English summary

Ona Patents SL's infringement action against Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 (Wi-Fi positioning patent) was dismissed by the Düsseldorf Local Division because Google's accused product lacked at least one claimed component, defeating direct infringement under Art. 25 UPCA. The court simultaneously dismissed Google's counterclaim for revocation, maintaining the patent as valid, while establishing that direct infringement requires all claimed components to be present and that late indirect infringement arguments filed outside case management are inadmissible.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Direct infringement requires every claimed component to be present in the accused product; missing components cannot be captured under Art. 25 UPCA

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: Google successfully argued that its accused product lacked at least one claimed component, defeating Ona Patents' direct infringement claim.

  • Patent EP 2 263 098 B1 is valid; counterclaim for revocation dismissed

    Claimant

    Note: The court upheld the patent, dismissing Google's revocation counterclaim.

  • For standing purposes, the patent register governs the relevant proprietor; claimant need not search for the entitled proprietor beyond registration

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 25 RoP; R. 42 RoP; R. 8.6 RoP

    Note: Court articulated as headnote that when seeking to remove patent effects (validity challenge or non-infringement declaration), the register determines who is the relevant proprietor for the purposes of bringing the action.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Direct infringement of EP 2 263 098 B1 by Google's Wi-Fi positioning product

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Reason: The accused product did not possess every claimed component; direct infringement under Art. 25 UPCA requires all claimed components to be present; missing components may support indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA) but not direct infringement.

  • Late indirect infringement auxiliary requests introduced in unsolicited September 2025 submission

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 26 UPCA; R. 36 RoP; R. 263.2 RoP

    Reason: New requests concerning indirect infringement introduced outside any case management regime without prior leave were inadmissible; indirect infringement is a distinct type requiring separate substantiation and a R. 36 request should have been filed first.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Direct infringement (Art. 25 UPCA) requires all claimed components to be present in the accused productMissing components may support indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA) but not direct infringementRegister governs standing for patent proprietor; claimant seeking to challenge patent effects need not look beyond registrationNew arguments on indirect infringement filed outside case management regime without leave are inadmissibleParallel proceedings against different defendants are legally independent; arguments and findings from settled parallel proceedings cannot simply be 'adopted' in the present case

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • D12, D13, D14 (prior art documents referenced in proceedings)Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

The court found that the accused Google Wi-Fi positioning product lacked at least one claimed component of EP 2 263 098 B1 (a patent for positioning of mobile objects based on mutually transmitted signals). The absence of a required component was fatal to direct infringement; whether this gap could support indirect infringement was not fully litigated as the late-filed indirect infringement requests were inadmissible.