UPC_CFI_100/2024

POSITIONING OF MOBILE OBJECTS BASED ON MUTUALLY TRANSMITTED SIGNALS

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

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 product Missing components may support indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA) but not direct infringement Register governs standing for patent proprietor; claimant seeking to challenge patent effects need not look beyond registration New arguments on indirect infringement filed outside case management regime without leave are inadmissible Parallel 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.