UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 196/2025

Mar 10, 2025·EP2403266 · Portable terminal, information processing apparatus, content display system and content display method

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology · Telecommunications · Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Sep 22, 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
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Hergen KapelsLockedLocked

At the UPC: Maxell, Ltd. (11 cases)·Samsung Group (57 cases)

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

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CoA 178/2026·UPC CoA 179/2026·UPC CFI 665/2025·UPC CFI 251/2025·UPC APP 19188/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-09-22
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division revoked Maxell's EP 2 403 266 in its entirety on Samsung's counterclaim (UPC_CFI_665/2025), holding claim 1 obvious over D1 and D10 for the patent as granted and every auxiliary request, with auxiliary requests 12 and 13 also adding matter; the infringement action was therefore dismissed and Maxell ordered to pay Samsung the agreed EUR 620,000 in costs.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Inventive step: claim 1 obvious over D1 in combination with D10, as granted and for all auxiliary requests examined
    • Unallowable added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC) in auxiliary requests 12 and 13 (UTF-8-encoded display state information)
    • Infringement action dismissed as a consequence of revocation
    • Costs award by party agreement: EUR 600,000 representation costs plus EUR 20,000 court fee
Documents
Show all 238 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Publication of decision2026-09-22Not public
Decision2026-09-22Public
Case closed2026-09-21Not public
Decision2026-09-21Not public
Decision2026-09-21Not public
Communication2026-08-25Not public
Other Documents2026-08-25Not public
Deliberation opened2026-07-27Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-07-24Not public
Communication2026-07-22Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claim 1 as granted and as amended by the auxiliary requests (incl. 9b and 9c) lacks inventive step over D1 in combination with D10

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC

  • Auxiliary requests 12 and 13 add subject matter: the application discloses display state information indicating a UTF-8 character encoding item, not that the display state information itself is UTF-8-encoded

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC, Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The patent as granted or as amended by an auxiliary request is valid and infringed

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA