UPC CFI 251/2025
Mar 29, 2025·EP2061230 · Portable terminal, information processing apparatus and content display system
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Maxell, Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Benjamin Beck-Mayer Brown LLP
- Alexander Balan-Mayer Brown LLP
- Christoph Crützen-Mayer Brown LLP
- Svenja Schenk-Mayer Brown LLP
- Thomas Hell-Bosch Jehle Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Respondents- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Operating co.
- Samsung Electronics GmbHOperating co.
- Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.Operating co.
- Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Christian Lederer-PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Jan Phillip Rektorschek-PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Julia Fischer-PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Tobias Baus-PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
- Martin Kuschel-PAUSTIAN
- Christoph Hewel-PAUSTIAN
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology · Telecommunications · Computer technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Dec 10, 2025
- Last decision
- Aug 10, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Johansson | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dennis Kretschmann | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Maxell, Ltd. (11 cases)·Samsung Group (57 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 178/2026·UPC CoA 179/2026·UPC CFI 665/2025·UPC CFI 196/2025·UPC APP 19188/2025
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: The Hague LD·2025
- 2026-08-10InfringementPublic
Summary: The Court dismissed Maxell's infringement action against Samsung's Galaxy devices under EP 2 061 230 and, on Samsung's counterclaim, revoked the patent in its entirety for France, Germany and the Netherlands for lack of inventive step, since the claimed combination amounted to a mere aggregation of routine, non-synergistic modifications. Maxell was ordered to pay Samsung EUR 200,000 in costs in each of the two actions.
Show the legal issues (5)
- inventive step / obviousness
- aggregation of features (lack of synergistic effect)
- auxiliary requests - progressive claim limitation
- patent revocation
- confidentiality under R.262.2 RoP
- 2026-04-10Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order under R.105.5 RoP following a video conference on 10 April 2026. The order set the case values (EUR 1,500,000 for infringement; EUR 2,000,000 for counterclaim), clarified the parties' requests, excluded new invalidity attacks raised in Samsung's Rejoinder, and established a procedural timetable for narrowing invalidity attacks, auxiliary requests, and pleading at the oral hearing.
Show the legal issues (7)
- R.105.5 RoP interim conference order
- Case value setting for infringement action and counterclaim
- Clarification of parties' requests
- Admissibility of new invalidity attacks in Samsung's Rejoinder to Application to Amend
- De-facto FRAND defence admissibility
- Confidentiality order under R.262.2 RoP
- Timetable for narrowing invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests before oral hearing
- 2025-12-10Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Hague Local Division issued a case management order addressing Maxell's 44 conditional auxiliary requests in infringement proceedings against Samsung concerning EP 2 061 230, requesting clarification on the reasonable number of auxiliary requests per R. 30.1(c) RoP.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Case management (R. 9 RoP)
- Reasonable number of auxiliary requests (R. 30.1(c) RoP)
- Extension of deadlines
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-08-10 | Not public |
| Publication of decision | 2026-08-10 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-08-10 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-08-10 | Public |
| Deliberation opened | 2026-08-03 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-08-03 | Not public |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-06-23 | Not public |
| Oral procedure opened | 2026-06-21 | Not public |
| Interim procedure closed | 2026-06-21 | Not public |
A plurality of routine, non-interdependent modifications lacking a synergistic effect amounts to a mere aggregation of features and is therefore obvious
RespondentLegal basis: inventive step (obviousness)
The auxiliary requests, which progressively limit the scope of protection, render the claimed subject-matter inventive
ClaimantLegal basis: inventive step (obviousness) - auxiliary requests