UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 251/2025

Mar 29, 2025·EP2061230 · Portable terminal, information processing apparatus and content display system

Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology · Telecommunications · Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Dec 10, 2025
Last decision
Aug 10, 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
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked
Judge Dennis KretschmannLockedLocked

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

Decisions
  • 2026-08-10
    InfringementPublic

    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
  • 2026-04-10
    Infringement 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
  • 2025-12-10
    Infringement 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 titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-08-10Not public
Publication of decision2026-08-10Not public
Decision2026-08-10Not public
Decision2026-08-10Public
Deliberation opened2026-08-03Not public
Communication2026-08-03Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-07-02Not public
Communication2026-06-23Not public
Oral procedure opened2026-06-21Not public
Interim procedure closed2026-06-21Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • 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)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • The auxiliary requests, which progressively limit the scope of protection, render the claimed subject-matter inventive

    ClaimantLegal basis: inventive step (obviousness) - auxiliary requests