UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 26/2024

Jan 26, 2024·EP3110069 · DEVICE- ASSISTED SERVICES FOR PROTECTING NETWORK CAPACITY

Action number: ACT 3932/2024

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
English
First decided
Jun 15, 2025
Last decision
Sep 26, 2025
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 Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Eric AugardeLockedLocked

At the UPC: Headwater Research LLC (34 cases)·Samsung Group (57 cases)

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

This dispute contains 4 other proceedings

UPC CFI 833/2025·UPC CFI 820/2025·UPC CFI 320/2024·UPC APP 22744/2024

6 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 2814/2026·UPC CFI 432/2025·UPC CFI 28/2025·UPC CFI 494/2024·UPC CFI 149/2024 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-09-26
    Withdrawal (RoP265)Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division recorded the withdrawal by Headwater Research LLC of its infringement action (EP 3 110 069) against Samsung Electronics entities after the court had issued a decision on 30 July 2025 dismissing the infringement action and revoking the patent; both parties to bear own costs.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Withdrawal after merits decision (R. 265 RoP)
    • Cost allocation after withdrawal
  • 2025-07-30
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research LLC's infringement action against Samsung and revoked European patent EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1, on the basis of a successful counterclaim for revocation; all costs were borne by the claimant. The court also rejected a new argument on added matter as inadmissible under R. 9.2 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Patent revocation on counterclaim
    • Admissibility of new arguments under R. 9.2 RoP (front-loaded procedure)
    • Added matter as ground for revocation
  • 2025-06-15
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Samsung's application for security for costs against Headwater Research LLC under R. 158 RoP. The Court found that while enforcing a cost order against a US-domiciled entity might be more burdensome, the evidence showed Headwater generates recurring revenues from licensing, making the concern about non-recovery insufficiently justified.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Security for costs dismissed (R. 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA)
    • US-domiciled claimant
    • Enforcement burden assessment
    • NPE / patent licensing entity
Documents
Show all 312 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Decision2025-09-26Not public
Decision2025-09-26Not public
Cover sheet2025-09-24Not public
Application2025-09-24Not public
Receipt2025-09-24Not public
Communication2025-09-24Not public
Communication2025-09-23Not public
Order2025-09-23Not public
Order2025-09-23Not public
Receipt2025-09-18Not public
Coverage: Thin.Reasoning extracted with limited coverage — see decisions tab for full text.
Plain-English summary

Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against Samsung Electronics entities at the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 110 069 B1 (device-assisted services for protecting network capacity). The court dismissed the infringement action and revoked claim 1 of the patent by decision of 30 July 2025; before the appeal period expired, Headwater withdrew the action with Samsung's consent, rendering the July 2025 decision ineffective. Each party bears its own costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 110 069 B1 claim 1 is well-founded

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Note: Samsung's counterclaim for revocation succeeded, with the court revoking EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1 and consequently dismissing the infringement action.

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

  • Samsung should be ordered to provide security for costs against Headwater

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 158 RoP; Art. 69(4) UPCA

    Reason: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the security-for-costs application because Samsung failed to provide evidence of applicable foreign law or its application, and Headwater demonstrated recurring licensing revenues making insolvency risk insufficient.

  • New line of arguments on added matter based on different passages of a lengthy document should be admitted

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 9.2 RoP

    Reason: The court rejected the new added-matter argument under Rule 9.2 RoP because the issue had been raised from the outset but the new argument relied on entirely different passages of a lengthy document, undermining the front-loaded procedure; neither the court nor the other party could be forced to deal with it from scratch.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
security for costs dismissed where defendant fails to evidence that enforcement against US-based claimant would be unduly burdensomerecurring licensing revenues from an NPE can negate insolvency risk for security-for-costs purposesmere status as NPE insufficient to justify security for costswithdrawal of infringement action permissible before appeal period expires where parties consent and have no legitimate interest in appeal (CoA_569/2014 applied)decision on infringement action including costs becomes ineffective upon permitted withdrawal under R. 265 RoPfront-loaded procedure under RoPinadmissibility of late new arguments under Rule 9.2 RoP even on the same broad issuerevocation of patent claim as counterclaim defeats infringement action

Browse other cases on this principle.