UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jan 26, 2024

UPC_CFI_26/2024

DEVICE- ASSISTED SERVICES FOR PROTECTING NETWORK CAPACITY

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringementCase ClosedSettled at: Post-merits
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.

No accepted arguments captured.

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.

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 RoP

Browse other cases on this principle.