UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 303/2024

Jun 10, 2024·EP3972309 Unitary patentSEP · METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPLEMENTING BEARER SPECIFIC CHANGES AS PART OF A CONNECTION RECONFIGURATION THAT IMPACTS THE SECURITY KEYS BEING USED

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
German
First decided
Oct 10, 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
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Klaus LoibnerLockedLocked

At the UPC: Motorola Group (41 cases)·Asus Group (46 cases)

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1427/2025·UPC CFI 688/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-10-10
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division revoked Motorola Mobility LLC's EP 3 972 309 (telecommunications patent) in full after finding added matter beyond the parent application, and dismissed the infringement action against ASUSTek, ASUS Computer GmbH and ASUSTEK (UK); costs borne by claimant Motorola.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Added matter beyond parent application
    • Revocation via counterclaim
    • Patent infringement (dismissed)
    • Interpretation of parent application disclosure
Documents
Show all 326 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2025-12-29Not public
Order2025-12-29Not public
Order2025-12-29Public
Cover sheet2025-11-21Not public
Further pleadings2025-11-21Not public
Receipt2025-11-21Not public
Order2025-11-17Not public
Order2025-11-17Public
Cover sheet2025-11-10Not public
Application document Claimant2025-11-10Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Motorola Mobility LLC (US) sued ASUSTek Computer Inc. and related ASUS entities for infringement of EP 3 972 309, a telecommunications patent relating to bearer-specific changes during LTE connection reconfiguration impacting security keys. The Munich Local Division revoked claims 1 and 11 of the patent in full for added matter, finding the claimed feature combinations not derivable from the parent application (exhibit KWY-4), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear all costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claims 1 and 11 of EP 3 972 309 contain added matter beyond the parent application

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 76 EPC; Art. 65 UPCA

    Note: Court found that the parent application (KWY-4) contained no passage, claim, or drawing from which the claimed feature combinations of claims 1 and 11 could be derived, and the combination did not emerge from the application as a whole.

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

  • Claims 1 and 11 are supported by the parent application and do not go beyond its content

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 76 EPC

    Reason: Neither the claims, text passages, nor drawings of the parent application disclosed the specific feature combinations claimed in claims 1 and 11 of EP 3 972 309, and this could not be derived from the totality of the parent application.

  • Auxiliary requests to amend the patent should cure the added-matter defect

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; R. 30 RoP

    Reason: The auxiliary requests did not address the added matter ground of invalidity and therefore could not influence the outcome of the revocation counterclaim.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Added matter (lack of original disclosure) is assessed against the parent application as a whole, not just individual passagesPatent claims invalid for added matter if neither the explicit text nor the drawings of the parent application disclose the claimed feature combinationAuxiliary requests to amend must address the specific invalidity ground to be relevantWhere asserted claims are invalid, the infringement action must be dismissed

Browse other cases on this principle.