UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 54/2024

Feb 12, 2024·EP2391947 · VERIFIABLE DEVICE ASSISTED SERVICE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

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
English
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 András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
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 6 other proceedings

UPC CFI 822/2025·UPC CFI 823/2025·UPC CFI 396/2024·UPC APP 15347/2025·UPC APP 29928/2024 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-03-03
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: Procedural order issued by the Munich Local Division following the Interim Conference of 28 February 2025 in two consolidated infringement actions by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung. The order addressed procedural matters including inadmissibility of Samsung's invalidity attack under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the standing-to-sue issue, treatment of a witness statement, and admissibility of late-filed documents ZP8-ZP9. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Inadmissibility of invalidity attack under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC
    • Standing to sue
    • Admissibility of written witness statement (Rule 175 RoP)
    • Late-filed documents
  • 2024-10-02
    Public

    Summary: Procedural order on Samsung Electronics entities' application for security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) against Claimant Headwater Research LLC, a US-based patent assertion entity. Applying the CoA standard that the claimant's financial position must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability of a potential cost order, the court assessed whether EUR 200,000 security was appropriate.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Security for costs (Rule 158 RoP)
    • Financial position of claimant
    • Standards for security for costs
  • —
    revocation counterclaim

    Summary: I. European patent 2 391 947 B1 is revoked in part to the extent of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 35 with effect in the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic. II. The infringement action is dismissed. III. Headwater must bear the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by Samsung

Documents
Show all 461 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-09-29Not public
Communication2026-09-09Not public
Order2026-09-09Not public
Order2026-09-09Public
Receipt2026-08-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-25Not public
Document Defendant2026-08-25Not public
Communication2026-08-21Not public
Cover sheet2025-09-29Not public
Application2025-09-29Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Headwater Research LLC sued Samsung Electronics entities at the Munich Local Division for infringement of EP 2 391 947, a patent covering network management policy implementation on Android mobile devices. Samsung successfully counterclaimed for revocation, with the court finding the patent invalid for lack of inventive step both as granted and in all 24 auxiliary requests filed by Headwater; the court also ruled Samsung's Art. 138(1)(e) invalidity attack inadmissible. The infringement action was dismissed and a separate revocation counterclaim was fully upheld.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • patent EP 2 391 947 lacks inventive step under Art. 56 EPC over the prior art

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Samsung's invalidity attack on inventive step succeeded both against the patent as granted and against all Headwater's auxiliary requests (AR1-24), leading to full revocation.

  • patent EP 2 391 947 contains added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

    Note: Samsung invoked added matter as one of its invalidity grounds; while the decision found invalidity primarily on inventive step, added matter was also pleaded.

  • invalidity attack based on Art. 138(1)(e) EPC is inadmissible under applicable national law

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(e) EPC; applicable German and French law

    Note: The court accepted this argument at the interim conference stage, ruling Samsung's Art. 138(1)(e) attack inadmissible.

  • Headwater as a non-practicing US entity with no assets other than patents must provide security for costs

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

    Note: Samsung's security-for-costs application was granted by the Munich LD at EUR 100,000; the court applied the CoA standard requiring legitimate and real concern about recoverability.

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

  • the patent as amended (auxiliary requests AR1-AR1-24) should be maintained as valid

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: All auxiliary requests were found to lack inventive step for the same reasons as the main request; the second oral hearing scheduled for September 2025 was cancelled.

  • security for costs should be set at no more than EUR 100,000 and may be provided by a US bank guarantee

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoP

    Reason: The court set the amount at EUR 100,000 (accepting claimant's alternative) but held that a bank guarantee from a US bank was not adequate, consistent with CoA guidance.

  • the written witness statement of Dr. Raleigh qualifies as a full witness statement under R. 175 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 175 RoP

    Reason: Samsung noted the statement lacked certain requirements of R. 175 RoP; the court did not call live witnesses.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
problem-solution approach to inventive step under EPO case law applied by UPCinvalidity attack based on Art. 138(1)(e) EPC inadmissible under applicable national lawsecurity for costs for US-based non-practicing entity under R. 158 RoPUS bank guarantee not adequate security; deposit requiredlate-filed prior art documents admissible in response to auxiliary requestscancellation of second oral hearing upon finding all forms of patent invalid

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • ZP8-ZP9 (late-filed documents admitted in response to AR1-24)Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

The claims relate to a verifiable device-assisted service policy implementation system for Android devices (network management of mobile end-user devices with OS Android 7 or higher). The claim construction was contested but the substantive analysis is not reproduced in the available excerpts.