UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 665/2025

Aug 5, 2025·EP2403266 · Portable terminal, information processing apparatus, content display system and content display method

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent revoked)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology · Telecommunications · Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
May 5, 2026
Last decision
Sep 22, 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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Hergen KapelsLockedLocked

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

Decisions
  • 2026-09-22
    Counter claim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division revoked Maxell's EP 2 403 266 in its entirety on Samsung's counterclaim (UPC_CFI_665/2025), holding claim 1 obvious over D1 and D10 for the patent as granted and every auxiliary request, with auxiliary requests 12 and 13 also adding matter; the infringement action was therefore dismissed and Maxell ordered to pay Samsung the agreed EUR 620,000 in costs.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Inventive step: claim 1 obvious over D1 in combination with D10, as granted and for all auxiliary requests examined
    • Unallowable added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC) in auxiliary requests 12 and 13 (UTF-8-encoded display state information)
    • Infringement action dismissed as a consequence of revocation
    • Costs award by party agreement: EUR 600,000 representation costs plus EUR 20,000 court fee
  • 2026-05-05
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The court issued a rectified order summarising the interim conference held on 30 April 2026. The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 2,000,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 3,000,000, and sets out procedural agreements on limiting invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, scheduling the oral hearing for 23 July 2026, and other case management matters.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Case value determination for infringement action and counterclaim
    • Limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests
    • Scheduling of oral hearing
    • Confidentiality of register entries under R. 262.2 RoP
    • Avertment of enforcement by security under Art. 62.1 UPCA and Art. 63 UPCA
    • Admissibility of exhibit and FRAND defence
Document titleDatePublic
Publication of decision2026-09-22Not public
Decision2026-09-22Public
Case closed2026-09-21Not public
Decision2026-09-21Not public
Decision2026-09-21Not public
Deliberation opened2026-07-27Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-07-24Not public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Further pleadings2026-07-13Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • Claim 1 as granted and as amended by the auxiliary requests (incl. 9b and 9c) lacks inventive step over D1 in combination with D10

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
  • Auxiliary requests 12 and 13 add subject matter: the application discloses display state information indicating a UTF-8 character encoding item, not that the display state information itself is UTF-8-encoded

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC, Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • The patent as granted or as amended by an auxiliary request is valid and infringed

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA