UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 688/2024

Nov 26, 2024·EP3972309: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPLEMENTING BEARER SPECIFIC CHANGES AS PART OF A CONNECTION RECONFIGURATION THAT IMPACTS THE SECURITY KEYS BEING USED

Parent infringement case:UPC CFI 303/2024

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counter Claim for Revocation
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Nina Bayerl (Freshfields)
Respondents
Reps: Alexander Wiese (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB)
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
Telecoms · Cellular/SEP · Telecommunications
Language
German
First decided
Oct 10, 2025
Claims
At issue1, 11
Revoked1, 11
Notes: Claims 1 and 11 of EP 3 972 309 B1 revoked for added matter (subject-matter extends beyond parent application); auxiliary requests dismissed; infringement action dismissed.
Decisions
  • 2025-10-10
    RevokedRevocation meritsCounterclaim for revocation

    The same Munich Local Division decision as UPC_CFI_303/2024, in the associated counterclaim proceedings: EP 3 972 309 revoked for added matter and infringement action dismissed.

    Legal issues:Added matter via counterclaim for revocationInfringement action dismissed
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2025-12-29Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-12-29Not public
Order2025-12-29Public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2025-12-23Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-17Not public
Order2025-11-17Public
Cover sheet2025-11-10Not public
Application document Defendant2025-11-10Not public
Receipt2025-11-10Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2025-10-15Not public
Decision2025-10-15Public
Panel-Appointment2025-07-03Not public
Interim-Procedure-Closure2025-07-02Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-07-02Not public
Terminierung2025-07-02Public
Hearing-Dates2025-07-02Not public
Written-Procedure-Closure2025-07-02Not public
Rejoin-Amend-Patent-Defence2025-06-12Not public
20250612_Motorola_ASUS_EP309_Reply_App_Amend_Patent2025-06-12Not public
Reply-Amend-Patent-Defence2025-05-12Not public
25-05-12_-_Duplik_CCR_-_Replik_AAP_-_Lenovo_vs_ASUS_-_EP_3092025-05-12Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-05-12Not public
25-05-12_-_Duplik_CCR_-_Replik_AAP_-_Lenovo_vs_ASUS_-_EP_3092025-05-12Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-04-11Not public
20250411_Motorola_Asus_EP_309_ACT_33773_2024_UPC_CFI_303_2024_brief_re_rejoinder2025-04-11Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-04-11Not public
20250411_Motorola_Asus_EP_309_ACT_33773_2024_UPC_CFI_303_2024_brief_re_rejoinder2025-04-11Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-04-11Not public
E82025-04-11Not public
E92025-04-11Not public
E6a2025-04-11Not public
E102025-04-11Not public
20250411_Motorola_Asus_EP309_UPC_CFI_303_2024_rejoinder_tech2025-04-11Not public
WKS T 12025-04-11Not public
KWY-52025-04-11Not public
E2a2025-04-11Not public
WKS T 22025-04-11Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-04-11Not public
E102025-04-11Not public
E6a2025-04-11Not public
WKS T 12025-04-11Not public
E2a2025-04-11Not public
20250411_Motorola_Asus_EP309_UPC_CFI_303_2024_rejoinder_tech2025-04-11Not public
E82025-04-11Not public
KWY-52025-04-11Not public
E92025-04-11Not public
WKS T 22025-04-11Not public
Hearing-Dates2025-03-27Not public
Terminierung2025-03-27Public
Hearing-Dates2025-03-27Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-03-25Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-02-05Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-02-05Not public
Anlagenkonvolut_FBD-H_1a2025-02-04Not public
Anlagenkonvolut_FBD-H_12025-02-04Not public
Antrag auf Änderung Patent2025-02-04Not public
Anlage_FBD-T_142025-02-04Not public
Anlage_FBD-T_112025-02-04Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-02-04Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-02-04Not public
Anlage_FBD-T_112025-02-04Not public
Anlagenkonvolut_FBD-H_12025-02-04Not public
Anlage_FBD-T_152025-02-04Not public
Anlage_FBD-T_142025-02-04Not public
Erwiderung CCR2025-02-04Not public
Anlagenkonvolut_FBD-H_1a2025-02-04Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-12-09Not public
Notification Of Service2024-12-09Not public
communicationCheck2024-12-03Not public
Document from EPO2024-12-02Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-11-28Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2024-11-28Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-11-28Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-11-28Not public
E5 R2-17066172024-11-26Not public
E1 WO 2018/059866 A12024-11-26Not public
KWY-2 Prioritätsanmeldung US 2017625243792024-11-26Not public
E2 Standard 36.3002024-11-26Not public
E4 Standard 37.3402024-11-26Not public
E6 Standard 36.331 (Auszug)2024-11-26Not public
KWY-3 Prioritätsanmeldung US 2017625438172024-11-26Not public
Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung2024-11-26Not public
E7 R2-17070502024-11-26Not public
KWY-4 Anmeldeunterlagen der Stammanmeldung2024-11-26Not public
E1a Registerauszug EP-Anmeldung Nr. 17758185.7 (zu WO 2018/059866 A1)2024-11-26Not public
KWY-1 Klagepatent EP 3 972 309 B12024-11-26Not public
KWY 0.1 Überweisungsbeleg2024-11-26Not public
E3 Standard 33.4012024-11-26Not public
E5c Übersichtsliste (vergrößerter Auszug)2024-11-26Not public
E5b Übersichtsliste2024-11-26Not public
E5a Auszug 3GPP-Internetseite2024-11-26Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUS entities for infringement of EP 3 972 309 B1 (a telecom standard-essential patent on bearer-specific security key changes during LTE connection reconfiguration). The Munich Local Division revoked claims 1 and 11 for all 17 UPCA member states on the basis of added matter — the claimed feature combinations could not be derived from the parent application — and dismissed both the infringement action and all auxiliary amendment requests, with Motorola bearing the full costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 76(1) EPC; added matter

    Note: Munich Local Division accepted ASUS's argument that the claimed feature combinations of claims 1 and 11 cannot be derived from any explicit text, claim, passage or drawing of the parent application (Stammanmeldung), either individually or in overall context.

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

  • Applications to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should cure the added-matter defect

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 76(1) EPC; R. 30 RoP

    Reason: The auxiliary requests did not address the ground of lack of original disclosure (added matter), and could therefore not affect the outcome of the revocation counterclaim.

  • Claims 1 and 11 of EP 3 972 309 are infringed by ASUS devices

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: Because claims 1 and 11 were revoked for added matter, they are invalid and the infringement action based on those claims was dismissed.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Added matter: subject matter of a patent extending beyond the content of the original parent application renders claims invalid (Art. 76(1) EPC)Added matter assessed against all text, claims, passages and drawings of the parent application individually and in overall contextAmendment application not addressing the operative revocation ground (added matter) cannot save the patentIf the claims relied on in infringement are revoked, the infringement action necessarily fails

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court examined whether the feature combinations in claims 1 and 11 (relating to bearer-specific security key changes during LTE connection reconfiguration) could be derived from the parent application. It found no passage, claim or drawing in the parent application that expressly or implicitly disclosed those specific combinations.