Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, for separation of proceedings under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action against five defendants, including Motorola entities, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V. The plaintiff sought to separate the case against the fifth defendant (Flextronics) into its own proceeding and to avoid paying an additional court fee for the separated case. The fifth defendant opposed the application, arguing that the delay was caused by the plaintiff's own insufficient pre-filing investigations.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, filed a patent infringement lawsuit on March 22, 2024, concerning European Patent No. EP 3 110 072 against five defendants: Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V. Defendants 1 to 4 filed their statements of defense on August 19, 2024. Regarding the original fifth defendant, the rapporteur ordered a party correction on September 11, 2024, and service of the complaint on the current fifth defendant (Flextronics International Europe B.V.) was effected on October 18, 2024. The fifth defendant's statement of defense was filed on January 17, 2025.
The plaintiff requested separation of the proceedings against the fifth defendant under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the party correction merely corrected a misidentification and that the late service on the fifth defendant significantly delayed the proceedings. The plaintiff further requested that no new court fee be imposed for the separated proceeding. The plaintiff contended that separation was reasonable for all parties because each defendant was already the subject of a formally separate proceeding. The fifth defendant opposed the separation request dated December 6, 2024, arguing that the current procedural situation resulted from the plaintiff's own insufficient pre-filing investigations, as the plaintiff had initially sued a non-existent party. Defendants 1 to 4 also argued that separate proceedings were not warranted.
& Analysis: The rapporteur, Dr. D. Voß, addressed the application under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that separation of proceedings is within the discretion of the court. The headnote of the order establishes that in exercising this discretion, the court must consider which procedural approach offers advantages in terms of procedural economy and whether any of the parties would be unreasonably disadvantaged. The analysis considered the competing interests of procedural efficiency against the potential prejudice to the parties arising from the plaintiff's earlier misidentification of the fifth defendant.
Final Order & Ruling: The full text of the operative ruling is not included in the provided excerpt, as the document appears to be truncated. The order was issued by the rapporteur of Panel 2 of the Local Chamber Munich on April 14, 2025, in proceedings numbered UPC_CFI_127/2024 and ACT_14859/2024, with German as the language of proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Headwater Research LLC vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.