Short Summary
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, in which Headwater Research LLC had initially brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. By decision of 30 July 2025, the Court dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1. Before the appeal period expired, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Detailed Summary
This decision was issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 26 September 2025 in case UPC_CFI_26/2024 concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1. The Claimant was Headwater Research LLC, represented by Dr. Michael Schneider and Jochen Ehlers of EISENFÜHR SPEISER. The Defendants were Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., all represented by Dr. Martin Köhler of Hoyng ROKH Monegier. The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr Thom (judge-rapporteur), legally qualified Judge Agergaard, and technically qualified Judge Augarde. The language of proceedings was English.
The subject of the proceedings was R. 265 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), relating to costs. The parties had initially brought an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court. By decision of 30 July 2025, the Court dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent in suit to the extent of claim 1. Before the time period for appeal expired, the Claimant withdrew its infringement action by brief dated 18 September 2025 and requested that the parties bear their own costs. On 19 September 2025, the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal of the infringement action and to the Claimant's requested cost decision.
In its reasoning, the Court noted that the decision followed the parties' jointly expressed will. The Court relied on a Court of Appeal decision (CoA_569/2014, Order of 24 February 2025, Dexom v. Abbott), which held that an application to withdraw the infringement action is admissible where there is no final decision in the action in view of a pending appeal. The Court found that the same applies where the time period for appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance has not yet expired. Given the parties' consents, they could not be considered to have a legitimate interest in the action being appealed, and the application to withdraw could therefore be permitted. Following the Court of Appeal's approach, the Court also considered the decision of 30 July 2025 regarding the infringement action, including the decision on costs, to become ineffective with the closure of the proceedings. Pursuant to R. 265.2(2) RoP, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs with regard to the infringement action, following the consented request of the Claimant.
The final orders were: (1) the withdrawal of the infringement action was allowed at the application of the Claimant and with the consent of the Defendants; (2) the proceedings were declared closed; (3) the decision was to be entered in the register; (4) each party was to bear their own costs with regard to the infringement action; and (5) the value in dispute for the infringement action was set at €3,000,000.00.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Headwater Research LLC vs Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hand Held Products, Inc.vsRespondent
Hand Held Products, Inc. filed an application under Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure requesting simultaneous interpretation from German into English for the oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025, in proceedings concerning EP 3 866 051. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request for court-funded interpretation, holding that the mere fact that internal employees of Hand Held Products who do not speak German would attend the hearing did not justify ordering such measures, particularly since Hand Held Products had voluntarily chosen German as the procedural language. The subsidiary request for interpretation arrangements at the applicant's own cost was addressed under Rule 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
Bhagat Textile EngineersvsOerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti relativa a una istanza di svincolo della garanzia ai sensi della regola 352, paragrafo 2, del Regolamento di procedura emessa il 3 febbraio 2026 ISTANT
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524, and the Vivo defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the parties reached a settlement agreement, both sides filed withdrawal applications pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure on 13 August 2026. The Paris Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, closed the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AGvsRespondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding an application by the Defendants (Renault entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on EP3651429. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The court considered the fairness grounds and relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP, referring to a previous order between the same Claimant and three of the Defendants.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.,vsRoborock Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court addressed the claimant Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.'s request under Rule 190 RoP for production of source code extracts from the defendant (related to Roborock robot vacuum models), as well as a confidentiality request under Rule 262A RoP and a request for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 RoP. The court held that the Rule 190 RoP request was premature because no specific contested facts existed at the time of submission, and that such requests are intended to produce evidence for substantiated, relevant, and contested facts rather than to investigate unknown facts.
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.