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
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.