Short Summary
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Following a 30 July 2025 decision that dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1, the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and the related cost application before the appeal period expired. With the Claimant's consent, the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs regarding the counterclaim.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings (UPC_CFI_320/2024) were brought before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 110 069 B1. The Claimant was Headwater Research LLC, and the Defendants were Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The parties had initially brought an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. By a decision dated 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 Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and their application for a cost decision (UPC_CFI_820/2025 and UPC_CFI_833/2025) by brief dated 29 September 2025, requesting that each party bear their own costs as a consequence of the Court's decision of 26 September 2025. The Claimant had already consented to the withdrawal of the counterclaim and the application for a cost decision by brief dated 18 September 2025.
In its reasoning, the Court noted that the decision followed the parties' jointly expressed will. Citing the Court of Appeal's decision in CoA_569/2024 (Dexom v. Abbott, Order of 24 February 2025), the Court held that an application to withdraw a counterclaim of revocation is admissible when there is no final decision due to a pending appeal, and the same applies when the time period for appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance has not yet expired. Given the parties' mutual consents, they could not be considered to have a legitimate interest in the counterclaim being appealed, and the application to withdraw was therefore permitted. Following the Court of Appeal's approach, the Court also considered the decision of 30 July 2025 regarding the counterclaim, including the decision on costs, to become ineffective with the closure of the proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 265.2(c) RoP, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs with regard to the counterclaim of revocation, following their mutual request.
The final orders were: (1) the withdrawal of the counterclaim of revocation was allowed at the Defendants' application and with the Claimant's consent; (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 counterclaim of revocation; and (5) the value in dispute for the counterclaim of revocation was set at €3,000,000. The decision was issued on 30 September 2025 by Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr. Thom (judge-rapporteur), legally qualified Judge Agergaard, and technically qualified Judge Augarde.
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 and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsVizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782. The plaintiffs sought to restrict access to exhibit BP 34 (a license agreement and related agreements) to outside attorneys only, and the court granted the request, finding that the parties had mutually agreed to a confidentiality regime comparable to the Protective Order in the parallel US proceedings.
Himson Engineering Private LimitedvsEx Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
Quantificare S.A.vsCanfield Scientific GmbH & Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found infringement of European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 (relating to a device and method for three-dimensional reconstruction of head and body using stereophotogrammetry) by the defendants' Canfield Vectra H2 3D imaging system. The court held that establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State suffices to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, even where the patent proprietor carves out one member state (here Germany) for procedural reasons. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed, injunctive relief and provisional damages were granted, and costs were allocated 90/10 against the defendants.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda. & Silimed GmbHvsPolytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH & Others
The Claimants, who became the rightful owners of European Patent EP 2 581 193 B1 through entitlement proceedings, filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants raised preliminary objections arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed the action, holding that the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to pending national revocation proceedings before the German Federal Patent Court.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGEvsROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed their preliminary objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—commercial connection between defendants and the same alleged infringement—were satisfied, as membership in the same corporate group could establish a commercial connection and the alleged infringing wiper blade products (sold under MOPAR, BYD, and AEROTWIN brands) appeared substantially the same in structure and dimensions.
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.