Short Summary
Motorola Mobility LLC, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 3 972 309, brought an infringement action against ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited before the Local Chamber Munich. The patent concerns a method and apparatus for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting the security keys used in user equipment communicating with two cell groups. The defendants filed a counterclaim. The case was heard orally on July 9, 2025, and the decision was issued on October 10, 2025, by a panel of four judges.
Detailed Summary
Motorola Mobility LLC, a company based in Chicago, Illinois, USA, is the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 3 972 309. The defendants in the infringement action are ASUSTek Computer Inc. (Taipei City, Taiwan), ASUS Computer GmbH (Ratingen, Germany), and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited (London, UK). The defendants also filed a counterclaim against Motorola. The plaintiff was represented by Nina Bayerl of Freshfields PartG mbH, while the defendants were represented by Alexander Wiese of Wildanger Kehrwald Graf v. Schwerin & Partner mbB Rechtsanwälte. The language of the proceedings was German.
The Patent in Dispute: EP 3 972 309 is a European patent with unitary effect, titled 'Method and apparatus for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting the security keys used' (in German: 'Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur Implementierung von trägerspezifischen Änderungen als Teil einer Verbindungsrekonfiguration, die die verwendeten Sicherheitsschlüssel beeinträchtigt'). The patent was filed on June 23, 2018 as a divisional application, claiming priority from US provisional applications US 201762524379 P (filed June 23, 2017) and US 201762543817 P (filed August 10, 2017). The mention of the grant was published on August 9, 2023. The patent contains 15 claims.
The plaintiff asserted infringement of the patent by the defendants. Claim 1 of the patent, which was the basis of the infringement action, describes a method (1000) in a user equipment configured to communicate with two cell groups, including a first cell group and a second cell group. The method involves establishing a first MAC entity and a second MAC entity, receiving a first connection reconfiguration message to configure at least one shared bearer with a first identity of a logical channel terminated in the second cell group, applying a first security key for communication with the first cell group and a second security key for communication with the second cell group, receiving a second connection reconfiguration message including a counter with a count value for deriving a third security key for communication with the second cell group, and applying the third security key while continuing to use the first security key and the first MAC entity for communication with the first cell group. The defendants filed a counterclaim, the details of which are not fully set out in the available text.
& Analysis: The case was heard by Panel 1 of the Local Chamber Munich, consisting of Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, Legally Qualified Judge and Reporter Tobias Pichlmaier, Legally Qualified Judge Peter Agergaard, and Technically Qualified Judge Klaus Loibner. An oral hearing was held on July 9, 2025. The full reasoning of the court is not available in the provided text, as the document is truncated.
Final Order & Ruling: The decision was issued on October 10, 2025. The full text of the operative order and detailed reasoning is not available in the provided excerpt, as the judgment text is cut off before the conclusion.
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 Motorola Mobility LLC vs 1) ASUSTek Computer Inc 2) ASUS Computer GmbH 3) ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsBelkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
This decision concerns the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. before the Court of Appeal. Philips had filed the application by mistake, as cost assessment applications fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal under Rule 265(1) of the Rules of Procedure without requiring a hearing of Belkin, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA,Rue de l’Institut 89, 1330 Rivsthe Netherlands, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V., Rijksweg 12, 2870 Puurs-S
This procedural order concerns three related actions before the Hague Local Division involving GSK as claimant and a group of Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') as defendants, regarding two divisional patents EP856 and EP941. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office—EP941 by the opposition division on 24 June 2026 and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on 20 July 2026—for lack of novelty. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear the costs, and postponed its decision on PBNT's request to stay the remaining proceedings pending the issuance of the written grounds of the TBA decision.
GISELA MAYER GmbHvsRespondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/02/2025 Concernant une demande en garantie des frais (Règle 158 Rdp) REQUÉRANT - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 - Memmingen
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought an infringement action against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on November 22, 2024, following an oral hearing on October 7 and 8, 2024. A redacted version of the decision was subsequently ordered on February 6, 2025, after the parties were given the opportunity to comment on confidential information.
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.