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
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.