Short Summary
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
Detailed Summary
This is a Procedural Order issued on 1 April 2025 by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, acting as Judge-Rapporteur, of Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, in proceedings UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024.
The Claimant is Headwater Research LLC, a Texas-based entity represented by Thomas Adam. The Defendants are Samsung Electronics GmbH (Germany), Samsung Electronics France S.A.S (France), and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (South Korea), all represented by Denise Benz of Munich. The patent at issue is European patent No. 2 391 947, and the language of the proceedings is English.
The order addresses several pending procedural applications, including: (i) an Application to review a case management Order under Rule 333 RoP (App_13435/2025 in UPC_CFI_54/2024 and App_13434/2025 in UPC_CFI_396/2024); (ii) a Generic Application under Rule 30.2 RoP (App_13924/2025 in UPC_CFI_396/2024); and (iii) an Application for leave to change claim or amend case/pleading under Rule 263 RoP (App_13925/2025 in UPC_CFI_54/2024). Samsung had been invited to file comments on these three requests within 10 days.
Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested that the term set by the court pursuant to orders ORD_14251/2025, ORD_14252/2025, ORD_14253/2025, and ORD_14254/2025 for filing comments on the above submissions—currently expiring on 3 April 2025—be extended until 8 April 2025. This request was made through four separate generic applications for term extensions under Rule 9 RoP (App_15347/2025, App_15348/2025, App_15349/2025, and App_15353/2025).
The Presiding Judge granted the request and declared the four workflows closed. The court noted in its instructions to the parties that launching four different workflows for the same request for extension is unnecessary, creates more work for both the parties and the court, and should not be done in the future. The order also informed the parties of their right to request review by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, and of the possibility of a decision by default under Rule 355 RoP if the order is not complied with.
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 Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France s.a.i. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TP-Link Deutschland GmbHvsAtlas Global Technologies GmbH
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 353 901 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered a stay of the proceedings against Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
myStromer AGvsRevolt Zycling AG
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-07-03) under reference UPC-001739, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.vsRespondent
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
Syngenta LimitedvsRespondent
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
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.