2025-07-30 - LD Düsseldorf - Samsung v. Headwater Research - UPC_CFI_320/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_320/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Art:
Proceeding Decision
Parteien:
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLC

Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf LD revoked Headwater's patent (claim 1) for added matter and dismissed the infringement action against Samsung.

2025-07-30 - LD Düsseldorf - Samsung v. Headwater Research - UPC_CFI_320/2024
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

🏛️Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division• Proceeding Decision
📅2025-07-30
🔢UPC_CFI_320/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Samsung Electronics GmbH
Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Martin KÖHLER
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Headwater Research LLC
Michael SCHNEIDER
⚖️Counter claim for revocation
🌐English

notable
The Düsseldorf LD revoked Headwater's patent (claim 1) for added matter and dismissed the infringement action against Samsung. The claim featured determining whether an 'application' runs in background/foreground, but the parent application only disclosed determining whether a 'network service usage activity' runs in background/foreground — a material distinction. The court rejected the claimant's new argument at oral hearing under R.9.2 RoP: even though added matter was raised from the outset, new arguments based on completely different passages of a 200+ page document undermine the front-loaded procedure. All 26 auxiliary requests failed to cure the defect. The court left open whether a third-party defendant can bring Art. 138(1)(e) entitlement revocation.

Nichtigkeitsgründe

Art. 138 EPC
1 Grund
Added Matter
Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
Patent invalid (this ground)
“Application vs network service usage activity is material distinction. 26 auxiliary requests failed.”
Feststellungen aus Sicht des Patentinhabers bezeichnet. Quelle: KI-Klassifikation (AI)

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren