2025-10-27 - LD Munich - Headwater Research v. Motorola et al. - UPC_CFI_149/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_149/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Headwater Research LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.

Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division allowed the mutual withdrawal of an infringement action and two revocation counterclaims and made the cost decision that R.

2025-10-27 - LD Munich - Headwater Research v. Motorola et al. - UPC_CFI_149/2024
🗂️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 - Munich (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2025-10-27
🔢UPC_CFI_149/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Headwater Research LLC
Michael SCHNEIDER
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Motorola Mobility LLC
Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC
Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
Flextronics International Europe B.V.
Boris KREYE
Vanessa WERLIN
⚖️Infringement
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Munich Local Division allowed the mutual withdrawal of an infringement action and two revocation counterclaims and made the cost decision that R. 265.2(c) RoP requires. It confirmed that on withdrawal the Court must take a decision on liability for costs under Art. 69(1) UPCA of its own motion, taking any settlement between the parties into account. As against the defendant who was not party to the settlement, the withdrawing claimant is the unsuccessful party: an out-of-court settlement with other defendants is not equivalent to achieving the relief sought, and the claimant had additionally waived its claims against that defendant. On the counterclaim the answer runs the other way — the counterclaimant that withdraws is the unsuccessful party, because the relief it sought, revocation of the patent, was not obtained. The Court expressly delimited the Court of Appeal's AorticLab v Emboline order, which treats a revocation counterclaim as an inherent defensive measure for the purposes of security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP but says nothing about who bears its costs. Court fees were reimbursed at 60% under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP because the written procedure had not yet closed, no date having been set under R. 35(a) and R. 36 RoP.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren