Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 2026-09-22)

Holding

In this decision on the merits, the Munich Local Division dismissed Maxell's infringement action based on EP 2 403 266 B1, which relates to transferring content display between a portable terminal and an external information processing apparatus, and allowed Samsung's counterclaim for revocation. The court found the claims as granted to lack novelty over a Sony prior art document (D1), found the auxiliary requests to fail for lack of inventive step over D1 combined with a further document disclosing authentication information, or for added matter, and ordered Maxell to bear the costs.

Why it matters

The decision is a further data point in the Maxell v Samsung multi-patent campaign before the Munich division and shows the division deciding validity on a functional claim construction before addressing infringement, which it then did not need to reach. For prior art strategy, the decision illustrates that a single well-chosen anticipation, here the disclosure of an operation panel for controlling content played back on the external device, can carry both the novelty attack on the granted claims and, in combination, the inventive step attack on the auxiliary requests. It also confirms the practical exposure of a claimant on costs when the counterclaim for revocation succeeds in full.

Practical point

Claimants asserting user-interface patents in Munich should stress test auxiliary requests against the closest prior art combinations early, since amendments drawn from the description (internet content, authentication) were held obvious here.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

• 2026-05-05 : Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 2026-05-05)

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.