Opens in a new tab

Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_39544/2024, 11 September 2024)

Date11 September 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_30248/2024 · ORD_39544/2024
PartiesDigital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 11 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_149/2024, ACT_16251/2024, ORD_39544/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Dr Voß), in Headwater Research’s infringement action on EP 3 110 069 against Motorola Mobility and other defendants, refused to find an absolute bar to proceedings against the fifth defendant, named as « Lenovo EMEA DC », but replaced it with Flextronics International Europe B.V., on which the Statement of claim is to be served afresh.

Question

Must a claim directed against a non-existent entity, or one lacking capacity, be dismissed, or may the designation of the defendant be corrected or replaced?

Decision

Rule 362 RoP confers a discretion, and whether lack of capacity under Art. 46 UPCA is an absolute bar is left open. Correcting a misnomer requires that it was clear, to the defendant and the court, who was meant. The name « Lenovo EMEA DC », the reference « c/o Flextronics BV » and an address shared by several companies did not clearly point to Flextronics International Europe B.V., and the claim described the defendant as part of the Lenovo group. A change of party is, however, allowed by analogy with Rule 305.1(c) RoP, since the Rules make no provision for this situation and dismissal would force a new and costlier action, contrary to the principles of proportionality and fairness in the Preamble. The new defendant is not bound by the state of the proceedings: service is not established and it has the full time limits, including for a counterclaim for revocation.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 46
Rules of Procedure
Preamble, point 2, and Rules 305, 362 and 363.1
Case law cited
Court of Appeal, 3 April 2024, APL_588420/2023, UPC_CoA_433/2023

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le juge rapporteur refuse de constater une fin de non-recevoir absolue, écarte la rectification de la désignation de la cinquième défenderesse mais admet son remplacement par Flextronics International Europe B.V., sans que celle-ci soit liée par l'état de la procédure.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 110 069
Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity
recorded proprietor: Headwater Research LLC
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 30 July 2025) · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 30 September 2025) · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 26 September 2025) · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_18004/2025, 3 July 20 · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_69211/2024, 20 June 2 · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 15 June 2025) · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_65305/2024, 14 April · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_65306/2024, 14 April
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.