Fingon v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 5 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In Fingon’s action against Samsung for infringement of EP 2 839 403, the judge rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division held that the new examples added in the reply (Galaxy S25, further trusted applications) did not amend the claim, refused to extend the time for the rejoinder and left to the panel, after the oral hearing, whether those submissions should be excluded. The order draws the line between a new argument and an amendment of the claim under Rule 263.

Question

Does adding, in the reply, new examples of the attacked embodiment amend the claim so as to require leave, and does it justify excluding those submissions or extending the time for the rejoinder?

Decision

Not every new argument is an amendment: an amendment requires a change in the nature or scope of the dispute, such as relying on another patent or attacking another product (UPC_CoA_456/2024). The added examples illustrate the functionality already attacked, and the S25 models are not a new embodiment, since neither party identified a relevant difference.

As the relevance of the submissions remains open, the decision on their exclusion is postponed to the panel after the oral hearing. The extension of the Rule 29(d) period was refused, as the attacked functionality is in the defendants’ own products.

Key points for practice

• A claimant may support its case with new examples of the same embodiment without seeking leave under Rule 263.
• An extension request must be specifically justified. The defendant’s familiarity with its own products weighs against it.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 29(d), 263 and 334(f)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024, UPC_CoA_456/2024

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.