Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_18005/2025, 3 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 3 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_127/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division ruled on cross-applications for security for costs in Headwater Research’s infringement action (EP 3 110 072) against three Motorola companies and Flextronics International Europe, all of which had counterclaimed for revocation. He rejected the claimant’s application and ordered it to provide, within six weeks, security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics. The order clarifies the position of a US-based non-practising entity.

Question

May an infringement claimant obtain security from defendants who counterclaim for revocation, and when must a non-practising entity provide security itself?

Decision

Art. 69(4) UPCA does not allow security to be ordered on the application of the infringement claimant. Rule 158, though broader, cannot go beyond the Agreement, and the counterclaim flows directly from the action (paragraphs 15 to 17). Security for the defendants requires justified doubts as to recovery of a costs order, not a present risk of insolvency. The claimant, which holds the financial information, must substantiate its answer (paragraphs 19 and 20). Non-practising entity status is not enough on its own, but Headwater gave no information on licensing income, the value of its portfolio was not established, its credit rating was low and its third-party funding remained unclear (paragraphs 24 to 31). The ceiling on recoverable costs (EUR 600,000) was split two to one between the defendants and then halved, as they had not shown their actual costs (paragraphs 34 to 43). Security also covers the costs of the counterclaim (paragraphs 36 and 37).

Key points for practice

• A non-practising entity that merely asserts it has sufficient means risks an order for security. It should document its income and funding.
• Security may be set below the costs ceiling where the defendant does not quantify its actual costs.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1) and (4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 152, 158.1, 158.3, 158.4 and 355

Other provisions

Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs and guidelines of 24 April 2023

Case law cited

AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_393/2025), TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_651/2024), Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_548/2024), Audi v Network System, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024), Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 26 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_328/2024), Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_15/2023), Ona Patents v Google, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_100/2024), Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_335/2024), ICPillar v ARM, Paris Local Division, 21 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_495/2023)

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.