Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 24 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 24 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024, EP 2 391 947), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Judge Zigann) granted Headwater Research leave to amend its requests in its infringement action against three Samsung companies and in the counterclaim for revocation, invited it to respond to Samsung’s brief on standing and set the close of the written procedure for 6 February 2025. A case management order, it shows how the judge defuses a dispute over late arguments before deciding it.

Question

Should the patentee’s applications to amend be allowed while the admissibility of the opponent’s late new invalidity arguments remains to be examined?

Decision

The judge granted the applications to amend (Rule 263) pending a further review of whether Samsung’s late arguments are admissible: if they are admitted, Headwater will already have had the chance to respond and amend, if they are rejected, the amendments cause no harm. The matter will be discussed at the interim conference on 28 February 2025. For want of grounds, the request to set aside the orders of 13 January 2025 was dismissed, but Headwater was heard, in writing by 6 February 2025. Samsung’s confidentiality application (Rule 262A) was dismissed as superfluous, a confidentiality order already being in place.

Key points for practice

• Leave to amend may be granted provisionally where the admissibility of the arguments prompting it has not yet been decided.
• Practical point: one confidentiality order per proceeding is enough, a fresh Rule 262A application is unnecessary.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 36, 262.2, 262A and 263

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.