Opens in a new tab

Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_65306/2024, 14 April 2025)

Date14 April 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_64692/2024 · ORD_65306/2024
PartiesHeadwater Research 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 an order of 14 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_149/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division dismissed Headwater Research’s application to sever its infringement action (EP 3 110 069), insofar as it targets Flextronics International Europe, the fifth defendant, from the proceedings against the Motorola companies and Digital River, and to waive a new court fee. The delay concerning Flextronics stemmed from the claimant’s mistake as to which company it sued. The order confirms that severance under Rule 303.2 is driven first by procedural economy.

Question

May a claimant have the action against a co-defendant whose proceedings have fallen behind severed, so as to speed up judgment against the others?

Decision

No. Rule 303.2 confers a discretion: procedural economy must be weighed against any unfair disadvantage to a party (paragraph 8). Only the more advanced stage of the proceedings against defendants 1 to 4 favoured severance. Procedural economy called for a joint hearing, since the actions concern the same embodiment and Flextronics allegedly acts as logistics provider and intermediary for the Motorola companies, which also avoids conflicting decisions (paragraph 9). A delay of a few months is not unfair in itself, particularly as it resulted from the claimant’s choice to sue first an entity that did not exist or lacked capacity, not from a mere misnomer. It could have brought a separate action from the outset (paragraph 10). In any event no hearing date was available that would allow defendants 1 to 4 to be heard earlier (paragraph 11). The fee question did not arise (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rule 303.2

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)
La demande de Headwater de disjoindre l'action contre Flextronics est rejetée, l'économie de la procédure commandant une audience commune.
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_39544/2024, 11 Septem
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.