Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_65305/2024, 14 April 2025)
| Date | 14 April 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_64695/2024 · ORD_65305/2024 |
| Parties | Headwater 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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By procedural order of 14 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_127/2024, ACT_14859/2024, ORD_65305/2024), Judge-rapporteur Voß (Munich Local Division) refused Headwater Research’s request under Rule 303.2 to separate its infringement action on EP 3 110 072 against Flextronics International Europe (Defendant 5) from the action against Motorola Mobility and three other defendants, together with its request that no new court fee be charged (paragraphs 7 and 8). A separate order of the same day deals with a parallel request in action UPC_CFI_149/2024 (EP 3 110 069).
Question
Should proceedings be separated where the action against one defendant, served late after it was wrongly named (« EMEA DC »), is holding up the action against the others?
Decision
Separation lies within the judge’s discretion, weighing procedural economy against undue disadvantage to a party (paragraph 8). Only the more advanced state of the action against Defendants 1 to 4 favoured separation. The same embodiment is attacked and Defendant 5 is said to act as logistics provider for Defendants 1 to 3, so a joint hearing avoids deciding the same issues twice and inconsistent rulings (paragraph 9). A delay of a few months is not unreasonable per se, and the claimant must answer for it, having sued a non-existent or incapable party (paragraph 10). In any event no earlier hearing date is available (paragraph 11).
Key points for practice
- A claimant that misnames a defendant bears the resulting delay and cannot rely on it to obtain separation (paragraph 10).
- Where defendants are sued over the same embodiment, procedural economy and the risk of inconsistent decisions favour keeping the actions together (paragraph 9).
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 303.2
- Case law cited
- No UPC decision is cited.
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
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
Parties
- claimantHeadwater Research LLC15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de disjonction de l'action contre la défenderesse assignée tardivement est rejetée, le retard étant imputable à la demanderesse et l'instruction commune servant l'économie 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
EP 3 110 072mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 3 110 069mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
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.