Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_63889/2024, 20 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 20 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_127/2024, EP 3 110 072), the Munich Local Division (Judge-rapporteur Voß) dismissed the preliminary objections to jurisdiction raised by Motorola Mobility, Motorola International Sales, Motorola Mobility Germany and Flextronics International Europe against Headwater Research’s infringement action. The objections were all admissible (paragraphs 38 and 39) but failed on the merits: the Division takes a broad view of the commercial relationship between co-defendants and allows the claimant to supplement the jurisdictional basis in its reply.

Question

Does the Munich Local Division have jurisdiction over US and Dutch defendants sued together with a German subsidiary, and may the claimant rely in its reply on a jurisdictional ground not invoked in the statement of claim?

Decision

Motorola Mobility Germany, established in Germany, falls within the first sentence of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA (paragraphs 41 and 42). For the group companies, common group membership and a shared commercial purpose establish the commercial relationship, and their challenge to its substantiation is a matter for the merits (paragraphs 43 to 52). For Flextronics, a logistics provider, any commercial relationship, even an indirect one, suffices, and the alleged delivery of a sample into Germany satisfies the same-infringement requirement (paragraphs 53 to 58). In the alternative, the claimant may rely on Article 33(1)(a) in its reply on unchanged facts, and that provision is not restricted by the second sentence of paragraph (b) (paragraphs 59 to 72). Leave to appeal was refused (paragraph 74).

Key points for practice

• A claimant may add, in its reply to the objection, a jurisdictional ground not relied on in the statement of claim, provided the facts remain the same.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 33(1)(a) and (b) and 63(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13.1, 19.1, 19.5, 20.1, 21.1, 220.2 and 271.6

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2) and 8(1)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024, NST v VW, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024, OrthoApnea, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, Dish v Aylo, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023, Edwards v Meril, Brussels Local Division, 19 July 2024, OrthoApnea, Paris Local Division, 11 April 2024, ARM v ICPillar, Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 September 2024, Novartis v Celltrion, Hamburg Local Division, 17 March 2025, Daedalus v Xiaomi

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.