Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 15 June 2025)
| Date | 15 June 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_26/2024 |
| Registry reference | ACT_3932/2024 · UPC_CFI_26/2024 · ORD_69284/2024 |
| Parties | Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 26 September 2025 : Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 26 September 2025) UPC_CFI_26/2024
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 order of 15 June 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismisses the request by four Samsung companies that Headwater Research, the US claimant in the action for infringement of EP 3 110 069 B1, provide security of EUR 400,000 for legal costs. The order, made in the joined infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, confirms that non-practising entity status and a seat in the United States are not, on their own, enough to justify security.
Question
Can security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 be imposed on a claimant established in the United States and described as a non-practising entity with no visible assets?
Decision
Referring to the Court of Appeal, the division recalls that the defendant need only show that enforcing a costs order would be unduly burdensome, not that it would be impossible, and that the burden of proof lies on the defendant. As the defendants produced no evidence of US law or its application, the request fails on that ground alone. Moreover, US courts routinely recognise and enforce foreign judgments. No concrete facts point to a risk of insolvency: the claimant relies on a portfolio of 95 patent families, recurring licensing income and access to third-party investor funds. The request for security is dismissed.
Key points for practice
- A request for security for costs must be supported by evidence of the law and enforcement practice of the claimant’s home state. Assertions alone will not do.
- Non-practising entity status does not in itself establish a risk of insolvency.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 158.1
- Case law cited
- Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Volkswagen v Network System, Munich Local Division, 23 April 2024, UPC_CFI_514/2023.
Related decisions
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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.
Parties
- claimantHeadwater Research LLC15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSamsung Electronics GmbH a.o2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 18 September 2024 Google Commerce v Ona Patents (CoA, 18 September 2024) Appeal RoP220.1 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel annule le refus du président du tribunal de première instance et fixe l'anglais, langue du brevet, comme langue de la procédure, le choix de l'allemand par le demandeur relevant de la seule commodité.
- 18 September 2024 Apple Retail Germany v Ona Patents (CoA, 18 September 2024) Appeal RoP220.1 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d’appel infirme le refus du président et ordonne que l’action d’Ona Patents contre Apple se poursuive en anglais, langue du brevet, l’allemand désavantageant nettement le défendeur.
- 15 June 2025 Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 15 June 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_26/2024
- 26 September 2025 Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 26 September 2025) Withdrawal (RoP265) · UPC_CFI_26/2024
La division autorise le désistement consenti de l'action en contrefaçon, déclare la procédure close, laisse à chaque partie ses frais et constate que la décision du 30 juillet 2025 devient sans effet.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La division locale de Düsseldorf rejette la demande de garantie pour frais de 400 000 euros visant le demandeur américain, faute de preuve d’une exécution excessivement difficile aux États-Unis ou d’un risque d’insolvabilité.
- Appeal
- An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 110 069mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 26 September 2025) cited in this record
- Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 30 July 2025) cited in this record
- Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CoA, 29 November 2024) cited in this record
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.