Opens in a new tab

Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 15 June 2025)

Date15 June 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_26/2024
Registry referenceACT_3932/2024 · UPC_CFI_26/2024 · ORD_69284/2024
PartiesHeadwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 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

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
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

  • UPC_CFI_26/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 15 June 2025 Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 15 June 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_26/2024
  4. 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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_65305/2024, 14 April · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_65306/2024, 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.