Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 30 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 30 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_26/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research’s infringement action against four Samsung companies, directed at the “Data Saver” function of devices running Android 7 or later, and revoked EP 3 110 069 to the extent of claim 1 for added matter. Two points are of practical interest: the Court excluded under Rule 9.2 a new argument raised at the hearing on the basis of passages never cited from an application of more than two hundred pages, and it questioned whether lack of entitlement may be relied on by a third party at all.

Facts and procedure

The patent, a divisional in the family of the international application published as WO 2011/149532, was granted on 16 August 2017 with effect in Germany, the Netherlands and France. The defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics Benelux and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) counterclaimed for revocation. By order of 11 June 2025 the judge-rapporteur had refused certain amendments and applications for the production of evidence under Rule 190.1. The oral hearing was held on 17 June 2025.

The applicable law

A divisional patent may not extend beyond the content of the earlier application as filed (Article 76(1) EPC), under the same test as Article 123(2): what the skilled person derives directly and unambiguously from the application as a whole, in the light of common general knowledge, following the Court of Appeal’s order in Abbott v Sibio (paragraphs 105 and 106). Rule 9.2 allows the Court to disregard a step not taken within the time limits. Rule 8.5(c) presumes the registered proprietor to be entitled.

Question

Does claim 1, which provides for blocking an application’s access to the modem when it runs in the background and allowing it when it runs in the foreground, find a basis in the application as filed, and may a new argument raised at the hearing be taken into account?

Decision

The Local Division found added matter, applying, as this was a decision on the merits, a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt (paragraph 107). The earlier application classifies network service usage activities, not applications, as foreground or background, and describes queuing and throttling of traffic, not blocking (paragraphs 108 to 110 and 113 to 115). The argument first put forward at the hearing, based on three passages never cited before, was disregarded under Rule 9.2: it would have forced the Court and the opponent to start afresh, contrary to the front-loaded nature of the procedure (paragraph 112), it failed on the merits in any event (paragraph 113). None of the 26 auxiliary requests cured the defect, the Court leaving open whether that number was reasonable (paragraph 116). On lack of entitlement, the admissibility of the ground when raised by a third party was doubted but left open, as the register presumption had not been rebutted and any co-ownership claim was time-barred (paragraphs 117 to 120). The infringement action, based on claim 1 alone, was dismissed (paragraph 122). Headwater was ordered to bear the costs. The value of each of the two proceedings was set at EUR 3 million and the ceiling for recoverable representation costs at EUR 600,000.

Key points for practice

• A new argument based at the hearing on passages of a lengthy document never relied on before may be disregarded under Rule 9.2 where the issue had been in dispute from the outset (paragraph 112).
• On added matter, the Court drew a strict line between what the application classifies (network activities) and what the claim classifies (applications) (paragraphs 109 and 113).
• Lack of entitlement raised by a third party may be inadmissible, the Court noting the risk of revocation with effect against all without any engagement with the invention (paragraphs 117 and 118).
• Practical point: the basis relied on against an added-matter objection should be identified in the written pleadings, passage by passage, and not at the hearing.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 24(1), 32(1), 33(1), 63(1), 64, 65(2), 69(1), 73(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 9.1, 9.2, 118.5, 152.2, 158, 190.1, 220.1 and 224.1

European Patent Convention

Arts 69, 76(1), 123(2) and 138(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2), 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Tridonic v CUPOWER, Düsseldorf Local Division, 7 March 2025, Regeneron v Amgen, Munich Central Division, 16 July 2024.

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.