Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 29 September 2025)
| Date | 29 September 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Withdrawal (RoP265) |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_496/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_496/2025 |
| Parties | Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. o.a. |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 2 October 2025 : Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 2 October 2025) UPC_CFI_496/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
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.
Parties
- claimantHeadwater Research LLC15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSamsung Electronics Co. Ltd. o.aFollow this party
Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 29 September 2025 Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 29 September 2025) Withdrawal (RoP265) · UPC_CFI_496/2025
- 2 October 2025 Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 2 October 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_496/2025
La division rectifie d'office le point 6 du dispositif de la décision du 29 septembre 2025 : le greffe rembourse au demandeur 60 % des frais de justice, soit 14 400 euros.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Withdrawal (RoP265)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La division autorise le désistement consenti de l'action en contrefaçon, déclare la procédure close, laisse à chaque partie ses frais et ordonne le remboursement de 60 % des frais de justice.
- 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 patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 2 October 2025) cited in this record
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
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 110 072Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity recorded proprietor: Headwater Research LLC | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 12 August 2025) · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_18004/2025, 3 July 20 · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_18005/2025, 3 July 20 · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_63889/2024, 20 June 2 · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_65305/2024, 14 April · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_39538/2024, 11 Septem · Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, 13 May 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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.