Opens in a new tab

Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_196/2025, 5 May 2026)

Date5 May 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_196/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_196/2025
PartiesMaxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 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

Following the interim conference of 30 April 2026 in infringement action UPC_CFI_196/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_665/2025 concerning EP 2 403 266, held by Maxell, Ltd., the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division sets the value of the proceedings and organises the oral hearing. The published text is a rectified version, deleting incorrect information at the end of section I of the order issued earlier the same day. The order shows how the division narrows the dispute before the hearing.

Question

What value should be set for each action, and how should the validity attacks and auxiliary requests be limited before the hearing of 23 July 2026?

Decision

The value of the infringement action is set at EUR 2,000,000 and that of the counterclaim at EUR 3,000,000, on the judge-rapporteur’s proposal accepted by the parties. The defendants must arrange the additional fee payment by 15 May 2026 (Rule 371.4). Under the agreements recorded, the defendants will limit their attacks on the patent as granted to five or six, Maxell will reduce its 34 auxiliary requests to about ten, and attacks on each auxiliary request will be limited to one or two. The judge-rapporteur states that the defendants’ confidentiality requests under Rule 262.2 are not implied requests under Rule 262A and concern only third-party access to the register. No court expert is to be appointed. Speaking time at the hearing is allocated by topic.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 105.5, 262.2, 262A, 353 and 371.4

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_196/2025 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. 5 May 2026 Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_196/2025, 5 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_196/2025
  2. 22 September 2026 Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 22 September 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_196/2025

    In this decision on the merits, the Munich Local Division dismissed Maxell's infringement action based on EP 2 403 266 B1, which relates to transferring content display between a portable terminal and an external information processing apparatus, and allowed Samsung's counterclaim for revocation. The court found the cl…

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le juge rapporteur fixe la valeur de l'action en contrefaçon à 2 000 000 EUR et celle de la demande reconventionnelle à 3 000 000 EUR, et consigne les accords limitant les moyens de nullité et les requêtes subsidiaires avant l'audience.
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

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 2 403 266 B1Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 22 September 2026) · Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 23 April 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
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.