Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_196/2025, 5 May 2026)
| Date | 5 May 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_196/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_196/2025 |
| Parties | Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 22 September 2026 : Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 22 September 2026) UPC_CFI_196/2025
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
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
- The value of a counterclaim may be set higher than that of the infringement action, with the counterclaimant paying the additional fee.
- A request under Rule 262.2 is not to be read as a request for protection between the parties under Rule 262A.
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
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
- claimantMaxell, Ltd.7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 5 May 2026 Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_196/2025, 5 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_196/2025
- 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
EP 2 403 266 B1mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 22 September 2026) cited in this record
- Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_665/2025, 5 May 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 403 266 B1 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.