Maxell v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 22 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 4 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Munich local division revokes the European part of Maxell’s patent for lack of novelty and dismisses the infringement action. The decision confirms that an auxiliary request drawn from the description does not escape an obviousness objection where it merely adds a function already disclosed by the closest prior art. For a patent owner it reads as a reminder: the fallback strategy is built during case management, not at the hearing.

Facts and procedure

Maxell, proprietor of European patent 2 403 266 on transferring content display between a portable terminal and an external processing apparatus, sued Samsung Electronics and four European subsidiaries on 10 March 2025 before the Munich Local Division. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation on lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and added matter. The interim conference of 30 April 2026 narrowed the dispute to five validity attacks and twelve auxiliary requests. The oral hearing was held on 23 July 2026.

The applicable law

The validity of a European patent before the Unified Patent Court is assessed under Articles 52 to 57 and 138 of the European Patent Convention, the scope of the claims being determined under Article 69 and its interpretative protocol. Where a counterclaim for revocation is brought, the local division may rule on validity and on infringement itself (Article 65(2) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court), an application to amend the patent being governed by Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure.

Question

Does the patent survive the revocation attacks, and must the Court still rule on infringement where validity fails.

Decision

The Munich Local Division dismisses the infringement action and allows the counterclaim for revocation. The claims as granted lack novelty over a Sony prior art document. The auxiliary requests fail for lack of inventive step over that document combined with a second one, or for added matter. Maxell bears the costs.

Key points for practice

• The division decides validity first, on a functional construction of the claims, and no longer needs to rule on infringement.
• Two disputed features are held to be disclosed, explicitly or necessarily, by prior art D1 (paragraphs 69 to 75).
• Auxiliary request 3 is held obvious over D1 combined with a document from the defendant’s own portfolio disclosing the transmission of authentication information (paragraphs 86 and 87).
• Practical point: stress test auxiliary requests against the closest prior art combinations from the interim stage, since amendments drawn from the description were held obvious here.

Provisions applied

European Patent Convention

Art. 52, Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 69, Art. 138

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 65(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 25.1, 30.2, 44, 105.5 and 263

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, on claim construction.

Related decisions

• Maxell v Samsung Electronics, 10 August 2026, same series of disputes, UPC_CFI_251/2025.
• Samsung Electronics Benelux v Maxell, 10 August 2026, Dutch leg of the same series.
• Maxell v Samsung Electronics, 5 May 2026, earlier case management step.
• Bruker Spatial Biology v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 1 October 2025, on claim construction.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the decision and the official registry record, consulted on 4 October 2026. It does not replace reading the decision itself.