Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_69211/2024, 20 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 20 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_149/2024, EP 3 110 069), the Munich Local Division (Judge-rapporteur Voß) dismissed the preliminary objections to jurisdiction raised by Motorola Mobility, Motorola International Sales, Motorola Mobility Germany and Flextronics International Europe against Headwater Research’s infringement action. The two US companies’ objections were out of time: the deemed service rule in Rule 271.6(b) does not apply to service in the United States, and the date shown in the CMS is irrelevant (paragraphs 39 to 42). The order takes a broad view of the commercial relationship required between co-defendants.

Question

Does the Munich Local Division have jurisdiction over US and Dutch defendants sued together with a German subsidiary, and may the claimant rely in its reply on a jurisdictional ground not invoked in the statement of claim?

Decision

Motorola Mobility Germany, established in Germany, falls within the first sentence of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA (paragraphs 46 and 47). For the group companies, common group membership and a shared commercial purpose establish the commercial relationship, and their challenge to its substantiation is a matter for the merits (paragraphs 50 to 57). For Flextronics, a logistics provider outside the group, any commercial relationship, even an indirect one, suffices, and the alleged delivery of a sample into Germany satisfies the same-infringement requirement (paragraphs 60 to 63). In the alternative, the claimant may rely on Article 33(1)(a) in its reply on unchanged facts, and that provision is not restricted by the second sentence of paragraph (b) (paragraphs 65 to 77). Leave to appeal was refused (paragraph 79).

Key points for practice

• For a defendant served outside the Contracting Member States, the one-month period under Rule 19.1 runs from actual delivery: objections filed one day after it expired were inadmissible.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 33(1)(a) and (b) and 63(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13.1, 19.1, 19.5, 20.1, 21.1, 220.2 and 271.6

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2) and 8(1)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024, NST v VW, Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024, OrthoApnea, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, Dish v Aylo, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023, Edwards v Meril, Brussels Local Division, 19 July 2024, OrthoApnea, Paris Local Division, 11 April 2024, ARM v ICPillar, Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 September 2024, Novartis v Celltrion, Hamburg Local Division, 17 March 2025, Daedalus v Xiaomi, Hamburg Local Division, 12 December 2024, Hand Held Products v Scandit

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.