Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 15 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 15 January 2026 in infringement action UPC_CFI_100/2024 and the joined counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_411/2024, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both claims in the dispute between Ona Patents and Google Ireland and Google Commerce over EP 2 263 098, which concerns estimating the position of an object by means of a second object and signalling devices. The patent was held valid, but the Pixel smartphones and tablets, along with the earbuds, watches and the « Find my Device » and « Google Fit » features, do not infringe it.

The decision offers two lessons: the registered proprietor has standing without the claimant having to search for the entitled owner, and a product made of several components directly infringes a product claim only if it has every claimed component.

Facts and procedure

Ona Patents, which became the registered proprietor in Germany and France during the proceedings, sued the two Google companies. Ekahau Oy, the original registered proprietor, was joined as second defendant to the counterclaim. On 1 August 2025 the judge-rapporteur ordered further details of the chain of assignments. The indirect infringement claims that Ona filed unsolicited on 1 September 2025 were rejected as inadmissible on 14 October 2025, and Ona sought review of that order. The oral hearing took place on 29 October 2025. Ona sought, among other things, an injunction, recall, information, an interim award of EUR 500,000 and interim costs of EUR 300,000.

The applicable law

Direct infringement falls under Art. 25 UPCA and indirect infringement under Art. 26. Inventive step is assessed under the Court of Appeal’s approach (objective problem, could versus would) (paragraphs 152 to 163). Costs follow the event under Art. 69(1) and Rule 118.5, subject to the scale adopted under Rule 152.2.

Question

Can the registered proprietor sue despite a dispute over its title, and do Pixel devices, some of whose components are in accessories, reproduce the « positioning engine » of claim 9?

Decision

On standing, the law gives priority to registration over entitlement. The claimant need not search for the entitled proprietor unless entitlement is effectively rebutted in the infringement action (paragraphs 117 and 118). The counterclaim against Ekahau was reasonable when filed but fails, as Ekahau is no longer the registered proprietor (paragraphs 119 to 122). The patent survives: no added matter (paragraph 124), novelty, as D1 does not disclose features 9.9 and 9.12.3 (paragraphs 130 to 134), and no obviousness starting from D1, D2, D3, D4 or D6, the attacks resting in part on hindsight (paragraphs 164 to 175).

There is no infringement: claim 9 is a product claim and the phones and tablets lack the controller, which sits in accessories (paragraphs 179 to 181), the claimed signal sequence was not substantiated (paragraphs 182 to 186), claim 10 is not infringed either (paragraph 187). The review request was dismissed, indirect infringement having been raised late without justification (paragraphs 188 to 192). The order upholds the order of 14 October 2025, dismisses the infringement action and the counterclaim, and orders Ona to bear the costs of the infringement action and Google those of the counterclaim, save that Ona must pay 20% of them given its initially confusing statements on title (paragraph 193), the value is EUR 6,000,000 for the action and EUR 9,000,000 for the counterclaim, with an overall ceiling of EUR 800,000 spread evenly over both actions (paragraph 194). The decision will be sent to the EPO and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office once final.

Key points for practice

• Registration determines standing to sue and to defend a counterclaim. Entitlement is examined only where it is effectively rebutted (paragraphs 117 and 118).
• A product made of several components directly infringes a product claim only if it has each of them. Partial components can at most support indirect infringement (paragraphs 179 to 181).
• Indirect infringement must be pleaded in the written procedure. A late unsolicited request will be rejected (paragraphs 188 to 192).
• Practical point: an assignee should document the chain of title early, or part of the counterclaim costs may be laid at its door.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 26, 31, 32(1)(a) and (e), 33(1)(a) and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 8.6, 25.1, 36, 42, 61.2, 118.5, 152.2, 305b and 333

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2), 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Expert Klein, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, NanoString v Harvard College, Munich Central Division, 17 October 2024, NJOY v Juul Labs, Paris Central Division, 5 November 2024, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 January 2025, Kaldewei v Bette, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024

Related decisions

• Ona Patents v Google Ireland, 14 October 2025, order of the judge-rapporteur rejecting the late indirect infringement requests, upheld on review in the decision.

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.