Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 12 November 2024)
| Date | 12 November 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Procedural Order |
| Registry reference | App_40276/2024 · ORD_49223/2024 |
| Parties | Qualcomm Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
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
By order of 12 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_54/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, in Headwater Research’s infringement action against Samsung Electronics based on EP 2 391 947, ordered Qualcomm, a third party, to produce within seven days an electronic copy of a patent assignment agreement of 18 December 2006. The defendants sought to show that the claimant is not the sole proprietor of the invention, which would affect its standing and ground revocation under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC. The order illustrates the production of documents held by a third party under Rule 190 RoP.
Question
Can production of an assignment agreement held by a third party be ordered where the third party does not object and the claimant disputes the document’s relevance?
Decision
As Qualcomm did not oppose the request and stated that it would comply, production was ordered. A refusal would only be justified if the document were of no use at all in the proceedings, which was not the case. A US decision finding that the claimant had standing is not final and, even if it were, would not bind the UPC. Non-compliance may lead to a penalty payment of up to EUR 5,000 per day, confidentiality will be addressed on application when the document is produced. The defendants were invited to withdraw their parallel applications against the claimant, which become moot once the document is produced.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: to challenge entitlement, a production request may be directed at the third-party contracting party, whose lack of objection eases the order, a foreign ruling on standing does not bind the UPC.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 45, 58, 59(1) and 82(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 102.2, 115, 190, 262 and 333
- European Patent Convention
- Art. 138(1)(e)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
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.
Proceedings
Parties
- defendantSamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.22 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSamsung Electronics GmbH21 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSamsung Electronics France S.A.S12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantQualcomm Inc.Follow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Procedural Order
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Qualcomm, tiers non opposant, doit produire sous sept jours le contrat de cession de brevet du 18 décembre 2006, sous astreinte pouvant atteindre 5 000 euros par jour.
- 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 2 391 947mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 391 947Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation recorded proprietor: Headwater Partners I LLC | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 12 June 2024) · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 1 April 2025) · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 3 March 2025) · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 24 January 2025) · Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 2 October 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.