Opens in a new tab

Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 12 November 2024)

Date12 November 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionProcedural Order
Registry referenceApp_40276/2024 · ORD_49223/2024
PartiesQualcomm 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 391 947
Verifiable 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.