Samsung Electronics Benelux v Maxell (CFI, 10 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 10 August 2026, given in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_251/2025) and the joined counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_769/2025), The Hague Local Division revokes Maxell, Ltd.’s EP 2 061 230 in its entirety and accordingly dismisses the action against four Samsung companies, without examining infringement. Claim 1 as granted lacks novelty, and none of the ten auxiliary requests maintained is inventive. The decision matters for practitioners in two respects: it treats a plurality of routine modifications without functional interdependence as an obvious aggregation, and it examines the narrowest auxiliary request first in order to dispose of the broader ones.

Facts and procedure

The patent concerns a portable terminal, such as a mobile phone, which casts displayed content to an external device, such as a television set, by sending it identification and history information (paragraphs 25 and 26). It is validated in France, Germany and the Netherlands and was not opposed. Maxell brought its action on 29 March 2025, asserting claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, Samsung counterclaimed for revocation on 5 September 2025. Following the order issued after the interim conference on 10 April 2026, Maxell reduced its forty-four auxiliary requests to ten. The parties agreed on recoverable costs of EUR 400,000. International jurisdiction over all defendants is founded, of the court’s own motion, on Article 26 of Regulation 1215/2012 (paragraph 17).

The applicable law

The claims are construed under Article 69 EPC, on the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal, which apply alike to infringement and validity (paragraph 29). Novelty falls under Article 54 EPC and inventive step under Article 56 EPC. On the latter, the division applies the Court of Appeal’s approach: the objective problem is framed by reference to the technical effects of the invention, the claim is obvious if the skilled person, from a realistic starting point, would have arrived at it, and that unimaginative skilled person needs a pointer or takes the next step as a matter of routine (paragraphs 63 to 67).

Question

Can a set of distinguishing features, each of them obvious, make auxiliary requests inventive, and how should the division approach requests that progressively narrow the scope of the patent?

Decision

Having adopted a broad construction of several features (paragraphs 29 to 51), the division holds that claim 1 lacks novelty over D3 (US 2006/0263048 A1), the playback position at stop being history information (paragraphs 52 to 60). As the auxiliary requests narrow the patent progressively, it examines the narrowest ones (7a and 8a) first: if they are not inventive, the earlier requests, which contain fewer distinguishing features, are not inventive either (paragraph 68). Inventive step is judged by what the invention adds as a whole. Absent any functional interdependence producing a synergistic effect, accumulated routine modifications are an obvious aggregation (paragraphs 79 to 83). The only substantive distinction, the handback of the content to the terminal, follows from combining D1 (US 2007/0136488 A1) with D3, D1 containing a pointer towards D3 (paragraphs 84 to 100). The remaining features are routine modifications (paragraphs 101 to 130). Since the patent is revoked in its entirety, the infringement action fails (paragraph 131). Maxell bears the costs, EUR 200,000 in each action (paragraph 133). The redacted versions of the pleadings remain confidential vis-à-vis third parties (paragraph 134).

Key points for practice

• The division follows the Court of Appeal’s inventive step method, built on a realistic starting point and on the need for a pointer or a routine step.
• Without a demonstrated synergistic effect, adding ordinary features is not enough: in practice, the burden of showing functional interdependence falls on the patentee.
• Examining the narrowest auxiliary request disposes of the broader requests in one step.
• Practical point: a patentee filing numerous auxiliary requests should build them around an identifiable combined technical effect, failing which the narrowest of them may carry all the others with it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 73(1) and Art. 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.1, 19.1, 19.7, 105.5, 118.8, 158.2, 220.1(a), 224.1(a), 262.2, 262.3, 354 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, 56 and 69

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 26

Case law cited

NanoString Technologies v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Amgen v Regeneron, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, UPC_CoA_646/2024, VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands, Court of Appeal, 29 December 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026, Promosome v BioNTech, Munich Local Division, 7 July 2026.

Related decisions

• Maxell v Samsung Electronics, 10 April 2026, order issued after the interim conference.

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.