Samsung Electronics v Fingon (CFI, 4 April 2025)

Date	4 April 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_11176/2025
Parties	Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v. Fingon LLC

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 4 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_750/2024, ORD_11176/2025), Judge-rapporteur Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection of Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France in Fingon LLC’s infringement action on EP 2 839 403. The opt-out declared on 25 May 2023 by OLogN Technologies, then the proprietor, had been withdrawn by Fingon on 13 November 2024 on the strength of an assignment dated 29 April 2024. The order leaves to the merits the challenge to ownership on which the validity of the withdrawal was said to depend, and upholds UPC jurisdiction over acts before 1 June 2023 and over the opt-out period.

Question

Can the validity of an opt-out withdrawal, challenged on the ground that the claimant does not own the patent, be decided on a preliminary objection, and does UPC jurisdiction extend to acts before the Agreement entered into force and to the opt-out period?

Decision

Questions relevant both to jurisdiction and to the merits are in principle not decided in the preliminary objection procedure. Ownership, on which the whole action depends, belongs to the merits (Rule 20.2 RoP). Following the Munich Local Division, he held that Articles 3(c), 31(1) and 83 UPCA found jurisdiction over acts before 1 June 2023, without impermissible retroactivity, jurisdiction and applicable law being distinct. Since an opt-out and its withdrawal take effect on entry in the register, the intervening period is not removed from the UPC. A stay pending appeals UPC_CoA_156/2025 and UPC_CoA_170/2025 was refused, as was leave to appeal.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a challenge to the claimant’s title to the patent, even framed as an attack on the opt-out withdrawal, will in principle be heard on the merits, not as a preliminary objection.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 3(c), 31(1), 32(1)(a) and 83
Rules of Procedure: Rules 19.1(a), 20.1, 20.2, 220.2 and 295
Case law cited: Fives ECL v REEL, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2025, Munich Local Division, 10 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_342/2024 and UPC_CFI_483/2024), Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024)

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

claimantSamsung Electronics GmbH21 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSamsung Electronics France S.A.S12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantFingon LLCFollow this party

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: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): L'exception préliminaire est rejetée : la titularité conditionnant le retrait de l'opt-out relève du fond, et la JUB est compétente pour les actes antérieurs au 1er juin 2023 et pour la période de l'opt-out.
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 2 839 403 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 16 January 2025) cited in this record
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v Polytech Health & Aesthetics (CFI, 7 May 2026) cites this decision
Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 17 April 2025) cites this decision

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 839 403`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Fingon v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 16 July 2025) · Fingon v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 5 June 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.