Hand Held Products v Scandit (CFI, 24 February 2025)

Date	24 February 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_7141/2025 · ORD_9117/2025
Parties	Scandit AG

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 24 February 2025 following the interim conference of 21 February (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024, ACT_9206/2024, ORD_9117/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Presiding Judge Zigann) set up the oral hearing of 29 April 2025 in the infringement action brought by Hand Held Products against Scandit on EP 3 866 051, in which Scandit has counterclaimed for revocation. The order is mainly of use for its approach to the value of the dispute and its rules on visual aids at the hearing.

Question

How should the value of the counterclaim for revocation be fixed, and which procedural issues can be left to the oral hearing?

Decision

Absent better information, the value of the counterclaim is set, in line with the guidelines, at 150% of the value of the infringement action: EUR 3 million for the action, EUR 4.5 million for the counterclaim, EUR 7.5 million in total (paragraph 1). The partial withdrawal relating to direct infringement was allowed without objection. Decisions on extending the claim and counterclaim, admitting further auxiliary requests, rejecting late submissions and Scandit’s Rule 36 application were left to the hearing (paragraph 2). Exhibits in English need not be translated, and the parties may use slides provided they are served by 24 April 2025 and go no further than their written pleadings.

Key points for practice

The 150% rule for valuing a counterclaim for revocation applies where no more precise information is available.
Practical point: hearing slides must be served in advance and confined to arguments already made in writing.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 36, 105.5, 263 and 333
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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

claimantScandit AG6 decisions in the corpus Follow 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 application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La valeur est fixée à 3 millions d'euros pour l'action et 4,5 millions pour la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, le désistement partiel est admis et plusieurs questions sont renvoyées à l'audience.
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 3 866 051 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 3 866 051`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Scandit v Hand Held Products (CoA, 18 April 2025) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CoA, 31 March 2025) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CFI, 18 March 2025) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CoA, 11 December 2024) · Scandit v Hand Held Products (CoA, 1 November 2024) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CFI, 27 August 2024)	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.