Headwater v Samsung (UPC_CFI_26/2024)
Decision date:
30 July 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Headwater brought infringement proceedings against Samsung. Headwater's patent relates to a wireless end-user device that controls application access to network services based on whether the application is running in a foreground or background state. Headwater claimed that Samsung infringes the patent through the 'Data Saver' functionality in System Android 7.
- Samsung counterclaimed for revocation of the patent, arguing that the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, inventive step, and lack of entitlement.
- The Düsseldorf LD found the patent to be invalid, concluding that the subject-matter of claim 1 extended beyond the content of the earlier patent application as filed, constituting added matter under Article 76(1) EPC. Specifically, the court held that the earlier application did not disclose the determination of whether a device application is running in a background or foreground state, nor did it disclose the control via an API to selectively block or allow access based on this determination.
- One notable aspect of the case arose in relation to Rule 9.2 RoP. Headwater had raised a new line of added matter arguments at the oral hearing, which related to a passage of one of the documents already under consideration. The issue had been raised from the outset, but the new argument was based on a different passage of a lengthy document. The court concluded that it and the other party should not be forced to "deal with it from scratch". To have allowed the argument would have undermined the front-loaded nature of the proceedings as established by the RoP and which is central to UPC procedure. The Düsseldorf LD noted that the argument could easily have been put forward in accordance with the time limits set by the RoP and therefore the court had to exercise its discretion under Rule 9.2 RoP to disregard the argument. In any event, the court stated that the argument would have failed on the merits, so the intervention was not ultimately consequential to the outcome.
- The court also addressed Samsung's lack of entitlement arguments. The Düsseldorf LD confirmed that Headwater did have standing to sue as it was the registered proprietor of the patent in suit in all national patent registers of the UPC contracting member states in which it sought an injunction. Thus, the presumption of Rule 8.5(c) RoP applied. The presumption of the register was not rebutted by Samsung's arguments regarding alleged co-ownership.
- Due to the court's invalidity finding, the Headwater's infringement claim failed.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.