LD The Hague, August 10, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_251/2025, UPC_CFI_769/2025

Following the order issued after the interim conference, Maxell reduced the number of auxiliary requests from 44 to 10. Samsung, which had originally cited 24 documents against the main request and the auxiliary requests, correspondingly reduced its attacks against the main request to added matter, lack of novelty based on 3 documents, and lack of inventive step based on a combination of 2 documents; the attacks against the auxiliary requests were reduced to a set of 5 documents (mn. 13-16).

The proprietor argued that the phrase “a history of operations” requires more than one operation, which would have avoided anticipation by prior art disclosing only a single operation. The Court rejected this understanding based on functional considerations (technically, it was meaningful to use only a single operation) as well as on an embodiment in the patent describing a scenario with a single operation (mn. 43-45), and applied the resulting construction equally to novelty, allowing a single operation in the prior art to destroy novelty.

In case auxiliary requests limit the scope of protection of the patent progressively, and the auxiliary request that limits the scope furthest is not considered inventive, the previous auxiliary requests are also obvious as these contain less distinguishing features (headnote 2, mn. 68).

In the absence of any functional interdependencies that establish a synergistic effect, a plurality of routine modifications that the skilled person would each take as a next step and as a matter of routine, amount to a mere aggregation of features that is obvious (headnote 1, mn. 80).

The claim required the mobile phone to trigger a handback, instructing the television to stop displaying and return content to the phone. Embodiments of D1 disclosed only a forward handover from mobile phone to television, with no return mechanism. The background section of D1, however, mentioned that a user might want to continue watching on the mobile phone after leaving the television behind. The Court found this sufficient to direct the skilled person to D3, whose “catch operation” discloses that reverse handback in detail (mn. 84-86, 96-99).