Düsseldorf Local Division
UPC_CFI_99/2024
UPC_CFI_392/2024

Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 1 August 2025
concerning EP 2 263 098 B1

CLAIMANT:
Ona Patents SL, represented by its CEO Raúl Diaz Morales, Carrer de Calàbria 149 En. 1, 08015 Barcelona, Spain
represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Bene-dikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Ger-many
Electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com

COUNTER-DEFENDANT 2:
Ekahau Oy, represented by the Board of Directors Jeremy Rossen, Brian Conrad Stewart und Ari
Olavi Tourunen, Jaakonkatu 5, 00100, Helsinki, Finland
represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Ben-edikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augen-stein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany
Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin Bubendorfer, Patent Attorney M. Sc. Andreas Rauscher, WBH Wachenhausen Patentanwälte
PartGmbB, Müllerstraße 40, 80469 Munich, Germany
electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com

DEFENDANTS:
1. Apple Inc., represented by its CEO Tim Cook, One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, CA 95014, USA
2. Apple Distribution International Ltd., represented by its Directors Cathy Kearny, Michael O’Sullivan and Peter Denwood, Hollyhill Industrial Estate, Hollyhill, Cork, T23 YK84, Republic of Irland
3. Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, represented by its personally liable partner Apple Hold-ing B.V., represented by its CEO Alexander Niemczyk, Michael Joseph Boyd und Peter Ronald Denwood, Maximilianstraße 54, 80538 Munich, Germany
4. Apple GmbH, represented by its CEOs Michael Joseph Boyd und Peter Ronald Denwood, Katharina-von-Bora-Str. 3, 80333 Munich, Germany
5. Apple Retail France EURL, represented by its CEOs Peter Ronald Denwood und Éamonn Clancy, 3-5 rue Saint Georges, 75009 Paris, France
All Defendants represented by: Attorney-at-law Prof Dr Tilman Müller-Stoy, Attor-ney-at-law Dr Tobias Wuttke, Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675 München, Germany
Electronic address for service: mueller-stoy@bardehle.com

PATENT IN SUIT:
European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1

PANEL/DIVISION:
Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf

DECIDING JUDGES:
This Order was made by the Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 9.1, R. 35 RoP

GROUNDS OF THE ORDER:
In light of the previous written submissions by the parties, supplementary presentations and the submission of documents are necessary in the written procedure.
1.
Claimant´s statements concerning the ownership of the patent in suit appears to be slightly con-fusing. Similar issues are raised in the claim and counterclaim and are currently dealt with inade-quately or inconsistently. It should be noted that the exhibits must be placed in the correct context and must be cited correctly. Simply referencing statements in the exhibits is no sufficient presen-tation. Apart from the German part of the patent in question, which has now been registered, and its legal assessment in the context of R. 8.5 (c) RoP, the French part has not yet been registered. The question of the validity of the three alleged assignments therefore appears to be of interest.
a)
In view of the parties’ submissions, the Court understood that Claimant did not state that […] was authorized to solely represent “Ekahau Oy“ on February 29, 2016 signing the first patent assign-ment agreement. Only the legal opinion on Finnish law (Exhibit KAP 15 CR 1) states that ”[o]n 28
3
February 2016, the Board of Directors of Ekahau Oy passed a resolution authorizing […], a board member, to act on behalf of Ekahau Oy and sign the APA and related documents” (Exhibit KAP 15 CR 1, p. 2). However, the Claimant did not submit such a resolution nor the APA. Instead, Claimant relies on a retroactive approval of the first assignment of the patent made by their representatives in this litigation proceedings referring to a (first) power of attorney for Ekahau Oy as counterde-fendant 2 (Exhibit KAP WK 1). This power of attorney was signed by […] in Los Angeles in October 2024. After Defendants argued that the approval is invalid and the power of attorney was not validly executed on behalf auf Ekahau Oy, the Claimant presented a second power of attorney signed by Mr. […], registered Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ekahau Oy, in Los Angeles in
December 2024 (Exhibit KAP WK 4).
In this context the following questions remain:
Which law is applicable to the assignments of the different parts of the patent?
Which power of attorney is relevant for the retroactive approval of the first patent as-signment according to the Claimant?
Which part of the (relevant) power of the attorney covers the retroactive approval of the patent assignment of 29 February 2016?
Why should a “retrospective approval” have also led to the validity of the second and third patent assignments (9 March 2023/19 December 2023) which have been made at a time at which “Ekahau Oy” was still the proprietor of the patent in suit? Again, which law is applicable? Which requirements do have to be met here and why are they met?
If other legal systems than German law are relevant, the presentation must include corresponding documents (such as excerpts from relevant laws and case law).
b)
Regarding the question of […]'s authorisation, the Claimant replaced Exhibit KAP CR 3 with Exhibit KAP WK 6. The Claimant stated that the document authorising […] for AiRISTA Flow, Inc. had been signed by an incorrect person. A comparison of both documents reveals that not only the signatory is different, but also the dates differ. The Claimant shall provide further clarification on which doc-ument is correct and explain why.
c)
The Finnish legal opinion (Exhibit KAP 12) refers to documents that are not yet part of the file and shall be added.
2.
In the light of this order, the requests pursuant Rules 190.1, 191.1 and 36 have been rendered obsolete. Therefore, this order will be also uploaded in the respective workflows to finish them.
4

ORDER:
1. The Claimant shall have the opportunity to comment on the ambiguities and questions
raised by the Court by 20 August 2025.
2. Within the same deadline Claimant shall provide the following documents:
the Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA”) which the first patent assignment agreement
is referring to
the Share Purchase Agreement of 26 February 2016
the amended Articles of Association of AiRISTA International Oy on 26 February 2016
the relevant document showing that, the Board of Directors of AiRISTA lnternational
Oy resolved to authorize […], […], and […] each individually to sign the APA and re-
lated documents on behalf of AiRISTA lnternational Oy on 26 February 2016
Resolutions passed by the shareholders of AIRISTA lnternational Oy on 9 March 2023,
authorizing […] to sign all necessary agreements and documents related to the Patent
Assignments on behalf of AiRISTA lnternational Oy.
Purchase Agreement dated 19 December 2023 which the third patent assignment
agreement is referring to.
3. After Claimant´s submission the Defendants have the opportunity to comment on them
by 3 September 2025.
4. Judge-Rapporteur intends to close the written procedure on 4 September 2025.

DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
ORD_34168/2025, App_48253/2024, App_41752/2024, App_41753/2024 related to the main pro-ceedings ACT_11910/2024 and CC_40010/2024
UPC-Number: UPC_CFI_99/2024 and UPC_CFI_392/2024
Subject of the Proceedings: Infringement action and revocation action
Issued in Düsseldorf on 1 August 2025