While the decision closely follows the UPC’s established case law on infringement and validity, it includes notable commentary on Ona Patent’s “confusing and inconsistent” position on proprietorship and entitlement, as well as on its late-filed claim for indirect infringement.

Proprietorship and entitlement

Ona Patent filed a direct infringement claim against Google at the Düsseldorf Local Division in March 2024 in respect of the French and German parts of EP2263098 , with arguments centring on Google’s “Find My Device” technology. However, at that time, Ekahau Oy (Ekahau) was registered as sole proprietor of the patent on both national registers. Therefore, Google lodged a counterclaim for revocation against both Ona Patent and Ekahau. Ekahau argued that it had been incorrectly included in the counterclaim and requested that it be removed as counter-defendant.

Google raised concerns surrounding the power of attorney documents filed by the representative of Ona Patent and Ekahau, questioning whether the representative was properly authorised to act for both parties. Google also objected to the completeness and authenticity of the documents filed as evidence of the transfer of ownership from Ekahau to Ona Patent.

The Düsseldorf Local Division shared some of Google’s concerns and the judge-rapporteur issued an order for Ona Patent and Ekahau to produce specific documents to clarify the ownership position. These documents were provided shortly thereafter alongside several other “unsolicited” documents.

Ultimately, the Düsseldorf Local Division held that Google had been correct to bring its counterclaim against both parties, emphasising that, in proceedings concerning validity and/or non-infringement, priority is given to information recorded in the patent registers. Here, the Düsseldorf Local Division confirmed that the claimant need not attempt to verify the true Proprietor beyond the information available on the register.

Despite Google being unsuccessful in its counterclaim for revocation, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided that Ona Patent’s “confusing and inconsistent” position on entitlement and proprietorship, alongside the fact that an order from the judge-rapporteur was required before Ona Patent produced certain documents, meant that Ona Patent should share in the costs.

Accordingly, the court ordered Ona Patent to bear 20% of the costs relating to the counterclaim, which would have been expected to be borne by Google in their entirety.

Late filed claim for indirect infringement rejected 

After the written procedure had been closed, Ona Patent filed further submissions seeking to introduce a new indirect infringement claim. Initially, the judge-rapporteur rejected this new claim, but Ona Patent requested a review, arguing that all points relevant to indirect infringement had already been discussed.

The Düsseldorf Local Division upheld the initial decision to reject the indirect infringement claim, citing the need for a “front-loaded” procedure and the need to allow the defendant to properly respond to such a claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division also highlighted Ona Patent’s lack of justification for the late filing, especially since Google had highlighted in its statement of defence that no indirect infringement claim had been made.

Key conclusions

This decision provides another reminder of the UPC’s emphasis on a “front-loaded” procedure in which parties are expected to present all facts, claims, arguments and requests at the earliest possible stage. As noted in an earlier article (see related articles), parties seeking to amend their case after the statement of claim will face significant procedural hurdles.

The decision also takes a dim view of Ona Patent’s delay in clarifying its position on proprietorship and entitlement. The Düsseldorf Local Division took particular issue with the fact that an order from the judge-rapporteur was required for Ona Patent to provide the required documents. While the resulting cost allocation was relatively modest, the decision signals that the UPC is prepared to penalise parties that create unnecessary procedural complications, particularly where procedural economy is impeded.

Finally, the decision highlights the crucial importance of ensuring that ownership is properly reflected in the relevant registers before commencing UPC proceedings, as well as ensuring that a clear “paper trail” is in place for both representation and any transfers of ownership.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision Level: Düsseldorf Local Division
Parties: Ona Patents SL v Google Ireland Limited ao
Date: 15 January 2026
Citation: UPC_CFI_100/2024 & UPC_CFI_411/2024
Decision: dycip.com/upc-cfi-100-2024

Related articles

Permissibility of new arguments and facts during proceedings: comparing EPO and UPC practice, 31 October 2025.