ACT 23310/2024

—·EP3822805: APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR ADAPTIVE-RATE SHIFTING OF STREAMING CONTENT

Verfahrensdetails: Status
—
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien: Kläger
AYLO PREMIUM LTD
Vertreter: Georg Anetsberger (Bardehle Pagenberg); Tilman Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg); Maggie Huang (Bardehle Pagenberg); Conor McLaughlin (Mishcon de Reya LLP)
Beklagte
DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Vertreter: Denise Benz (A&O Shearman); Jan Ebersohl (A&O Shearman); Celina Kuhn (A&O Shearman)
Division: Paris CD
Richter: Marjolein Visser · Presiding judge
Maximilian Haedicke · Legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
Alessandro Sanchini · Technically qualified judge
Technology: Telecoms · Video Codecs · Computing & AI
Sprache: —
Erste Entscheidung: 28. Mai 2025

Ansprüche

Streitig1, 2, 9

Nichtig erklärtall

Hinweise: Paris Central Division revoked the German part of EP 3 822 805 B1 in its entirety for added matter; independent claims 1 and 9 explicitly discussed; dependent claim 2 also addressed; all 16 auxiliary requests failed.

Entscheidungen

2025-05-28
Teilweise nichtigNichtigkeit (Hauptsache)Revocation Action
Paris Central Division (28 May 2025) revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1 on grounds of added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC), as the patent's claim 1 extended beyond the content of the parent application. All auxiliary requests (AR1–AR16) were either refused admission or failed to overcome the invalidity. Costs were awarded against the patent proprietor (DISH Technologies).
Rechtsfragen:Added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC)Claim interpretationScope of revocation limited to national part (DE)Admissibility of auxiliary requests

Dokumente

5BCAF6B8131AF9A126AF70154407CD63_en.pdf2025-05-28ENGLISH

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Aylo Premium Ltd. (a Cyprus-based entity) brought a revocation action against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s EP 3 822 805 B1 (adaptive-rate streaming patent) before the Paris Central Division, seeking revocation of the German national part. The court revoked the patent on the ground of added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC), finding that feature 1.7 of claim 1 — which refers to requesting 'the highest quality' streamlet determined sustainable — introduced an inadmissible generalisation not supported by the parent application's disclosure of step-wise quality adjustment. All 16 of DISH's auxiliary requests failed to overcome this defect and a late-filed second set of 16 requests was not admitted.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

EP 3 822 805 B1 claim 1 feature 1.7 extends beyond the content of the parent application by introducing the concept of 'requesting the streamlets of the highest quality one of the copies determined sustainable at that time', enabling direct jumps to the highest quality and inadmissible generalisation over what the parent application discloses
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 100(c) EPC; added matter
Hinweis: Court found the term 'highest' in feature 1.7 introduced an inadmissible generalisation not supported by the parent application's flow diagram or description, as the parent only disclosed a step-wise quality adjustment approach.
Revocation can be limited to national parts of UPCA member states at the request of a party
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: UPCA provisions on scope of revocation
Hinweis: Court confirmed this as a general principle, applied by revoking only the German national part of EP 3 822 805.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

All 16 Auxiliary Requests (AR1 to AR16) filed by DISH Technologies to overcome the added matter invalidity
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 100(c) EPC
Begründung: None of AR1 to AR16 introduced amendments capable of overcoming the invalidity arising from feature 1.7 (the 'highest quality' limitation); AR1' to AR16' were not admitted due to late filing.
Dependent claim 2 (streamlet cache module) survives even if claim 1 is revoked
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 100(c) EPC
Begründung: Dependent claim 2 falls with claim 1 because it depends from the invalid claim 1 and the same added matter infects it.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC) — claim feature introducing concept not supported by parent application constitutes inadmissible generalisation Scope of UPC revocation can be limited to national parts of UPCA member states Late-filed auxiliary requests (AR1' to AR16') inadmissible Claim construction — purpose of determining whether claimed feature 1.7 finds literal support in parent application

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court construed feature 1.7 of EP 3 822 805 claim 1 as claiming 'requesting the streamlets of the highest quality one of the copies determined sustainable at that time.' The parent application's flow diagram (Figure 7) and description only disclosed step-wise quality adjustment (evaluating performance factors at block 706 and generating new performance factors at step 708); it did not foresee or suggest direct 'jumps' to the highest sustainable quality. Introducing the word 'highest' in the granted claim therefore extended the claim beyond the parent application's disclosure, constituting added matter.