UPC_CFI_471/2023

defendants' adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming systems do not literally infringe the claims of EP 2 479 680

Hinweis: The court dismissed the infringement claim after finding no literal infringement.

no doctrine-of-equivalents infringement under any member state's equivalence doctrine applicable to the relevant infringing acts, because the alleged substitute means do not perform substantially the same function to achieve substantially the same effect

Hinweis: Headnote 1: the court held that equivalent infringement is excluded under all member states' equivalence tests if the substituted means lacks technical-functional equivalence (not substantially same function / substantially same effect); followed Brussels LD decision of 17 January 2025.

there is no legal interest in a counterclaim seeking revocation of dependent claims alone without attacking the independent claim they refer back to

Hinweis: Headnote 2: the court held that revocation of dependent sub-claims in isolation, without revoking the independent claim to which they refer, generally lacks legal interest because dependent claims do not expand the scope of the patent.

patent maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12

Hinweis: The revocation counterclaim succeeded in part - patent not fully revoked but maintained in amended form; infringement costs borne by claimant, revocation costs by respondent.

defendants' streaming services literally or equivalently infringe EP 2 479 680

Begründung: No literal infringement found; no equivalent infringement because the substitute means in AYLO's systems do not achieve substantially the same function/effect as the claimed features.

full revocation of EP 2 479 680 including all auxiliary requests

Begründung: Patent was maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12; full revocation was not ordered.

late disclosure of video file encoding information should be ordered under R. 191 RoP

Begründung: Disclosure refused because validity was uncertain, defendants had already provided information in their defence submissions, and claimant had not exhausted other available information sources; also potentially a fishing expedition.