UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 87/2025

12. Feb. 2025·EP2449782 · METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SIGNALING INTRA PREDICTION FOR LARGE BLOCKS FOR VIDEO ENCODERS AND DECODERS

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
19. Nov. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
24. Juli 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ronny ThomasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Jule SchumacherGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Mojca MlakarGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Dennis KretschmannGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: InterDigital Group (34 Verfahren)·Disney Group (26 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-07-24
    InfringementÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Dusseldorf Local Division held that the Disney defendants infringed EP 2 449 782 (process claim 5 and product claim 17) and ordered them to refrain from offering or placing on the market encoded picture data and bitstreams in eleven Contracting Member States, to recall and remove infringing products placed on the market since 6 December 2017, and to render information and accounts, on threat of penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per retrievable bitstream and EUR 5,000 per day. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed and liability for damages was determined, while the request for an interim award of damages was dismissed. Costs were split 10/90 against the defendants, the value in dispute was set at EUR 8,000,000 for each action, and enforcement of the injunction, recall and removal was made conditional on the claimant providing EUR 8 million security. On FRAND, the Court held that where an NDA prevents submissions and the other party unjustifiably refuses to amend it, that is to the refusing party's detriment, and unexaminable steps of the negotiation programme are treated as compliant with Huawei v ZTE.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
    • FRAND defence and the Huawei v ZTE negotiation framework
    • effect of an NDA preventing submissions where the other party refuses to amend it
    • unwilling licensee
    • injunctive relief, recall and removal under Art. 63 and 64 UPCA
    • information and rendering of accounts under R. 191 RoP
    • determination of liability for damages under Art. 68(1) UPCA
    • penalty payments under Art. 63(2) and 82(4) UPCA with R. 354.4 RoP
    • enforcement security under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 118.8 RoP
    • restriction of access to confidential information under R. 262A RoP
  • 2025-11-19

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on InterDigital's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Disney entities in a video streaming patent case concerning EP 2 449 782.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • R. 36 RoP further exchange of written pleadings
    • EPO opposition preliminary opinion as new evidence
    • Additional test purchases as new factual basis
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-08-24Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-08-24Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-08-13Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-08-13Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-08-04Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-08-04Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-08-04Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-29Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-29Nicht öffentlich
Document Claimant2026-07-29Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • The defendants infringed process claim 5 and product claim 17 by offering and placing encoded picture data and bitstreams on the market in eleven Contracting Member States

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25, 63, 64 UPCA
  • Where an NDA prevents a party from making submissions and the other party refuses without reasonable justification to amend it, that is to the latter's detriment, and steps of the FRAND negotiation programme the Court cannot examine are treated as taken in accordance with Huawei v ZTE

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Huawei v ZTE, C-170/13
  • Enforcement of the injunction, recall and removal should be conditional on security because it is at least unclear whether the claimant's own financial position covers damages on a reversal, the parent company not having given an unconditional undertaking

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82(2) UPCA, R. 118.8 s. 2 RoP
  • Access to the information to be rendered should be restricted to outside counsel and two named representatives of the claimant

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • The counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 449 782

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA
  • Request for an interim award of damages, dismissed as not justified at all

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 68 UPCA, R. 119 RoP
  • The defendants' allegation that they would lose revenue was not substantiated

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82(2) UPCA