UPC CFI 87/2025
12. Feb. 2025·EP2449782 · METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SIGNALING INTRA PREDICTION FOR LARGE BLOCKS FOR VIDEO ENCODERS AND DECODERS
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter
- Arno Eberhard Riße-Arnold Ruess
- Lisa Rieth-Arnold Ruess
- Cordula Schumacher-Arnold Ruess
- Dominik Ho-Molnia Ho
- David Molnia-Molnia Ho
- Marius Klötzer-Arnold Ruess
- Victoria Thüsing-Arnold Ruess
Beklagte- The Walt Disney CompanyUnternehmen
- The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.Unternehmen
- Disney InteractiveUnternehmen
- Disney Electronic Content, Inc.Unternehmen
- Disney Platform Distribution, Inc.Unternehmen
- The Walt Disney Company LimitedUnternehmen
- Disney Enterprises, Inc.Unternehmen
- Disney Streaming Services LLCUnternehmen
- Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLCUnternehmen
- Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCUnternehmen
- BAMTech LLCUnternehmen
Vertreter- Dietrich Burkhard Kamlah-Taylor Wessing
- Christian Lederer-Taylor Wessing
- Joel Nägerl-Zimmermann & Partner
- Lorenz Walder-Hartmann-Zimmermann & Partner
- Michael Schächinger-Taylor Wessing
- Teresa Gaboardi-Taylor Wessing
- Leoni König-Taylor Wessing
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 19. Nov. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 24. Juli 2026
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Jule Schumacher | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Mojca Mlakar | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Dennis Kretschmann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: InterDigital Group (34 Verfahren)·Disney Group (26 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
4 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CoA 12/2026·UPC CoA 936/2025·UPC CFI 1376/2025·UPC CFI 936/2025
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2026-07-24InfringementÖffentlich
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
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-08-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other Documents | 2026-08-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-08-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-08-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-07-29 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-29 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Document Claimant | 2026-07-29 | Nicht öffentlich |
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 UPCAWhere 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-170/13Enforcement 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 RoPAccess to the information to be rendered should be restricted to outside counsel and two named representatives of the claimant
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoP
The counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 449 782
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCARequest for an interim award of damages, dismissed as not justified at all
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 68 UPCA, R. 119 RoPThe defendants' allegation that they would lose revenue was not substantiated
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82(2) UPCA