UPC CFI 1121/2025
EP4213033 Unitary patent · VIDEO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INCLUDING PROGRESSIVE PLAYBACK
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent upheld as granted)ActionCounterclaim for revocationCategoryCounterclaim for revocation
- Parties
- Claimants
- Netflix Services Germany GmbHOperating co.
- Netflix International B.V.Operating co.
- Netflix Services Italy S.R.L.Operating co.
- Netflix Services France S.A.S.Operating co.
- Netflix Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Marcus Grosch-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
- Jan Axtmann-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
- Paul Lehmann-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
- Felix Hartisch-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
Respondents- DivX, LLCOperating co.
Representatives- Jasper Meyer zu Riemsloh-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Peter Michael Weisse-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Jochen Ehlers-Eisenführ Speiser
- Karin Rosahl-Eisenführ Speiser
- Division
- Munich LD
- Judges
- —
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Sep 15, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Netflix International B.V.Admissible2026-02-09
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 36% (45/125) | 146 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Netflix Services Germany GmbH (4 cases)·DivX, LLC (4 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
- 2026-09-15InfringementPublic
Summary: Munich Local Division decision (Panel 2, 15 Sep 2026) in DivX, LLC v five Netflix entities (unitary patent EP 4 213 033, progressive playback of media via byte-range requests): the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1121/2025) is dismissed and the Netflix defendants are ordered to refrain from using, or supplying software for, the claimed method in 18 UPC states, to provide information and render accounts since 7 May 2025, and are held liable for damages; the infringement action is otherwise dismissed; the defendants bear the costs of both actions and the request to make enforcement conditional on security is refused.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA) by supplying streaming client software
- Counterclaim for revocation dismissed
- Enforcement security under Art. 82(2) UPCA / R. 118.8, 352.1 RoP refused
- Recurring penalty payments
- 076d8333-b003-492c-8650-d14127d44396.pdf2026-09-15DE