UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 135/2024

Apr 8, 2024·EP3605534 SEP · AUDIO DECODING WITH SELECTIVE POST FILTER

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
Language
German
First decided
Oct 14, 2025
Last decision
Mar 18, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Udo MatterLockedLocked

At the UPC: Dolby Group (38 cases)·Beko Germany GmbH (7 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CoA 77/2026·UPC CoA 78/2026·UPC CFI 1923/2025·UPC CFI 477/2024·UPC APP 36556/2025

7 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 118/2026·UPC CoA 119/2026·UPC CoA 120/2026·UPC CFI 2043/2026·UPC CFI 982/2026 and 2 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-03-18
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Dusseldorf Local Division found Beko Germany GmbH and Arcelik A.S. liable for direct infringement of claim 1 and indirect infringement of claim 6 of EP 3 605 534, rejected their Art. 102 TFEU/Huawei v. ZTE FRAND defence because they never expressed an initial willingness to take a licence, and ordered an injunction, recall, destruction, disclosure and damages in principle. It dismissed the claimant's request to have the judgment published and dismissed the revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_477/2024) after a full merits examination of added matter, novelty and inventive step, upholding the patent as granted.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • FRAND / dominant market position (Art. 102 TFEU)
    • Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework and willingness to license
    • claim construction
    • added matter
    • novelty
    • inventive step
    • direct and indirect infringement
    • publication of the judgment (Art. 80 UPCA) - denied
  • 2025-10-14
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order cancelling the scheduled oral hearing in the Dolby v Beko/Arçelik infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 605 534 B1 (audio coding), due to the unavailability of one of the lead counsel for personal reasons.

    Show the legal issues (1)
    • Cancellation of oral hearing due to counsel unavailability
  • 2025-08-14
    Public

    Summary: Procedural order granting Dolby's application to file an additional written submission pursuant to Rule 36 RoP in the infringement action against Beko/Arçelik, as Dolby made the request before the judge-rapporteur intended to close the written procedure.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Additional written submissions (Rule 36 RoP)
    • Closure of written procedure
Documents
Show all 238 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-03-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-27Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-27Not public
Case closed2026-03-18Not public
Decision2026-03-18Not public
Decision2026-03-18Not public
Decision2026-03-18Public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-02Not public
Summons to oral hearing2025-10-21Not public
Summons2025-10-21Public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The attacked smart TVs realise all features of claim 1 (direct infringement) and, via third-party decoding means, claim 6 (indirect infringement) of EP 3 605 534

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25/26 UPCA

  • The patent-in-suit is valid on the main request (as granted); the added-matter, novelty (over D1) and inventive-step (over D3 and others) attacks do not succeed, so the auxiliary requests need not be discussed

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a)-(c) EPC

  • Because the defendants never expressed an initial willingness to conclude a licence (Huawei v. ZTE 'step 2') after notification of infringement ('step 1'), the FRAND/Art. 102 TFEU examination is terminated without assessing whether the claimant's offer was FRAND

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 102 TFEU; Huawei v. ZTE
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The patent is invalid for added matter, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a)-(c) EPC

  • The claimant's conduct and licensing offer violate Art. 102 TFEU / the Huawei v. ZTE FRAND framework, barring an injunction

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 102 TFEU

  • The judgment should be published because the claimant has a legitimate interest under Art. 80 UPCA

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA