UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 344/2025

Apr 15, 2025·EP2831787 · METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PREVENTING AND DETECTING SECURITY THREATS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Feb 27, 2026
Last decision
Jun 12, 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
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked
Judge Dirk BöttcherLockedLocked
Judge Kristian JaureguiLockedLocked

At the UPC: Irdeto B.V. (7 cases)·SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (4 cases)

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

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC CoA 137/2026·UPC CoA 136/2026·UPC CFI 735/2025·UPC CFI 1391/2026·UPC CFI 639/2026 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-06-12
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Mannheim dismissed Irdeto's infringement action against DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH concerning EP 2 831 787 B1, finding that the claimant failed to prove that the accused DJI drones and controllers make use of the patented methods or systems. The counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants was also dismissed, as the patent was found valid. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • Infringement of method and system claims for preventing security threats on a device (claims 1-5, 10-12, 14)
    • Claim construction of 'abstraction layer', 'secured software agent', 'upcalls', and 'runtime validation' requirements
    • Whether dm-verity in DJI drones performs runtime validation as required by claim features 1.2.1-1.2.4
    • Whether SELinux alone satisfies the claim requirement for a secured software agent embedded in the abstraction layer
    • Validity: added matter under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 65(2) UPCA
    • Validity: novelty and inventive step
    • Counterclaim for revocation
    • Costs allocation under Art. 69 UPCA
  • 2026-02-27
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Johansson) ordered Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation within 14 days, ruling that the fee already paid by Defendants 2-4 for their earlier counterclaim does not cover Defendant 1's subsequently filed separate counterclaim, even if the content is the same. Failure to pay may result in a default decision under R. 355 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Court fee for counterclaim for revocation
    • Rule 370.7 RoP - single fee for multiple claimants/defendants
    • Separate counterclaim filed by late-served defendant
  • —
    revocation counterclaim

    Summary: I) The infringement action is dismissed. II) The counterclaim for revocation is dismissed. III) Each party shall bear their own costs

Documents
Show all 467 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-06-14Not public
Order2026-06-12Not public
Order2026-06-12Public
Decision2026-06-12Not public
Decision2026-06-12Public
Order2026-06-12Not public
Order2026-06-12Not public
Other Documents2026-04-28Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-04-21Not public
Receipt2026-04-17Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The patent is valid; the counterclaim for revocation is dismissed because the defendants failed to establish invalidity on any of the grounds raised (added matter, novelty, inventive step)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65(2) UPCA; Art. 138(1)(c) EPC

  • dm-verity as implemented in the accused DJI drones and controllers does not perform runtime validation: it operates only at boot time and the claimant failed to prove any runtime validation by dm-verity

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim features 1.2.1-1.2.4 of EP 2 831 787 B1

  • The claimant's statements on dm-verity in its Statement of Claim were strictly limited to booting and the expert opinion did not relate to the specific implementation in the attacked embodiments

    RespondentLegal basis: Claim construction; feature 1.2.3 requiring runtime validation
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The drones and remote controllers make use of the method defined in claims 1-5 and 10-12 and are systems as defined in claim 14, because SELinux and dm-verity together satisfy all claim features including runtime validation

    ClaimantLegal basis: Claims 1-5, 10-12, 14 of EP 2 831 787 B1

  • dm-verity performs validation during runtime because loadable kernel modules may be loaded during runtime and checked by dm-verity

    ClaimantLegal basis: Feature 1.2.3 of EP 2 831 787 B1

  • The conditional applications to amend the patent are admissible

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30 RoP