UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 465/2025

May 27, 2025·EP4213033 Unitary patent · VIDEO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INCLUDING PROGRESSIVE PLAYBACK

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
German
First decided
Sep 15, 2026
EPO Opposition
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
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Daniel VossLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Georg WernerLockedLocked
Judge Torsten DuhmeLockedLocked

At the UPC: DivX, LLC (3 cases)·Netflix Services Germany GmbH (3 cases)

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CoA 176/2026·UPC CoA 177/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-09-15
    InfringementPublic

    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
Documents
Show all 151 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-10-14Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-10-07Not public
Communication2026-09-24Not public
Receipt2026-09-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-24Not public
Document Defendant2026-09-24Not public
Receipt2026-09-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-16Not public
Application document Defendant2026-09-16Not public
Receipt2026-09-16Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The Netflix client software is suitable and intended for carrying out the claimed progressive-playback method; indirect infringement of claim 1 in 18 UPC states

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25, 26 UPCA

  • The claimant's interest in enforcing a patent expiring within 18 months outweighs the defendants' interest in enforcement security; defendants did not substantiate the claimant's financial weakness

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 118.8, 352.1 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • EP 4 213 033 is invalid and must be revoked (counterclaim)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138 EPC

  • Enforcement should be conditional on the claimant providing security

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA; R. 352.1 RoP