UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 471/2023

Dec 13, 2023·EP2479680 · Method for presenting rate-adaptive streams

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
    Audio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
German
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 Dirk BöttcherLockedLocked
Judge Walter SchoberLockedLocked
Judge Dennis KretschmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: DISH Technologies L.L.C. (20 cases)·Aylo Group (18 cases)

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

This dispute contains 13 other proceedings

UPC CoA 708/2025·UPC CoA 719/2025·UPC CFI 574/2025·UPC CoA 611/2024·UPC CoA 469/2024 and 8 more

6 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 709/2025·UPC CoA 710/2025·UPC CoA 711/2025·UPC CoA 720/2025·CC 26845/2024 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2025-06-06
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Mannheim Local Division ruled on the infringement action and revocation counterclaim regarding EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming). The infringement claim was dismissed as the defendants' systems did not literally or equivalently infringe the patent. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12. Infringement costs were borne by the claimants; revocation counterclaim costs were borne by the defendants. Each party bore its own representation costs. The dispute value was set at EUR 20,000,000.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Doctrine of equivalents under UPC member state laws
    • Functional equivalence requirement for equivalent infringement
    • Isolated revocation of dependent claims without revoking independent claim
    • Reasonable number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30.1(c) RoP
    • Patent maintained as amended (Auxiliary Request 12)
  • 2025-04-23
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: Pre-trial procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate streaming), confirming the oral hearing date and identifying key contested issues, including claim construction of the HTTP streaming method claims, direct and equivalent infringement, and the defendant's invalidity counterclaim. The order is preparatory and contains no substantive ruling.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Claim construction of HTTP adaptive streaming method
    • Direct and equivalent infringement
    • Invalidity counterclaim
  • 2025-03-27
    Public

    Summary: The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of conditional applications for information transfer from third parties under Rule 191 RoP, finding that such conditional requests are permissible as internal procedural conditions in the infringement action of DISH Technologies v. AYLO group.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Conditional applications for information transfer (R. 191 RoP)
    • Admissibility of conditional procedural motions
  • 2024-10-20
    Public

    Summary: Procedural order on a request for disclosure of information about the configuration and coding scheme of video files (Rule 191 RoP). The court declined to order disclosure at this stage due to the uncertain validity of the patent, finding it would be disproportionate to require defendants to provide the requested technical information before validity is established.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Order for disclosure of information (Rule 191 RoP)
    • Patent validity uncertainty
    • Proportionality of disclosure
Documents
Show all 1180 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-08-06Not public
technischer Abschluss workflow2025-08-06Public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-08-06Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-08-06Not public
Finale Anordnung zu Kostenfestsetzungsantrag2025-08-06Public
final order2025-08-06Not public
Finale Anordnung R. 262A RoP2025-08-05Not public
Finale Anordnung R. 262A RoP2025-08-05Public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-06-11Not public
Anordnung Abschluss workflow2025-06-06Public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

DISH Technologies and Sling TV sued AYLO entities at the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 2 479 680, a patent covering adaptive bitrate HTTP video streaming. The court dismissed the infringement action finding neither literal nor equivalent infringement, because AYLO's streaming systems did not perform substantially the same function or achieve substantially the same effect as the claimed means; the revocation counterclaim was partially successful, with the patent maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12 at a dispute value of EUR 20,000,000.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • defendants' adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming systems do not literally infringe the claims of EP 2 479 680

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: The court dismissed the infringement claim after finding no literal infringement.

  • no doctrine-of-equivalents infringement under any member state's equivalence doctrine applicable to the relevant infringing acts, because the alleged substitute means do not perform substantially the same function to achieve substantially the same effect

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; equivalence doctrine of applicable member states; Mannheim LD decisions of 11 March 2025

    Note: Headnote 1: the court held that equivalent infringement is excluded under all member states' equivalence tests if the substituted means lacks technical-functional equivalence (not substantially same function / substantially same effect); followed Brussels LD decision of 17 January 2025.

  • there is no legal interest in a counterclaim seeking revocation of dependent claims alone without attacking the independent claim they refer back to

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30.1 VerfO

    Note: Headnote 2: the court held that revocation of dependent sub-claims in isolation, without revoking the independent claim to which they refer, generally lacks legal interest because dependent claims do not expand the scope of the patent.

  • patent maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA

    Note: The revocation counterclaim succeeded in part - patent not fully revoked but maintained in amended form; infringement costs borne by claimant, revocation costs by respondent.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • defendants' streaming services literally or equivalently infringe EP 2 479 680

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; doctrine of equivalents

    Reason: No literal infringement found; no equivalent infringement because the substitute means in AYLO's systems do not achieve substantially the same function/effect as the claimed features.

  • full revocation of EP 2 479 680 including all auxiliary requests

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

    Reason: Patent was maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12; full revocation was not ordered.

  • late disclosure of video file encoding information should be ordered under R. 191 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 191 RoP

    Reason: Disclosure refused because validity was uncertain, defendants had already provided information in their defence submissions, and claimant had not exhausted other available information sources; also potentially a fishing expedition.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
doctrine of equivalents requires substantially same function and substantially same effect across all applicable member state lawsno legal interest in revocation of dependent sub-claims without attacking the independent claim to which they refernumber of admissible auxiliary requests under R. 30.1(c) RoP depends on circumstances including number of invalidity attacksdisclosure order under R. 191 RoP refused where validity uncertain and claimant has not exhausted own information sourcesUPCA material law applicable vs. national material law distinguished for infringing acts by date and territoryUPC developing own uniform equivalence doctrine or applying relevant member state doctrine depending on which law governs the infringing acts

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The patent (EP 2 479 680) claims a method for adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming where a media player requests sequential file segments over TCP connections, generates a performance factor based on network conditions, and makes shift decisions based on that factor. Key disputed constructions concerned: (1) the role and function of 'servers' in the claim (whether CDN servers qualify as claimed servers); (2) the meaning of 'bitrate' in the context of the specific performance-factor algorithm; (3) whether equivalent implementations using CDN architectures satisfy claim elements directed at origin-server storage and retrieval patterns.