UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Dec 13, 2023

UPC_CFI_471/2023

Method for presenting rate-adaptive streams

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMannheim LDInfringementCase Closed
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.

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.