UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 86/2025

Feb 12, 2025·EP2465265 · METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVED INTRA CHROMA ENCODING AND DECODING

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Division
Mannheim LD
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Language
English
First decided
Aug 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
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias SenderLockedLocked
Judge Daniel Severinsson—Locked
Judge Dennis KretschmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: InterDigital Group (34 cases)·Disney Group (26 cases)

Decisions
  • 2026-08-18
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: Mannheim Local Division decision of the judge-rapporteur (18 Aug 2026) in the enforcement proceedings of InterDigital v Disney (EP 2 465 265): the claimant's withdrawal of its 23 July 2026 request for penalty payments is permitted by analogy to R. 265 RoP (R. 354.4 RoP), the enforcement proceedings are declared closed, and the claimant bears the costs of the enforcement proceedings. The infringement action itself is not decided here.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • R. 354.4 RoP penalty payments in enforcement proceedings
    • R. 265 RoP applied by analogy to withdrawal of a penalty request
    • costs of enforcement proceedings borne by the withdrawing claimant
  • 2025-05-02

    Summary: Order from the President of the Court of First Instance dated 2 May 2025, under R. 323 RoP, changing the language of proceedings in Mannheim Local Division case UPC_CFI_86/2025 to the language of the patent (as applied for by The Walt Disney Company entities as defendants). The order sets out principles on language change: the possibility of changing to the patent language does not conflict with the claimant's initial choice; the defendant's position is decisive when the balancing of interests is equal; and since the claimant has flexibility in choosing where to file, the language of the patent is generally not unfair to the claimant.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Change of language of proceedings under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP
    • Balancing parties' interests in language choice
    • Defendant's position as decisive factor when interests are equal
Document titleDatePublic
Publication of order2026-09-03Not public
Order2026-08-18Not public
Order2026-08-18Public
Communication2026-08-06Not public
Receipt2026-08-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-06Not public
Document Claimant2026-08-06Not public
Receipt2026-08-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-06Not public
Document Defendant2026-08-06Not public