UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 87/2025

Feb 12, 2025·EP2449782 · METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SIGNALING INTRA PREDICTION FOR LARGE BLOCKS FOR VIDEO ENCODERS AND DECODERS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Language
English
First decided
Nov 19, 2025
Last decision
Jul 24, 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
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Dennis KretschmannLockedLocked

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

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CoA 159/2026·UPC CoA 161/2026·UPC CFI 445/2025

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 12/2026·UPC CoA 936/2025·UPC CFI 1376/2025·UPC CFI 936/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-24
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The Dusseldorf Local Division held that the Disney defendants infringed EP 2 449 782 (process claim 5 and product claim 17) and ordered them to refrain from offering or placing on the market encoded picture data and bitstreams in eleven Contracting Member States, to recall and remove infringing products placed on the market since 6 December 2017, and to render information and accounts, on threat of penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per retrievable bitstream and EUR 5,000 per day. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed and liability for damages was determined, while the request for an interim award of damages was dismissed. Costs were split 10/90 against the defendants, the value in dispute was set at EUR 8,000,000 for each action, and enforcement of the injunction, recall and removal was made conditional on the claimant providing EUR 8 million security. On FRAND, the Court held that where an NDA prevents submissions and the other party unjustifiably refuses to amend it, that is to the refusing party's detriment, and unexaminable steps of the negotiation programme are treated as compliant with Huawei v ZTE.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • FRAND defence and the Huawei v ZTE negotiation framework
    • effect of an NDA preventing submissions where the other party refuses to amend it
    • unwilling licensee
    • injunctive relief, recall and removal under Art. 63 and 64 UPCA
    • information and rendering of accounts under R. 191 RoP
    • determination of liability for damages under Art. 68(1) UPCA
    • penalty payments under Art. 63(2) and 82(4) UPCA with R. 354.4 RoP
    • enforcement security under Art. 82(2) UPCA and R. 118.8 RoP
    • restriction of access to confidential information under R. 262A RoP
  • 2025-11-19
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on InterDigital's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Disney entities in a video streaming patent case concerning EP 2 449 782.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • R. 36 RoP further exchange of written pleadings
    • EPO opposition preliminary opinion as new evidence
    • Additional test purchases as new factual basis
Documents
Show all 391 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-08-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-24Not public
Other Documents2026-08-13Not public
Other Documents2026-08-13Not public
Receipt2026-08-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-04Not public
Application document Defendant2026-08-04Not public
Receipt2026-07-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-29Not public
Document Claimant2026-07-29Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The defendants infringed process claim 5 and product claim 17 by offering and placing encoded picture data and bitstreams on the market in eleven Contracting Member States

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25, 63, 64 UPCA

  • Where an NDA prevents a party from making submissions and the other party refuses without reasonable justification to amend it, that is to the latter's detriment, and steps of the FRAND negotiation programme the Court cannot examine are treated as taken in accordance with Huawei v ZTE

    ClaimantLegal basis: Huawei v ZTE, C-170/13

  • Enforcement of the injunction, recall and removal should be conditional on security because it is at least unclear whether the claimant's own financial position covers damages on a reversal, the parent company not having given an unconditional undertaking

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA, R. 118.8 s. 2 RoP

  • Access to the information to be rendered should be restricted to outside counsel and two named representatives of the claimant

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 449 782

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

  • Request for an interim award of damages, dismissed as not justified at all

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 68 UPCA, R. 119 RoP

  • The defendants' allegation that they would lose revenue was not substantiated

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA