Short Summary
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Detailed Summary
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court (case UPC_CFI_86/2025) involved a patent infringement action filed by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. (Claimant), a research and development company based in Wilmington, Delaware, against eleven entities belonging to The Walt Disney Company group (Defendants), including the parent company and various subsidiaries operating globally in film production, television, and digital video streaming services.
The patent-in-suit, EP 2 465 265, was granted on 28 November 2018 (filed 11 August 2010, claiming priority from a US provisional application of 12 August 2009) and relates to video encoding and decoding, specifically concerning intra prediction chroma coding. The patent was in force in several UPCA contracting member states including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden. A previously declared opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was withdrawn on 3 February 2025.
The infringement action targeted the Disney+ streaming service, which Defendants jointly provide to subscribers in UPCA contracting member states. Disney+ is a subscription-based Video-on-Demand service offering films, series, and other video content. As an exemplary attacked embodiment, Claimant identified Walt Disney Studios' 1937 animated film "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," available via Disney+ in various bitstream formats including HEVC (H.265 standard) with a resolution of 640x360 pixels. Claimant analyzed the bitstream using "StreamEye" software.
Claims 1 and 15 of the patent-in-suit, on which the alleged direct infringement was based, cover methods in a video encoder and signals comprising video data, respectively, involving the determination of chroma partition types for intra prediction coding of blocks.
Claimant's legal predecessor had submitted a FRAND-licensing declaration to the ITU on 5 February 2017 regarding the patent-in-suit. However, Claimant maintained that asserted claims 1 and 15 did not fall within the scope of the HEVC standard and were therefore not standard-essential or FRAND-encumbered. In July 2022, InterDigital initially contacted Disney regarding licensing of its Video Patent Portfolio, and after an NDA was concluded, offered a licence covering video coding technology including the asserted patent.
The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent-in-suit.
The Court (Presiding Judge Tochtermann, Judge-rapporteur Sender, legally qualified Judge Severinsson, and technically qualified Judge Kretschmann) delivered its decision on 16 June 2026, following an oral hearing on 5 May 2026. The Court found in favor of the Claimant on the infringement action, ordering injunctive relief, recall/definite removal of infringing products, communication of information regarding acts of infringement, and granting declarations of liability for damages and infringement. The Court set penalty payments for violations (250,000 € per day for injunctive relief violations, 50,000 € per day for recall/removal violations, and 10,000 € per day for information disclosure violations).
The Counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, meaning the patent was upheld as valid. The infringement action was dismissed in all other respects. Defendants were ordered to bear the costs of the litigation. The value in dispute was set at 8,000,000 € for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The injunctive relief and recall/removal orders were made enforceable only after the Claimant provided security of 8 million € in the form of a deposit or bank guarantee.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.,, 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, USA vs The Walt Disney Company, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 9, Disney Interactive, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521, is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Curio Bioscience Inc.vs10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement dispute. Curio Bioscience Inc. appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance dated February 26, 2024, which had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 697 391). The dispute arose in the context of a provisional measures application filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Court of Appeal addressed the application under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement regarding the use of the patent language as the language of proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsRenault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against three Renault entities before the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 509 263 B1. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Discord Netherlands B.V., Discord Inc.vsRespondent
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Polidoros S.p.a.vsBekaert Combustion Technology B.V. et.al.
Polidoro S.p.a., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 037 175 relating to a premixed burner (especially for condensation boilers), sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for alleged patent infringement. The patent was upheld in limited form following opposition proceedings, with the opposition decision published on 27 November 2024. The claimant sought injunctive relief, recall/removal, destruction, information, damages, and publication of the decision across several UPCA contracting member states including Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Distributor UK Ltd
This order concerns proceedings involving two divisional European patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Moderna entities. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office: EP941 by the Opposition Division on June 24, 2026, and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on July 20, 2026, both for lack of novelty. The Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear Moderna's costs, and postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings pending the written grounds of the TBA decision.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.