Short Summary
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Disney entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 449 782, which relates to methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks in video encoding and decoding. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found that Disney had infringed the patent by offering and placing on the market encoded picture data and bitstreams in several Contracting Member States. The court dismissed Disney's counterclaim for revocation and issued injunctive relief, recall and removal orders, and information/accounting orders, while apportioning costs 90% to the Defendants and 10% to the Claimant.
Detailed Summary
This case was decided by Panel 1 of the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 23 July 2026, consolidating proceedings UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025. The Claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 449 782 (previously held by Thomson Licensing), sued eleven entities within the US Disney Group, including The Walt Disney Company, Disney Interactive, Disney Enterprises, Disney Streaming Services, and BAMTech, for patent infringement. The patent, titled 'METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SIGNALING INTRA PREDICTION FOR LARGE BLOCKS FOR VIDEO ENCODERS AND DECODERS,' was filed on 29 June 2010 as PCT/US2010/001862, granted on 6 December 2017, and was in force in eleven Contracting Member States including Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. No opposition had been filed against the patent.
The dispute centered on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing negotiations and the role of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) between the parties. The court established important headnotes on the interplay between NDAs and FRAND proceedings: if an NDA prevents one party from making submissions or producing documents, and the other party refuses to amend the NDA without reasonable justification, this refusal operates to the detriment of the refusing party. Furthermore, where a party refers to steps within the FRAND negotiation programme and the Court cannot examine these steps due to the other party's refusal to amend the NDA, those steps will be considered to have been taken in accordance with the Huawei v ZTE judgment framework.
The Defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in suit, which the court dismissed. On the infringement action, the court found that the Defendants had infringed EP 2 449 782 by offering and placing on the market in the relevant Contracting Member States both encoded picture data produced directly by the patented encoding method and bitstreams containing the claimed features. The court granted injunctive relief, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or possessing infringing products. The court also issued recall and removal orders, information orders requiring detailed disclosure of distribution channels, quantities, prices, and third parties involved, and accounting orders requiring disclosure of books and evidence of profits.
The court determined that the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to compensate the Claimant for damages suffered since 6 December 2017 (with Thomson Licensing SAS as the relevant party until 30 July 2018, when InterDigital became the proprietor). Penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per day per infringing bitstream and EUR 5,000 per day for non-compliance with information orders were imposed. The value in dispute was set at EUR 8,000,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with recoverable representation costs capped at EUR 800,000. Costs were apportioned at 10% to the Claimant and 90% to the Defendants for the infringement action, with the Defendants bearing all costs of the counterclaim for revocation. The injunctive relief was made conditional on the Claimant providing security of EUR 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. vs The Walt Disney Company et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.