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 A previously declared opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was withdrawn on 3 February 2025.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 Mannheim (DE) 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
UPC Decision UPC-000833vsRespondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Paris Central Division) dated 29 November 2024, which had dismissed its revocation action against European Patent No. 2 875 740. After filing the appeal, NJOY informed the court that it would not pay the required appeal fee and no longer wished to pursue the appeal, expressly waiving its right to be heard. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as inadmissible by default under Rule 229.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o.vsZhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy had sought an ex parte 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales before the Local Chamber Mannheim, which was granted on 20 April 2026 subject to a €600,000 security deposit. The applicants deposited the security on 21 April 2026. On 27 May 2026, with the respondents' consent, the applicants requested withdrawal of the application and release of the security. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the €600,000 security deposit.
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBHvs(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_516F9F2DAB, Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH appeared in dispute with (1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), Versaevel and others (WinstonvsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.,, Universal Industrial Centre,
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLCvsINFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
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.