Short Summary
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., sought an order under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure requiring defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC to disclose information about which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use or have used since August 28, 2019 for delivering video files through their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how the video files are encoded and split. The underlying main proceedings concern alleged indirect patent infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680 in multiple European territories, with defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity. The order was issued by the reporting judge Böttger of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern an application (App_46521/2024) within the main case (CFI/471/2023) before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The plaintiffs are DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., both based in Englewood, Colorado, USA. The defendants include AYLO Premium Ltd and AYLO Freesites Ltd, both based in Nicosia, Cyprus; Brockwell Group LLC based in Tampa, Florida, USA; and Bridgemaze Group LLC based in Miami, Florida, USA. Additional parties involved as defendants are AYLO Billing Limited (Dublin, Ireland) and AYLO Billing US Corp. (Woodland Hills, California, USA). The patent at issue is European Patent No. EP 2 479 680.
The plaintiffs filed an application under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order for information disclosure directed at defendants 1, 3, 5, and 6. The requested information concerns which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) these defendants use or have used since August 28, 2019 (the date of publication of the grant of the patent-in-suit) for delivering video files through certain streaming services, the locations of the CDN servers during that period, and whether the video files on those CDN servers are split into multiple files and how those files are encoded. In the underlying main proceedings, the plaintiffs assert indirect patent infringement of EP 2 479 680 in the territories of Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, and Sweden. The defendants have filed counterclaims for invalidity. According to the plaintiffs' submissions, defendants 1, 3, 5, and 6 (with defendant 6 only together with defendants 1 or 5) operate streaming services identified in the statement of claim as attacked embodiments, including www.brazzers.com operated by defendant 1 and www.pornhub.com operated by defendant 3. Defendants 2 and 4 provide payment processing services for these streaming platforms. The plaintiffs exemplified the alleged patent infringement by accessing these streaming services via the Microsoft Edge browser with the dynamic playback quality setting 'auto' and using the Charles Web Debugging Proxy analysis tool together with publicly accessible source code from Microsoft Edge DevTools.
& Analysis:
The order was issued by the reporting judge Böttger of the Local Chamber Mannheim. The procedural language of the proceedings is German. The subject matter of the application is the request for an order of information disclosure pursuant to Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure specifically concerning Content Delivery Networks.
Final Order & Ruling:
The text of the judgment is incomplete as provided, with the document appearing to be cut off before the full reasoning and operative part of the order could be set out. The available text establishes that the application was filed, identifies the parties, the patent-in-suit, the procedural framework, and the factual background regarding the alleged indirect patent infringement and the requested CDN-related disclosure.
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 Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. vs Respondent 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.