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
Fives ECLvsREEL GmbH
This order concerns a request for confidentiality filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 1 740 740. The Local Division had dismissed Fives' claim for damages and lost profits against REEL GmbH, finding that Fives had failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the causal link between the alleged infringement and the claimed losses. Fives filed its appeal on March 17, 2026, and submitted its appeal brief on June 11, 2026, which included a confidentiality request seeking to restrict access to certain grey-highlighted text passages and newly introduced annexes.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbHvsLabrador Diagnostics LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused the bioMérieux appellants' requests to stay revocation appeal proceedings pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings and to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of grounds of appeal. The court held that a rapid EPO decision was not sufficiently imminent to justify a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant extending the strict deadline regime under the Rules of Procedure.
Ballinno B.V.vsUnion des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and an order on provisional measures brought by Ballinno B.V. against the Kinexon companies and UEFA in relation to EP 1 944 067. The appellant had built its case for provisional measures primarily around a major sports event, but subsequently withdrew its requests for provisional measures before the Court of First Instance issued its order, rendering the action devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was admissible and that Ballinno, having taken the inherent risk of its procedural strategy, must be considered the unsuccessful party and bear the costs under Article 69(1) UPCA.
SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, MA, United StatesvsGroupe SEB France, Écully, France, Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germ
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Paris Local Division's dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB regarding European patent EP 3 689 198, a cooking system patent. The Court of Appeal found the appeal well-founded, holding that the Paris Local Division erred in finding the relevant claims more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over prior art (Tredy/CN 202312830 U). The Court ordered SEB to cease and desist from infringing activities in France and Germany, subject to penalty payments, and to provisionally reimburse SharkNinja's costs.
3VSigmavsAGA-ACEF
1 di 7 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 342/2025 Ordinanza depositata il 23.9.2025 RICORRENTE 3V Sigma s.p.a. RESISTENTI ACEF s.r.l. AGA s.r.l. (già ACEF s.p.a.) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDIMENTO Italiano
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.