2026-09-02 - LD Düsseldorf - InterDigital v. Disney et al. - UPC_CFI_297/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_297/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v. The Walt Disney Company, The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive, Disney Electronic Content, Inc., Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. / Disney DTC LLC, The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC / Disney Entertainment Operations LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC / Disney Streaming Technology LLC / Disney Technology LLC, BAMTech LLC / BAMTech Media / Disney Streaming Services (LLC) / Disney Streaming
Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the granted claims of a media-sharing patent for lack of novelty, upheld it in the wording of the tenth auxiliary request examined and found indirect infringement of that amended claim by a streaming service.
2026-09-02 - LD Düsseldorf - InterDigital
v.
Disney et al. - UPC_CFI_297/2025
notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the granted claims of a media-sharing patent for lack of novelty, upheld it in the wording of the tenth auxiliary request examined and found indirect infringement of that amended claim by a streaming service. The order on information and accounting is the substantial part: the right under Art. 67 UPCA with Art. 68(3)(a) and (b) UPCA and R. 191 RoP covers supporting documents and, at the Court's discretion, confirmation by a sworn auditor or an affidavit, for which no express legal basis in the UPCA or the Rules is needed because it is a matter of evidence. Since the Court of Appeal has held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information obtained under Art. 67 UPCA, a use limitation was written into the operative part, and access was restricted to outside counsel and two named representatives by a separate confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP, which applies at least mutatis mutandis to information a party must disclose under a decision rather than information in its own pleadings. Enforcement security was refused because the defendants put forward nothing to justify it and did not answer the claimant's evidence of solvency, and the interim award of damages was dismissed as unjustified.
Stichwörter
Novelty; inventive step; auxiliary requests
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claims 1, 4 and 8 as granted lack novelty over D1 (US 2003/0225834 A1), and claim 1 additionally over D7, so those claims must be revoked [167], [226]. The Court applied the direct and unambiguous disclosure test and the rule that a prior art document is not a reservoir of features [165]-[166]. Claim 1 in the wording of auxiliary request K5 is novel over D1, D4, D19 and D20 [316].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 according to auxiliary request K5 does not lack an inventive step [317]. The defendants asserted only that it lacks inventive step starting from one of D1-D11 and D18-D20, without saying why any of them is a realistic starting point, what it would be combined with or why the combination is obvious, which is not a substantiated attack [318].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Every added-matter objection to auxiliary request K5 failed. Features FK1.1 and FK1.2 come from original dependent claims 4 and 8 [291]; continuing execution on the second device is a general advantage rather than tied to the mobile phone and home stereo example [293]; the exemplary services of Fig. 3 need not all be claimed [294]; UPnP is given only as an example of broadcasting [295]; finding the other device is implicit in discovering whether a push can be performed [296]; and selecting 'push' from 'push or pull' is a permissible choice between alternatives [297]-[299].”
Clarity
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 84 EPC · derivative
“The clarity objections to auxiliary request K5 failed. The defendants did not explain how clarity turns on whether certain features belong to the 'automatically transferring' step, and the claim presents them as distinct method steps [285]-[287]. That claim 1 imposes no requirement on the relative timing of continuing execution and transfer makes it potentially broad but not unclear [288]-[290].”