2026-09-15 - LD Munich - DivX v. Netflix - UPC_CFI_465/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_465/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- DivX, LLC v. Netflix Services Germany GmbH, Netflix International B.V., Netflix Services Italy S.R.L., Netflix Services France S.A.S., Netflix Inc.
Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) upheld EP 4 213 033 as granted against a counterclaim for revocation and found the Netflix streaming software to indirectly infringe the claimed client-side playback method under Art.
2026-09-15 - LD Munich - DivX
v.
Netflix - UPC_CFI_465/2025
notable
The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) upheld EP 4 213 033 as granted against a counterclaim for revocation and found the Netflix streaming software to indirectly infringe the claimed client-side playback method under Art. 26(1) UPCA. On validity the panel applied the Court of Appeal's added-matter test (Abbott v Sibio: a feature of an embodiment may be omitted where it is not objectively necessary for the purpose of the claimed feature), held the primary reference not to disclose a 'media sequence' at all, and rejected every inventive-step attack for want of a motivation to arrive at a request queue that is flushed on a user instruction, expressly departing from the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion on that point. On infringement the panel held that non-physical software is a 'means' under Art. 26(1) UPCA, that the client is the device together with the software so a queue maintained by the browser still counts, and that a claimant who has analysed one software variant and asserts the others are identical in the relevant functions has pleaded sufficiently unless the defendant contests specific differences. On remedies the panel held that means under Art. 26 UPCA are 'infringing products' for the information claim under Art. 67(1) UPCA, that no confidentiality restriction attaches to information ordered under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP without an R. 262A RoP application, that penalty payments may be framed as minimum amounts per day, and that no enforcement security was warranted because the defendants' evidence of the claimant's finances was insufficient and the patent expires within eighteen months. The Court also admitted the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion under R. 36 RoP so that Office and Court decide on the same basis.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“D10 (Zhang/Li, interactive browsing of a 3D environment) does not disclose feature a: it renders a static view of a concentric mosaic, the frames are stored without temporal order, and the progressive refinement of one image is not progressive playback of a media sequence [163]-[168].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“D10 is not a realistic starting point and reformulating the problem around it is hindsight [179]-[181]; from D1 the skilled person had no motivation to replace start-position requests with index-based byte-range requests nor to flush a request queue on a user instruction, D10's queue flush being explained by its different concept [207]-[226]; the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion gives no reason for the flush step [227]; D11 and D9 lie further away [229]-[239]; D2 and D3 disclose neither queue nor mask and D3 teaches away [240]-[265]. Burden of proof on the revocation claimant [176].”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Claim 1 does not extend beyond the parent and divisional applications; the request-queue features are disclosed in paragraphs [0018] and [0051] and the check whether byte ranges are already downloaded may be omitted from feature group b because it is objectively unnecessary for the queue's purpose (Abbott v Sibio) and is in any case implied only for the case of a user instruction, which claim 1 reflects in feature d2 [143]-[154].”
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).