Düsseldorf Local Division
UPC_CFI_297/2025
UPC_CFI_651/2025

Procedural Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 17 September 2025
concerning EP 2 080 349

CLAIMANT:
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS, represented by Richard J. Brezski, 20 rue Rouget de Lisle, 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France
represented by: Attorney-at-law Jan Wergin, Attorney-at-law Dr Arno Riße, Attorney-at-law Cordula Schumacher, Attorney-at-law Dr Lisa Rieth, Attorney-at-law Julija Kravtsova, Attorney-at-law Victoria Thüsing, Arnold Ruess Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Königsallee 59a, 40215 Düsseldorf, Germany
Patent Attorney Dr Dominik Ho, Patent Attorney David Molnia, Molnia Ho PartG mbB, Theatinerstraße 16, 80333 München, Germany
electronic address for service: upc-idg-dis-349@arnold-ruess.com

DEFENDANTS:
1. The Walt Disney Company, represented by ist legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521, USA
2. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., represented by the board members Matthijs Sebastiaan de Graaf, Marco de Ruiter, Evert Jan Willem van der Veer, Asterweg 15S, 1031 HL Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3. Disney Interactive, represented by its legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521, USA
4. Disney Electronic Content, Inc., represented by its legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521, USA
5. Disney Platform Distribution, Inc, also trading as Disney DTC LLC, represented by its legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521, USA
6. The Walt Disney Company Limited, represented by Deborah Margaret Armstrong, Simon Unsworth Bailey, Tracy Anne Bermingham, Dominique Ruth Cardle, Nicola Rose Keat, 3 Queen Caroline Street, Hammersmith, London, W6 9PE, United Kingdom
7. Disney Enterprises, Inc., represented by its legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521, USA
8. Disney Streaming Services LLC, represented by its legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA, 91521, USA
9. Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, also trading as Disney Entertainment Operations LLC, represented by its legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA, 91521, USA
10. Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, also trading as Disney Streaming Technology LLC or Disney Technology LLC, represented by its legal representatives, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA, 91521, USA
11. BAMTech LLC, also trading as BAMTech Media or Disney Streaming Services (LLC) or Disney Streaming, represented by its legal representatives, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, USA
All Defendants represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Dietrich Kamlah, Attorney-at-law Dr Christian Lederer, Attorney-at-law Dr Michael Schächinger, Attorney-at-law Leoni König, Taylor Wessing Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbB, Isartorplatz 8, 80331 Munich, Germany
Patent Attorney Dr Joel Nägerl, Patent Attorney Dr
Lorenz Walder-Hartmann, Zimmermann & Partner
Patentanwälte mbB, Josephspitalstraße 15, 80331
Munich, Germany
electronic address for service: d.kamlah@taylorwessing.com

PATENT IN SUIT:
European Patent n° 2 080 349

PANEL/DIVSION:
Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf

DECIDING JUDGES:
This Order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr Schumacher acting as judge-rapporteur and legally qualified Judge Mlakar.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action – R. 37.1, R. 37.2 RoP, Art. 33(3) UPCA

GROUNDS OF THE ORDER:
Pursuant to R. 37.2 RoP, the Panel takes an earlier decision on the question of how to proceed with regard to Art. 33(3) UPCA before the end of the written procedure.
According to R. 37.2 RoP, the panel may by order take an earlier decision having considered the parties’ pleadings and having given the parties an opportunity to be heard.
In the present case, the Panel exercises its discretion to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA). Such a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of efficiency. It is also preferable because it allows both issues – validity and infringement – to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel composed of the same judges.
An early decision on the bifurcation issue will set the framework for possible questions. This will enable the Court to manage the case accordingly.
The parties have been heard and have not raised any objections.

ORDER:
With the consent of the parties, the Düsseldorf Local Division will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR:
The Judge-Rapporteur shall request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate to the panel a technically qualified judge with appropriate qualifications and experience in the field of technology related to the patent in suit.

DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
ORD_28535/2025 related to the main proceedings ACT_15249/2025 and CC_32910/2025
UPC-number: UPC_CFI_297/2025 and UPC_CFI_651/2025
Type of procedure: Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
Issued in Düsseldorf on 17 September 2025