DISH Technologies v Aylo Premium (CFI, ORD_47055/2024, 20 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 October 2024 (ORD_47055/2024, UPC_CFI_471/2023, ACT_594191/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division rejected the application of DISH Technologies and Sling TV, which are suing several Aylo companies for indirect infringement of EP 2 479 680 in nine states, for the defendants operating the streaming services to disclose the content delivery networks (CDNs) used since 28 August 2019, the location of their servers and how video files are split and encoded on those servers.

Question

Can a claimant in infringement proceedings obtain, while the action is pending and before the rejoinder, an order to provide technical information under Rule 191 RoP?

Decision

Not on these facts. Rule 191 RoP distinguishes information covered by Art. 67 UPCA from information the applicant reasonably needs, the second limb being read in the light of Article 8 of Directive 2004/48. Distribution-chain information may be required before the final decision only in special circumstances, which were not shown. The application was premature, as the rejoinder had not yet been filed, it was an impermissible fishing exercise not limited to relevant information, reasonably available sources had not been exhausted, and the state of the debate on construction, infringement and validity did not justify the burden, whether server locations are legally needed for a territorial link not yet being settled. The judge left open whether the second limb of Rule 191 RoP has a basis in the UPCA and whether such orders may only be made in the final decision. A fresh application is not ruled out if the defendants’ submissions show significant gaps that become decisive.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an application for information under Rule 191 RoP should be confined to what the dispute requires, made after reasonably available sources have been exhausted and, preferably, after the opponent’s pleadings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 59, 67, 73(2)(a) and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 190, 191, 220.1(c) and 224.1(b)

Case law cited

UPC Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024, UPC_CoA_298/2024, UPC_CoA_299/2024 and UPC_CoA_300/2024, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024.

Related decisions

• DISH Technologies v Aylo Premium, 20 October 2024, separate order of the same day rejecting the application on video encoding on the origin servers.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.