AYLO PREMIUM v DISH Technologies (CFI, 28 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 28 May 2025, the Paris Central Division, seised by AYLO PREMIUM of a revocation action directed only at the German part of DISH Technologies’ EP 3 822 805 B1 (adaptive rate streaming of content), revokes that German part for added matter over the parent application. The decision matters for practice on two counts: it accepts that a revocation action before the UPC may target one or more specified Member States, since the Court may not award more than is requested, and it refuses a stay despite pending EPO opposition proceedings.

Facts and procedure

The action was filed on 15 April 2024, an infringement action is pending before the Munich I Regional Court and opposition proceedings are pending before the EPO, the opposition division having scheduled a hearing for 4 and 5 June 2025. The proprietor filed an application to amend the patent with sixteen auxiliary requests, which were admitted, while later requests were rejected as late. The claimant’s request for security for costs and the request for a stay had been rejected during the proceedings. The claimant relied on added matter, insufficiency, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step. The oral hearing took place on 3 April 2025.

The applicable law

Art. 34 UPCA in principle extends decisions to the territory of the Member States in which the patent has effect, but Art. 76(1) UPCA prevents the Court from awarding more than is requested (paragraphs 4.1 to 4.8). A stay falls under Art. 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a). Revocation for added matter of a patent granted on a divisional application is assessed under Arts. 76(1), 123(2) and 138(1)(c) EPC.

Question

May the Court limit revocation to the German part of a European patent, should it stay the proceedings pending the opposition, and does feature 1.7, referring to a shift to the “highest quality” sustainable copy, have a basis in the parent application?

Decision

The division accepts revocation limited to certain states: Art. 34 UPCA does not stand in the way and no compelling reason is required, contrary to a view in the literature which it rejects (paragraphs 4.1 to 4.8). A stay is refused in view of the advanced stage of the proceedings, the claimant’s interest in a timely judgment in proceedings that can be concluded in about a year (paragraphs 5.1 to 5.7). On the merits, the parent application only teaches checking whether the next higher quality is sustainable (paragraphs 9.18 to 9.21), the proprietor’s reading across several cycles is rejected (paragraph 9.26) and the reference to the “highest quality” is an inadmissible generalisation, with claim 9 sharing the same fate (paragraphs 9.27 and 9.28). The other grounds are not examined (paragraph 9.29). None of the auxiliary requests, nor claim 2, overcomes the objection (paragraphs 11.4 and 11.5). The German part of the patent is revoked and the proprietor bears the costs (paragraph 13.1).

Key points for practice

• A claimant may confine its revocation action to certain Member States, and the Court is bound by that limitation (paragraphs 4.1 to 4.8).
• Pending EPO opposition proceedings do not justify a stay where the UPC proceedings are advanced and can be concluded in about a year (paragraph 5.7).
• For a divisional patent, wording that generalises a step described only for the next higher quality amounts to added matter (paragraph 9.27).
• Practical point: a revocation action targeted at the state of a parallel infringement action may secure a swift ruling for that territory alone.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 33(10), 34, 69 and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5 and 295(a)

European Patent Convention

Arts. 76(1), 123(2) and 138(1)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Bitzer v Carrier, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025.

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.