DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CFI, 16 April 2025)

Date	16 April 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_15082/2025 · ORD_18696/2025
Parties	BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 16 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_471/2023, ORD_18696/2025), Judge-rapporteur Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division rejected the application of the defendants AYLO PREMIUM, AYLO Billing, AYLO FREESITES, AYLO BILLING US CORP., BROCKWELL GROUP and BRIDGEMAZE GROUP, sued by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for infringement of EP 2 479 680, for leave to file a further submission on statements made by DISH Technologies on 28 February 2025 before the US PTAB concerning US 8,868,772. The order declines to treat positions taken on another patent as material for claim construction.

Question

May a party, in the course of the proceedings, introduce under Rule 9.1 statements made by its opponent before a foreign tribunal on a related patent?

Decision

Admitting further written submissions is discretionary: the court weighs the parties’ interests against the orderly conduct of proceedings, in particular the reasons why the material was not put forward earlier, which the applicant must set out. A party’s differing view on a claim of another patent, even an allegedly similar one, is irrelevant to the construction of the patent in suit and is not admissible material for that purpose. As for technical facts drawn from the US proceedings, the defendants did not explain why they could not have relied on them earlier, since those facts were not within the claimants’ exclusive knowledge. There was no need to hear the claimants before rejecting the application.

Key points for practice

Practical point: an opponent’s statements in foreign proceedings on a related patent do not justify reopening the written procedure, technical facts must be raised in good time.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 9.1
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantAYLO PREMIUM LTD12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantBRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantBROCKWELL GROUP LLC4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantAYLO BILLING US CORP3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantAYLO FREESITES LTD9 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantAYLO Billing Limited7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande d'écritures complémentaires est rejetée : les positions prises sur un autre brevet sont sans pertinence pour l'interprétation et les faits techniques pouvaient être invoqués plus tôt.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 479 680 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 479 680` Method for presenting rate-adaptive streams recorded proprietor: Dish Technologies LLC	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CFI, 6 June 2025) · DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CFI, 23 April 2025) · DISH Technologies v Cloudflare (CFI, 27 March 2025) · DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CoA, 9 January 2025) · DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CFI, 20 October 2024) · DISH Technologies v Aylo Premium (CFI, ORD_47055/2024, 20 October 2024 · DISH Technologies v Aylo Premium (CFI, ORD_47058/2024, 20 October 2024 · AYLO Premium v DISH Technologies (CoA, 3 September 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.