DISH Technologies v Cloudflare (CFI, 27 March 2025)

Date	27 March 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_15005/2025
Parties	DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v. Cloudflare. Inc.

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 order of 27 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_471/2023, ORD_15005/2025), Judge-rapporteur Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division rejected DISH Technologies and Sling TV’s request for a finding that the information they sought from Cloudflare, a third party, under Rule 191 was not decisive for their infringement action on EP 2 479 680 against Aylo group companies. He deferred the decision on the request for information, on Cloudflare’s request for access to the file and on the requests for extensions of time.

Question

May a party obtain a finding that information it seeks from a third party is not relevant to the outcome, and is a request for information conditional on its relevance admissible?

Decision

The request for a finding is inadmissible: it would not bind the panel, the claimants have no legal interest in it and no provision allows it (paragraph 1). The conditional withdrawal is to be read as a request made conditional on the relevance of the information (paragraph 2). Such an internal procedural condition is permissible, and the panel may defer the measure until relevance is established, Rule 114 allowing it to adjourn (paragraph 3). Whether jurisdiction over the third party under Brussels I bis is required, and the basis for the measure in the Agreement, are left open. The interference with the third party’s rights also supports deferral (paragraph 4).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a request for information against a third party may be made conditional on its relevance, and the panel may wait until then to rule on it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 41(1) and (2), 43, 59 and 60
Rules of Procedure: Rules 114, 191, 262.1(b), 262.3, 262A and 265.1
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024, UPC_CoA_298/2024, UPC_CoA_299/2024 and UPC_CoA_300/2024

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

claimantDISH Technologies L.L.C11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSling TV L.L.C10 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantCloudflare. Inc.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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de constatation de non-pertinence est irrecevable. La décision sur la demande d'informations visant Cloudflare, sur son accès au dossier et sur les prorogations est différée.
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 AYLO PREMIUM (CFI, 16 April 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.