Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 14 May 2024)
| Date | 14 May 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Amend Document |
| Registry reference | App_23193/2024 · ORD_23441/2024 |
| Parties | Dolby International AB |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By procedural order of 14 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_457/2023, ACT_590145/2023, App_23193/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Dolby International to limit the claim in its infringement action on EP 3 490 258 against fifteen HP group companies, concerning computers able to decode the HEVC format: the injunction sought no longer covers cases where any of the claimed means is implemented by a graphics card distributed by NVIDIA Corporation or its affiliates. The Division took the view that the defendants’ application to invite NVIDIA to intervene (App_19914/2024) has thereby become moot.
Question
Is the claimant’s statement that it does not target implementations of the patent by NVIDIA graphics cards a mere clarification or an unconditional limitation of the claim within the meaning of Rule 263.3 RoP, and does it amount to a partial withdrawal with costs consequences?
Decision
Rather than a mere clarification, the statement is a subsequent, unconditional limitation of the claim, which must always be allowed (Rule 263.3 RoP). The original claim covered all HP computers able to decode HEVC files, including those in which only the graphics card enables decoding. The claimant’s tests, carried out with the graphics card disabled, concerned decoding by the processor alone. Whether the limitation is a partial withdrawal with costs consequences under Rule 265 RoP need not be decided at this stage, as the defendants have not shown a legitimate interest within the meaning of the second sentence of that rule. Costs will be dealt with in the decision on the merits (Rule 118.5 RoP).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a patentee can defuse an application to bring in a third-party supplier by carving that supplier’s products out of its claim, an unconditional limitation is allowed as of right, with costs left to the merits.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 118.5, 263.1, 263.3 and 265
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
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
Parties
- claimantDolby International AB35 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Amend Document
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Dolby est autorisée à exclure de ses conclusions les mises en œuvre par des cartes graphiques NVIDIA, limitation inconditionnelle admise de droit, ce qui rend sans objet la demande de mise en cause de NVIDIA.
- 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 3 490 258 B1mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 490 258 B1Method and recording medium storing coded image data recorded proprietor: Dolby International AB | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): Dolby International v Roku (CFI, 19 May 2025) · Dolby International v Roku (CFI, 18 March 2025) · Dolby International v ASUS Computer (CFI, ORD_68548/2024, 10 February · Dolby International v ASUS Computer (CFI, ORD_68550/2024, 10 February · Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 11 December 2024) · Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 29 October 2024) · Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 30 July 2024) · Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 22 July 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 |
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.