Opens in a new tab

Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 14 May 2024)

Date14 May 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionAmend Document
Registry referenceApp_23193/2024 · ORD_23441/2024
PartiesDolby 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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

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
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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 490 258 B1
Method 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.