Opens in a new tab

Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, UPC_CFI_1536/2025, 1 May 2026, doc. 2)

Date1 May 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1536/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0001536/2025
PartiesDolby International AB v. CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 8 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_1536/2025, UPC_CFI_982/2026 and UPC_CFI_1168/2026), the panel of The Hague Local Division dismissed the request for review under Rule 333 RoP of the judge-rapporteur’s order of 1 May 2026, which had held admissible Acer’s counterclaim for rate-setting against Vectis IP, intervening in support of Dolby in an infringement action on EP 3 079 153. It also added Vectis, so far as necessary, as a party on Dolby’s side and granted leave to appeal. The decision matters for pool licensing disputes: a pool administrator that intervenes voluntarily may be targeted directly by the implementer’s claim.

Question

May a counterclaim for setting a licence rate be directed against an intervener supporting the claimant in an infringement action?

Decision

Under Rule 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party unless the court orders otherwise, so a counterclaim may be directed against it, all the more so as equal treatment requires this where it supports the claimant (paragraph 4.1). Vectis, authorised by Dolby, can grant a licence. Whether it is bound by Dolby’s FRAND commitments is a matter for the merits (paragraph 4.2). Since Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA allows Vectis to defend alongside Dolby on the licence, it would be anomalous to exclude a claim against it (paragraph 4.3). Art. 47 UPCA limits who may bring an action, not who may intervene (paragraph 4.5). In the alternative, Vectis was added as a party under Rule 305 RoP (paragraph 4.7). The request for a separate time limit was refused (paragraph 4.9). Leave to appeal was granted under Rule 220.2 RoP, as the point has not been decided by the Court of Appeal.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 32(1)(a), 47(1) and 73
Rules of Procedure
Rules 19, 220.2, 305, 313, 315.4, 316.3 and 333
Case law cited
Strabag v Swarco Futurit, Court of Appeal, 27 November 2025

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_1536/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 2 April 2026 Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, 2 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1536/2025

    Le juge rapporteur soumet aux parties son résumé de la conférence de gestion, dit que l’affaire suit le règlement de procédure et fixe une écriture de Dolby au 9 mars 2026.

  2. 30 April 2026 Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, 30 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1536/2025

    Le juge rapporteur consigne l’audience de gestion du 23 février 2026, invite les parties à poursuivre la négociation sur le pool et ordonne que l’instance suive son cours, Dolby devant déposer des observations.

  3. 1 May 2026 Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, UPC_CFI_1536/2025, 1 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1536/2025

    Le juge rapporteur rectifie, sans opposition, l'ordonnance du 1er mai 2026 en remplaçant « Dolby and Acer » par « Dolby and Vectis » sous la lettre A.

  4. 1 May 2026 Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, UPC_CFI_1536/2025, 1 May 2026, doc. 2) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1536/2025
  5. 1 May 2026 Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, UPC_CFI_1536/2025, 1 May 2026, doc. 3) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1536/2025

    Le juge rapporteur de la division locale de La Haye admet l'intervention de Vectis, déclare recevable la demande reconventionnelle en fixation du taux dirigée contre elle et ordonne la production des licences comparables sous un régime de confidentialité à deux niveaux.

  6. 18 August 2026 Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, 18 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1536/2025

    La formation rejette le recours : l'intervenant étant traité comme une partie (R. 315.4), une demande reconventionnelle en fixation du taux de redevance peut être dirigée contre lui. Vectis est en outre ajoutée comme partie aux côtés de Dolby et l'autorisation de faire appel est accordée.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division locale de La Haye confirme la recevabilité de la demande reconventionnelle en fixation du taux de licence contre Vectis, intervenante au soutien de Dolby, l'ajoute comme partie et autorise l'appel.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 3 079 153
Selective post filter
recorded proprietor: Dolby International AB		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, 18 August 2026) · Vectis IP v CPYou (CoA, UPC_CoA_118/2026, 5 August 2026) · Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 27 July 2026) · Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, UPC_CFI_1536/2025, 1 May 2026) · Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, UPC_CFI_1536/2025, 1 May 2026, doc. · Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, 30 April 2026) · Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, 2 April 2026)		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.