Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 19 January 2024)
| Date | 19 January 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_457/2023 |
| Registry reference | App_1714/2024 · ORD_2037/2024 · UPC_CFI_457/2023 |
| Parties | Dolby International AB v. HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark… |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
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.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
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.
Parties
- claimantDolby International AB35 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHP Inc.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHP International SARL3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHP Deutschland GmbH2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHP Austria GmbHFollow this party
- defendantHP France SASFollow this party
- defendantHP Belgium SPRLFollow this party
- defendantHP Inc DanmarkFollow 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)
- Les délais d'exception préliminaire et de mémoire en défense expirent pour toutes les défenderesses les 15 février et 3 mai 2024, la signification étant réputée faite le 12 janvier 2024.
- 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
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Yangtze Memory Technologies v Micron Technology (CFI, 7 November 2025) cites this decision
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 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 |
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.