InterDigital CE Patent v The Walt Disney (CFI, 2 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 4 October 2026

Our analysis

Facts and procedure

InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, proprietor of European patent 2 080 349 on the sharing of media content between two devices, sued eleven Walt Disney entities before the Düsseldorf local division over the casting function of the Disney+ service. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and opposed the proposed amendments. Thirty-seven auxiliary requests were filed. The hearing took place on 1 July 2026 before a panel of four judges.

Question

How are session data and queue of media content to be construed, does the patent so construed survive the prior art, and does the Disney+ service amount to supplying means for putting the invention into effect.

Decision

The Düsseldorf local division adopts a broad construction: session data do not require an active communication session, and a queue covers any arrangement of media content created by a user, including a single file. That reading, favourable to the proprietor on scope, works against it on validity: claims 1, 4 and 8 lack novelty over two prior art documents. The patent is revoked in Germany and the Netherlands, claim 1 being maintained only in the wording of auxiliary request K5. On that version indirect infringement is found: an order to refrain from supplying or offering the means, information going back to 14 December 2011, disclosure of the books of account, penalty payments of at least EUR 10,000 per violation and up to EUR 5,000 per day, joint and several liability in damages and a declaration of infringement. Costs are apportioned, 90 per cent on the defendants for the infringement action and 70 per cent for the counterclaim.

Key points for practice

• The broad construction won on infringement is paid for on validity: the same reading that widens scope brings the claim closer to the prior art.
• The division accepts thirty-seven auxiliary requests and rejects the Rule 9 application to limit them to eight, given the number of invalidity attacks.
• Partial maintenance becomes the basis for infringement: the measures are granted on the wording of the surviving auxiliary request alone.
• The information order runs from 2011 and its use is confined to quantifying damages and identifying the third parties involved.
• Practical point: a proprietor should design auxiliary requests that remain workable on infringement, a defendant should attack first the construction that supports the asserted scope.

Provisions applied

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 69 and its Protocol on interpretation

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 26(1), Art. 68(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 118.8, 191, 263 and 336

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, SES-imagotag v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_182/2024, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_528/2024, Fujifilm v Kodak, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_473/2025.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the decision and the official registry, consulted on 4 October 2026. It is no substitute for reading the decision.