InterDigital VC v The Walt Disney (CFI, 9 July 2025)
| Date | 9 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application for provisional measures |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_445/2025 |
| Registry reference | ACT_24153/2025 · ORD_32659/2025 · UPC_CFI_445/2025 |
| Parties | InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & E… |
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 order of 9 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_445/2025), Judge Tochtermann (Mannheim Local Division) dealt with the refusal by the Disney companies’ representatives to acknowledge receipt of the anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) granted on 27 May 2025 to InterDigital VC Holdings and InterDigital CE Patent Holdings. The defendants must have the acknowledgment signed and their representative registered in the CMS, failing which an initial penalty payment of EUR 100,000 is threatened.
Question
May representatives appointed in the main action refuse service of the AASI by limiting their mandate to selected acts?
Decision
No. The order of 28 May 2025 had directed lawyer-to-lawyer service on the representatives in the main action (UPC_CFI_86/2025), they refused to sign the acknowledgment, saying they were not appointed in the AASI proceedings, while stating that their clients would not file a Rule 213.1 application. The judge’s preliminary view is that service is effective: the AASI proceedings are inseparable from the main action, and a mandate cannot be limited to selected acts for tactical reasons. He noted the contradictory nature of that conduct and pointed out that a breach of point 2.2 of the Code of Conduct may lead to the representative’s exclusion (Rule 291.1), including from the main action. The order is to be served by bailiff on the lawyer concerned, who may comment within two weeks. The amount of the penalty is justified by the stated values (EUR 2 million for the AASI, EUR 3 to 8 million for the main actions).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a representative appointed in the main action cannot refuse documents in ancillary proceedings such as an AASI, a refusal exposes the party to a penalty and the representative to exclusion.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 206, 213.1, 231.1, 290.2, 291.1 and 354.3
- Code of Conduct for Representatives
- Point 2.2
- Case law cited
- No UPC decision, reference to the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe of 9 December 2020 (6 U 103/19)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents, Application for a preliminary injunction.
Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.
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.
Parties
- defendantThe Walt Disney Company5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantInterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantDisney Streaming Services LLC2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantDisney Platform Distribution, Inc.Follow this party
- defendantDisney Media & EFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application for provisional measures
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La signification de l'AASI aux représentants de l'action au fond est jugée efficace à titre provisoire. Les défenderesses doivent faire signer l'accusé de réception et enregistrer leur représentant, sous menace d'une astreinte initiale de 100 000 euros.
- 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.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- InterDigital VC Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 16 June 2026) cited in this record
- MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte v Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology (CFI, 25 August 2025) cites this decision
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.