InterDigital VC Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 16 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 16 June 2026 in joined proceedings UPC_CFI_86/2025 (infringement) and UPC_CFI_490/2025 (counterclaim for revocation), the Mannheim Local Division holds InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.’s EP 2 465 265 valid and infringed by the HEVC stream of the Disney+ service, dismisses the counterclaim and the FRAND defence of The Walt Disney Company and ten group companies, and grants an injunction for eleven States, subject to security of EUR 8 million. The decision matters for video standards litigation: an online stream is a product, encoding claims that the standard does not prescribe fall outside the FRAND framework in the division’s view, and a defendant that relies on a non-disclosure agreement to prevent the negotiations from being shown is treated as an unwilling licensee.

Facts and procedure

EP 2 465 265, on video encoding and decoding, is asserted in eleven Contracting Member States on the basis of claims 1 and 15 (paragraphs 1 to 14). The attacked embodiment is the Disney+ service, exemplified by an HEVC stream whose analysis is not disputed. The patentee argues that these claims are not essential to HEVC, while acknowledging a FRAND declaration by its predecessor. It also sought an interim award of EUR 500,000, the defendants asked in the alternative for security of at least EUR 500 million (paragraphs 25 to 30).

The applicable law

The division applies Arts. 54, 56 and 138(1) EPC to validity, Art. 25(a) and (c) UPCA to infringement and Arts. 63, 64, 67 and 68 UPCA to remedies. The FRAND defence is examined under Art. 102 TFEU and the Court of Justice’s Huawei/ZTE judgment, which the UPC applies by virtue of the primacy of EU law (Arts. 20, 21 and 24 UPCA) (paragraphs 205 to 209).

Question

Is a video stream encoded by a patented method an infringing product, and can the defendant raise a FRAND defence against encoding claims that the HEVC standard does not prescribe?

Decision

The patent is its own lexicon. There is no added matter, and novelty and inventive step are upheld (paragraphs 79 to 167). A signal sequence transmitted over a network is a product under Art. 25(a), and the encoded signal is a product directly obtained by the process under Art. 25(c) (paragraphs 174 and 175). The injunction is justified, information is due monthly and in electronic form, recall is limited to commercial recipients and the interim award is refused. Confidentiality is a matter for a Rule 262A application when the information is provided (paragraphs 179 to 204).

On FRAND, the encoding claims are not part of a de jure standard and the defendants establish neither the relevant market nor dominance (paragraphs 213 to 218). Even assuming dominance and that Huawei v ZTE applies to a de facto standard, an open question in the absence of a FRAND undertaking (paragraphs 219 to 221), the defence fails. The notice is deemed given, the defendants not seriously disputing it while refusing to lift the non-disclosure agreement (paragraphs 230 to 236). They are unwilling licensees: the clause inserted at their request prevents InterDigital from presenting its offer, they did not answer the request to lift it, criticised the offer only in general terms and made a counteroffer only after eighteen months (paragraphs 237 to 250). The value of the dispute is EUR 8 million per action, costs are borne by the defendants, penalty payments reach EUR 250,000 per day, and enforcement of the injunction and recall is subject to security of EUR 8 million, the claimant’s own financial position being unclear (paragraphs 251 to 256).

Key points for practice

• An online data stream can be an infringing product under Art. 25(a) and (c) UPCA (paragraphs 174 and 175).
• The burden of proving dominance lies on the defendant relying on Art. 102 TFEU (paragraphs 212 and 213).
• A defendant that hides behind a non-disclosure agreement to prevent review of the patentee’s offer is treated as unwilling (paragraphs 240 to 248).
• Practical point: a patentee whose financial position is not documented should expect an enforcement security, here equal to the value of the dispute (paragraphs 254 to 256).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 20, 21, 24, 25, 31, 33, 63, 64, 67, 68 and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 104, 118.5, 118.8, 119, 171.2, 191, 262A, 263, 354.3 and 370.6

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56 and Art. 138

Other instruments

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Arts. 7(2) and 71b, Art. 102 TFEU

Case law cited

Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 29 January 2026, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 18 March 2026, Rematec v Europe Forestry, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2026, Panasonic v Oppo, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024, Hurom v NUC Europe, Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025, UPC_CFI_159/2024, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Munich Local Division, 19 September 2023, Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 March 2026

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.