Opens in a new tab

InterDigital VC Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 30 April 2025)

Date30 April 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_11333/2025 · ORD_11991/2025
PartiesThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V, The Walt Disney Company Limited

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

On an application by the Disney companies, defendants in InterDigital VC Holdings’ infringement action on EP 2 449 782 (video coding) before the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_87/2025), the President of the Court of First Instance, Florence Butin, changed the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order, issued two days before the one in the parallel Mannheim action, applies the fairness criteria developed by the Court of Appeal.

Question

Is an application to change the language filed before the Statement of defence admissible, and should English be adopted in view of the parties’ situation and the technical field?

Decision

Yes. Admissibility was not disputed, service having been completed on all defendants and the claimant having been heard (Rule 323.2). On the merits, the President applied the Court of Appeal’s criteria: the language commonly used in the field, the parties’ nationality, domicile and size, working language and coordination needs, significant inconvenience is enough, and where the balance is even the defendant’s position prevails. English is the usual language of video coding and the working language of all parties. The representatives’ language skills and the judges’ native language are irrelevant. The Disney group’s resources and the parallel proceedings carry little weight. The option open to the claimant under Rule 14.1 is no obstacle.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 49(1), (2) and (5)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 14.1 and 323
Case law cited
Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024, Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_354/2024), Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_207/2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_26/2024)

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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)
La langue de la procédure passe de l'allemand à l'anglais, langue de délivrance du brevet, au regard du domaine technique et de la langue de travail des parties.
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 2 449 782Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): InterDigital VC Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 24 July 2026) · Amazon.com v InterDigital VC Holdings (CoA, 29 December 2025) · Inter Digital VC v The Walt Disney (CFI, 19 November 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
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.