InterDigital VC Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 30 April 2025)
| Date | 30 April 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_11333/2025 · ORD_11991/2025 |
| Parties | The 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.
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
- An application to change the language may be made once the statement of claim has been served, before the Statement of defence.
- Practical point: where all parties work in English in an English-speaking technical field, a claimant’s initial choice of German is unlikely to be maintained.
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
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
Parties
- claimantThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantThe Walt Disney Company Limited3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 449 782mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, 17 April 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 449 782 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.