InterDigital CE Patent Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 18 June 2025)

Date	18 June 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_22462/2025 · ORD_26368/2025
Parties	The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.

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

By an order of 18 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_297/2025, EP 2 080 349), the President of the Court of First Instance, Florence Butin, after consulting the panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division, ordered that the proceedings brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings against The Walt Disney Company and ten other group companies continue in English, the language in which the patent was granted, instead of German. The order states that the position of all potentially affected parties must be heard.

Question

Should the language of proceedings be changed to English at the defendants’ request, and on what procedural conditions?

Decision

The application, filed by The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) on 13 May 2025 and joined by the other defendants on 16 June 2025, was admissible, which the claimant did not dispute. Invited to comment under Rule 323.2, the claimant raised no circumstance distinguishing the case from the orders of 30 April and 2 May 2025 in parallel proceedings, to which the President referred. As an English version of the statement of claim had already been provided and a considerable share of the exhibits was in English, no translation or interpretation conditions were imposed.

Key points for practice

Where there are several defendants, the position of each of them must be heard before a change of language is decided.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 49(1), (2) and (5) and 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 220 and 323
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, orders of 30 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_87/2025) and 2 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_86/2025)

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

claimantThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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 est changée de l'allemand en anglais, langue de délivrance du brevet, sans condition de traduction ou d'interprétation.
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 2 080 349 mentioned 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
InterDigital VC Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 9 July 2025) cites this decision

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 080 349`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): InterDigital CE Patent Holdings v The Walt Disney Company (CFI, 2 Sept · InterDigital CE Patent v Disney Electronic Content (CFI, 17 September	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.