InterDigital wins another UPC injunction in streaming dispute with Disney

The Düsseldorf local division has ordered eleven Disney entities to stop offering encoded picture data and bitstreams that infringe InterDigital’s EP 2 449 782 (case ID: UPC_CFI_87/2025). The patent covers methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks in video encoders and decoders. The injunction covers Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden.

The panel under presiding judge Ronny Thomas, legally qualified judges Jule Schumacher and Mojca Mlakar, and technically qualified judge Dennis Kretschmann also ordered the recall and permanent removal of the infringing signals from the channels of commerce, along with detailed information and accounting obligations dating back to December 2017. The court dismissed Disney’s counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent novel, inventive and free from added matter.

Disney may appeal the decision. Enforcement of the injunction, recall and removal orders is subject to a security of €8 million to be provided by InterDigital.

Second UPC ruling within weeks

The decision closely follows a ruling of the Mannheim local division from 16 June 2026, in which the Mannheim panel under presiding judge Peter Tochtermann ordered Disney to cease infringing InterDigital’s EP 2 465 265 concerning intra chroma coding (case ID: UPC_CFI_86/2025). Both EP 782 and EP 265 target the Disney+ streaming service and both proceedings centred on the same exemplary bitstream, the 1937 animated film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, available on Disney+ in a format using High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) technology.

The Düsseldorf panel expressly aligned itself with the Mannheim decision on several central points, in particular the FRAND assessment and the finding that Disney was to be regarded as an unwilling licensee.

NDA in FRAND

The Düsseldorf decision goes one step further than the Mannheim ruling by formulating an explicit headnote on the treatment of non-disclosure agreements in FRAND proceedings. According to the panel, “If an NDA between the parties prevents one party from making submissions or producing documents, and the other party, without reasonable justification, refuses to amend the NDA to enable such production, this shall be to the detriment of the latter party.” Where a party refers to steps within the FRAND negotiation programme and the court cannot examine these steps due to the other party’s refusal to amend the NDA, “the steps will be considered to have been taken in accordance with the Huawei v ZTE judgment”.

Applying these principles, the panel held that InterDigital’s infringement notification and licence offer had to be presumed to comply with the requirements set out in Huawei vs ZTE, since Disney had prevented an examination of the underlying communications. InterDigital had asked Disney in July 2025 to mutually agree to amend the NDA so that both parties could disclose the full negotiation history under a confidentiality order. According to the ruling, Disney did not substantively respond.

Standard-essentiality rejected

As in Mannheim, the Düsseldorf panel found that Disney had failed to demonstrate that InterDigital holds a dominant market position. The court confirmed that the HEVC standard, by its own definition, does not cover the encoding process, so the asserted claims are not part of a de jure standard.

The panel also rejected the argument that the claims form a de facto standard. It pointed to Disney’s own submission that it had implemented workarounds without demonstrating any commercially significant impact on the streaming service. In this respect, the court explicitly referenced the reasoning of the Mannheim decision.

Furthermore, the judges held that InterDigital’s FRAND declaration to the ITU covered only claims essential to the standard and therefore did not extend to the asserted claims. Nevertheless, the panel examined the parties’ conduct under the Huawei vs ZTE framework and found Disney to be unwilling, particularly in light of its blanket criticism of InterDigital’s offer without raising specific objections, and its delayed counteroffer submitted only in February 2026.

One of many

The recent decisions form part of a wider global campaign by InterDigital against Disney concerning video coding technology used in Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu. In February 2025, InterDigital filed lawsuits at the US Federal District Court for the Central District of California, in Brazil, at the Munich Regional Court, and at UPC local divisions in Mannheim and Düsseldorf.

Parallel UPC proceedings relate to EP 3 259 902 in Mannheim, and EP 2 080 349 in Düsseldorf. In the case of the latter, an oral hearing took place on 30 June.

So far, InterDigital has been on a winning streak. In October last year, the Munich Regional Court issued a ruling prohibiting Disney from infringing EP 1 905 233, which protects a method for dynamically overlaying video streams with, for example, subtitles (case ID 7 O 1297/25). The proceedings have been suspended pending a decision in a parallel nullity suit at the German Federal Patent Court. In late November last year and in February 2026 the same court granted Inter Digital injunctions regarding other patents-in-suit (case IDs: 7 O 1311/25 and 7 O 4335/25).

Previously, InterDigital had applied for an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) at the UPC’s local division Mannheim as well as at the Regional Court Munich (case ID: Az 7 O 6397/25), aimed at preventing Disney from applying for an ASI. The US entertainment company, arguing that they had not intended to apply for an ASI, accepted the AASI.

Another decision by the local division Düsseldorf over EP 2 080 349, where the oral hearing took place on 1 July, is expected to be handed down at the beginning of September (case ID: UPC_CFI_297/2025).

Streaming-dispute veterans

The representatives of both parties have extensive experience in defending patents for video and streaming technologies.

As in previous disputes, InterDigital is relying on a team of litigators from Arnold Ruess and patent attorneys from df-mp at both the UPC and the Munich Regional Court. Both firms have already successfully represented the client in infringement and nullity proceedings against Oppo in Germany. The Düsseldorf-based IP boutique and the Munich-based patent attorneys also represented InterDigital in a dispute with Amazon.

Partners and renowned patent litigators Cordula Schumacher and Arno Riße of Arnold Ruess led the case with the assistance of counsel Lisa Rieth. The team also included associates Victoria Thüsing, Julija Kravtsova and Marius Klötzer.

Dual-qualified Dominik Ho and patent attorney David Molnia of Munich-based df-mp provided technical advice. Besides the partners the team included patent attorneys Matthias Duda, Roland Pültz, Jakob Dandl.

The Munich-based IP boutique Pentarc represented Disney, with the team led by Dietrich Kamlah and Christian Lederer handling the case. The firm is also acting for Samsung in a case over video technology against Maxell.

The Pentarc partners initiated the litigation whilst still part of the German Taylor Wessing practice, but left the firm to set up their own IP boutique last October. The team also included partner Michael Schächinger and Stefanie Engmann; the latter advised on the matter of FRAND in particular.

Patent attorneys of Zimmermann & Partner provided technical support. The team consisted of Joel Nägerl, Christian Ginzel, Dominique Gobert and Rami Daknama.