Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Mannheim Local Division » Local Division Mannheim, July 9, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_292/2025

Local Division Mannheim, July 9, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_292/2025

Philipp Bovenkamp

2 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Jurisdictions
  8. Body of legislation / Rules

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

Language of the proceedings

✓

If the language of the proceedings is not the language in which the patent was granted, Art. 49(5) UPCA allows to change the language of the proceedings. A change, however, requires that the President of the Court of First Instance consults all parties potentially affected thereby and the panel of the Division. The change of the language of proceedings may be conditional on specific translation or interpretation arrangements.

Division

Local Division Mannheim

UPC number

UPC_CFI_292/2025

Type of proceedings

Infringement Action

Parties

Applicants/Defendants: The Walt Disney Company Ltd., The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company, Disney Interactive, Disney Electronic Content, Inc., Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, BAMTech LLC.

Respondent/Claimant: InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.

Patent(s)

EP 3 259 902

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 323 RoP, Art. 49(5) UPCA

UPC_CFI_292-2025_July-9-2025Download

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

  • The Hague Local Division

    LD The Hague, August 18, 2025, Order, UPC CFI 191/2025 & UPC CFI 192/2025

    The scope of a review under R. 333 RoP is marginal and limited to the reasoned grounds submitted by the applicant: When reviewing a Judge-Rapporteur’s order, the full panel will not re-examine the entire decision but will confine its assessment to the specific, substantiated grounds for review raised by the applicant. Issues not challenged in …
    →
  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, August 19, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_319/2025

    The court may separate proceedings against multiple defendants on its own initiative to ensure procedural efficiency, especially when service is delayed on some defendants (Rule 303.2 RoP): When service was completed for two defendants but not for two others, the court found it unreasonable to delay the action and ordered a separation to avoid stalling …
    →
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, September 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_449/2025

    The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide …
    →

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field