UPC CFI 471/2023 – DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v AYLO PREMIUM LTD et al.

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 471/2023 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 6 June 2025 concerning EP 2 479 680 GUIDING PRINCIPLES: 1. According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not fulfil essentially the same function in order to achieve essentially the same effect. If the same function is not taken as a basis, at least essentially the same effect is taken as a basis (following the Brussels Local Court, Beslissing ten gronde of 17 January 2025, para. 98). 2. There is generally no need for legal protection for the isolated elimination of dependent sub- claims by a nullity (counter)action without eliminating the independent claim to which they are related back. The subject matter of the patent in suit is not extended by these sub-claims as such. At most, they can have a concrete effect on the interpretation in the context of determining the scope of protection of an independent claim in a specific individual case, which must then be explained. 3. The appropriate number of auxiliary requests pursuant to R. 30.1 (c) RP depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The number of attacks on the patent in suit may also be taken into account. KEYWORDS: Doctrine of equivalence; isolated elimination of dependent sub-claims without elimination of the independent claim; reasonable number of auxiliary requests according to R. 30.1 (c) VerfO CLAIMS 1) DISH Technologies L.L.C. - 9601 South Meridian Boulevard - 80112 - Englewood - US represented by Denise Benz2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 2 2) Sling TV L.L.C. - 9601 South Meridian Boulevard - 80112 - Englewood - US represented by Denise Benz COMPLAINTS 1) AYLO PREMIUM LTD - 195-197 Old Nicosia-Limassol Road, Block 1 Dali Industrial Zone - 2540 - Nicosia - CY represented by Tilman Müller-Stoy 2) AYLO Billing Limited - The Black Church, St Mary's Place, Dublin 7 - D07 P4AX - Dublin - IE represented by Tilman Müller-Stoy 3) AYLO FREESITES LTD - 195-197 Old Nicosia-Limassol Road, Block 1 Dali Industrial Zone - 2540 - Nicosia - CY represented by Conor McLaughlin/ Tilman Müller-Stoy 4) AYLO BILLING US CORP. - 610 Brazos Street, Suite 500 - Austin, TX 78701 - US represented by Tilman Müller-Stoy 5) BROCKWELL GROUP LLC - 19046 Bruce B. Downs Blvd #1134 - 33647 - Tampa - US represented by Tilman Müller-Stoy 6) BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC - 12378 SW 82 AVENUE - 33156 - Miami - US represented by Tilman Müller-Stoy PATENT IN DISPUTE: European Patent No. EP 2 479 680 SPRUCHKÖRPER: Local Chamber Mannheim JUDGES: This decision was issued by the presiding judge Prof. Dr Tochtermann, the legally qualified judge and rapporteur Böttcher, the legally qualified judge Dr Schober and the technically qualified judge Dr Kretschmann. LANGUAGE OF PROCEDURE: German2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 3 SUBJECT MATTER: Action for infringement and action for annulment ORAL NEGOTIATION: 7 May 2025 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS: 1. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants for alleged literal or, in the alternative, equivalent contributory infringement of European patent EP 2 479 680 ("patent-in-suit") relating to a method for representing a rate-adaptive (data) stream. The reference to the grant of the patent-in-suit filed on 2 May 2005, claiming the priority of two US patent applications dated 30 April 2004 and 28 April 2005, was published on 28 August 2019. The application was filed on 8 February 2012 as a divisional application from the European application EP 1 743 249, which is based on the international application PCT/US2005/015091 (Annex BPV 1b, publication document K2c). The divisional application is available as Annex BPV 1a, its publication as Annex K2a. 2. Plaintiff 1 is registered as patent proprietor in the national registers relevant to the present legal dispute. The patent in suit was in force in the UPCA contracting member states covered by the action, including Austria (AT), Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), the Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT) and Sweden (SE), until it lapsed due to the passage of time (Annex K3, Annexes BPV 1c1 to BPV1c9). For these contracting states, the plaintiffs are asserting claims for information/rendering of accounts, originally also for injunctive relief, and are seeking a declaration of liability for damages, in each case until the expiry of the claims patent. 3. The plaintiffs are part of a group of companies active in the field of telecommunications, in particular satellite television. Plaintiff 1 is, among other things, a provider of satellite and video transmission solutions, which it also makes available to a sister company for a satellite pay-TV service. Plaintiff 2 is the operator of a streaming pay TV service and, according to the plaintiff's submission, has concluded the licence agreement with plaintiff 1, which is available as Annex K 1a and includes the patent in suit.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 4 4. The patent in suit is one of the property rights in which the plaintiff 1 has pledged and granted a security interest in all rights, claims and interests to a US bank by means of a patent-related security agreement ("Patent Security Agreement", Annex BPV 12, p. 48 et seq.) within the framework of a (non-existent) superordinate security agreement ("Security Agreement") (Annex BPV 12, pdf p. 48). Applications by the defendants, who are of the opinion that the security event has occurred and that the patent in suit has been transferred as a result, directed to the submission of the Security Agreement and the correspondence relating thereto pursuant to R. 190 VerfO and, in the alternative, to the submission of the pledge agreement pursuant to R. 190 VerfO. R. 190 VerfO and, in the alternative, for the transmission of information pursuant to R. 191 VerfO (cf. in particular the statement of defence of defendants 4, 5 and 6 of 9 July 2024, 8 August 2024 and 18 June 2024, para. 178, 174 and 177; App 39437/2024). Rapporteur rejected by order of 05.10.2024 (ORD 42735/2024 to App 39437/2024). 5. The defendants belong to a group of companies active in the field of adult entertainment. 6. With their action for infringement, the plaintiffs challenge the legal provisions referred to in the statement of claim. p. 12 et seq. and base the allegation of infringement in particular on the auto function for the playback quality ("challenged forms of execution"). In the case of the streaming services brazzers and pornhub, the auto function for the playback quality was removed after the complaint was filed by at least removing the "auto" button from the user's selection options for the playback quality. In this form, the streaming services are not the subject of an allegation of infringement. According to the defendant's assertion, the change was made to all streaming services by 1 August 2024 at the latest and also includes changes to the source code on the server side, so that media players from third-party providers could no longer use "auto" mode. 7. The challenged streaming services are offered by the defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6 as on p. 12 f. of the statement of claim, whereby, according to the defendant's submission, the rights to the website pornmd are no longer held by defendant 3. Defendants 2 and 4 are involved in the processing of payments for these streaming services.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 5 8. The rapporteur rejected the objection of the defendants 1 to 3 (App 10821/2024) by order of 5 April 2024. The appeal directed against this was dismissed by the court of appeal by order of 3 September 2024 (UPC CoA 188/2024, GRUR 2025, 101). With regard to the subsequent objections of defendants 4, 5 and 6 due to different dates of service, the rapporteur informed the parties by order of 17 April 2025 (ORD 68470/2024) that a decision would be made on this in the main proceedings. 9. The judge-rapporteur has issued requests by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the disclosure of the source code of media players of the streaming services pursuant to Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 VerfO (App 46519/2024), for the provision of information pursuant to R. 191 of the Implementing Regulation on the specific design and coding scheme of video files offered and delivered by the streaming services (App 46520/2024) and on the provision of information pursuant to R. 191 of the Implementing Regulation in connection with Content Delivery Network (CDN) services used (App 46521/2024) were rejected by orders dated 20 October 2024. 10. By order of 4 October 2024 (App 29618/2024), the judge-rapporteur ordered the plaintiffs to provide security for the legal costs, which was then provided (App 64859/2024). 11. Furthermore, several secrecy protection orders with access restrictions pursuant to R. 262A- VerfO were issued in the course of the proceedings, which describe the functioning of the streaming process in the challenged embodiments (see in particular App 36509/2024 with review pursuant to R. 333 VerfO in App 46835/2024 and the compilation in the plaintiffs' statement of 24 March 2025, App 14384/2025), the licence agreement between the plaintiffs (App 597728/2023, App 20613/2024) and financial circumstances on the part of the plaintiffs (App 38241/2024 to App 36289/2024). The Confidentiality Club on the part of the plaintiffs was dissolved by orders dated 31 October 2024 (App 58018/2024) and 26 March 2025 (App 14384/2025, ORD 14783/2025). changed. 12. By order dated 17 April 2025 (App 20823/2024), the address of defendant 4 was changed in the heading. A conversion in the CMS has not yet been possible. 13. The plaintiffs have also filed a lawsuit against the CDN operators Cloudflare, Inc., Edgio, Inc. and Reflected Networks, LLC, whose CDN servers, according to the plaintiffs' submission, were used to retrieve the data.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 6 of video files when streaming videos via challenged streaming services (App 50861/2024, App 50862/2024 and App 50863/2024). With the essentially identical applications, they request, among other things, information on whether the video files on the servers of the respective CDN operator are divided into several files or segments and how these files or segments are encoded. By order dated 27 March 2025 (ORD 15005/2025), the judge- rapporteur postponed the decision on the application pursuant to R. 191 Alt. 2 VerfO until the decision of the panel on the patent infringement on the basis of the state of affairs and dispute reached in the oral proceedings, after the plaintiffs had previously submitted a written statement dated 12 March 2025 (App 12073/2025).2025 (App 12073/2025) that the information requested by Cloudflare in its application for the transmission of information is not relevant to the decision and withdrew the application against Cloudflare on the condition that the court determines the lack of relevance to the decision and, in this case, also announced the withdrawal of the applications against the two other CDN operators. With the same order, the decision on an application by Cloudflare (App 10340/2025, App 10341/2025) dated 28 February 2025 for access to the files of the present legal dispute was also postponed. MOTIONS BY THE PARTIES 14. In the infringement proceedings, the plaintiffs last filed a motion in their pleading dated 30 April 2025 (main workflow of the infringement action) prior to the oral hearing (amendments to the previous status of the motion by the plaintiffs indicated by strikethroughs and underlining), whereby the auxiliary requests I.1.b. to I.1.r. reflect the limited versions of patent claim 1 defended in the alternative by auxiliary requests 1 to 17 and auxiliary requests I.1.s. to I.1.x. relate to the (contributory) patent infringement by equivalent means asserted in the alternative: I. The defendants are sentenced, 1.a. in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following:2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 7 (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1), and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatically requesting by the media player from the set of servers, over the one or more TCP connections, subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding http requests over the one or more TCP connections; characterised in that the media player automatically requests one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding http requests over the one or more TCP connections. TCP connections individually;2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 8 where the automatic request includes: periodically generating a set of one or more factors that indicate the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, where the set of one or more factors relates to the performance of the network, performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copy determined to be sustainable at the time; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 (indirect infringement) -; 1.b. In the alternative to item I.1.a.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 9 where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatically requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, whereby the automatic request includes periodically generating a power factor indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the power factor relating to the performance of the network; and performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be maintainable at the time; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 1 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.c. In the alternative to item I.1.b.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 10 Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to cease and desist from the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers according to a compression algorithm, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic request by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent sections of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the servers.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 11 copies for each such section, depending on successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, whereby the automatic request includes periodically generating a set of one or more factors indicative of the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the set of one or more factors relating to the performance of the network; and performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be sustainable at the time; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 2 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.d. In the alternative to point I.1.c.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 12 Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers according to a compression algorithm, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file with respect to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index with respect to the beginning of the video, wherein each of the plurality of files is compressed using an MPEG-4 encoding scheme, and wherein the streaming includes Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatically requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers (116) over the one or more TCP connections subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, whereby the automatic request includes periodically generating a set of one or more factors indicative of the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the set of one or more factors relating to the performance of the network; and performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be sustainable at the time; and2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 13 Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 3 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.e. In the alternative to section I.1.d.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded according to a compression algorithm as a plurality of files on the set of servers, each of the plurality of files independently encapsulating a different portion of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file with respect to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index with respect to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 14 Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatically requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, whereby the automatic request includes periodically generating a power factor indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the power factor relating to the performance of the network; and performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be sustainable at the time; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 4 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.f. In the alternative to item I.1.e.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 15 (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers by a media player operating on an end user station, wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded according to a compression algorithm as a plurality of files on the set of servers, each of the plurality of files independently encapsulating a different portion of the video for playback, wherein the plurality of files across the different copies yield the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file with respect to the beginning of the video, wherein the multiple files across the different copies result in the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file relative to the beginning of the video such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index relative to the beginning of the video, wherein each of the multiple files is compressed using an MPEG-4 encoding scheme, and wherein the streaming comprises: encoding the video according to a compression algorithm, encoding the video according to a compression algorithm, encoding the video according to a compression algorithm, and encoding the video according to a compression algorithm: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating a power factor indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the power factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to ensure continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 16 quality of copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 5 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.g. In the alternative to point I.1.f.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, wherein the multiple files across the different copies provide the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file relative to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 17 in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming includes Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatically requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, whereby the automatic request includes periodically generating a set of one or more factors indicative of the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the set of one or more factors relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein requesting the plurality of sequential files comprises requesting files from one of the different copies having a low quality to enable immediate playback of the video, and wherein automatically requesting comprises switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 6 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.h. In the alternative to item I.1.g.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following:2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 18 (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end-user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, wherein the plurality of files across the different copies provide the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: providing a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 19 periodically generating a power factor indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the power factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein requesting the plurality of sequential files comprises requesting files from one of the different copies having a low quality to enable immediate playback of the video, and wherein automatically requesting comprises switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 7 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.i. In the alternative to point I.1.h.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 20 where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, wherein each of the plurality of files independently encapsulates a different portion of the video for playback, wherein the plurality of files across the different copies provide the same portions of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be sustainable at the time; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 8 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; I.j. In the alternative to section I.1.i.:2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 21 in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers according to a compression algorithm, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections;2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 22 automatic requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be sustainable at the time; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 9 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.k. In the alternative to point I.1.j.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a process for the realisation of rate-adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the abovementioned States or to be used by customers in the territory of one or more of the abovementioned States.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 23 the above-mentioned countries, whereby the process comprises Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers according to a compression algorithm, wherein each of the plurality of files independently encapsulates a different portion of the video for playback, the plurality of files across the different copies providing the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, wherein each of the plurality of files is compressed using an MPEG-4 encoding scheme, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and performing successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies determined to be sustainable at the time; and2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 24 Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 10 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.l. In the alternative to point I.1.k.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, wherein the plurality of files across the different copies provide the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: providing a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video:2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 25 Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein requesting the plurality of sequential files comprises requesting files from one of the different copies having a low quality to enable immediate playback of the video, and wherein automatically requesting comprises switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 11 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.m. In the alternative to item I.1.l.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 26 and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end-user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, wherein the plurality of files across the different copies provide the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: providing a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generate a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files, which indicates the current ability to stream2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 27 of the video using the files from different copies, where the performance factor is the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein making the successive determinations to change comprises: switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality when the power factor is greater than a threshold; and determining, based on a combination of factors, whether reproduction at the higher quality can be maintained; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 12 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; l.n. In the alternative to point I.1.m.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 28 wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers according to a compression algorithm, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file with respect to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index with respect to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player (114), wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations (710, 712) to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein making the successive determinations to change comprises: switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality when the power factor is greater than a threshold; and determining, based on a combination of factors, whether reproduction at the higher quality can be maintained; and2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 29 Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 13 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.o. In the alternative to point I.1.n.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers according to a compression algorithm, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, so that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 30 wherein each of the plurality of files is compressed using an MPEG-4 encoding scheme, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating (706) a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein making the successive determinations to change comprises: switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality when the power factor is greater than a threshold; and determining, based on a combination of factors, whether reproduction at the higher quality can be maintained; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 14 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.p. In the alternative to point I.1.o.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following:2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 31 (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, wherein the plurality of files across the different copies provide the same portions of the video on playback, each of the files having a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: providing a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 32 periodically generating a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein making the successive determinations to change comprises: switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality when the power factor is greater than a threshold; and determining, based on a combination of factors, whether reproduction at the higher quality can be maintained, wherein requesting the plurality of sequential files comprises requesting files from one of the different copies having a low quality to enable immediate playback of the video, and wherein automatically requesting comprises switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 15 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.q. In the alternative to point I.1.p.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, suitable and intended to be used in a method for the realisation of rate-adaptive currents, for use in the territory of the European Union.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 33 of one or more of the above-mentioned countries or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned countries, the process comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating (706) a power factor indicative of the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the power factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 34 wherein making the successive determinations to change comprises: switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality when the power factor is greater than a threshold; and determining, based on a combination of factors, whether reproduction at the higher quality can be maintained, wherein the combination of factors is selected from a group consisting of a set of contiguously available files stored in a staging module, a minimum safety margin, and a current read-ahead margin; and Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 16 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.r. In the alternative to point I.1.q.: in the territory of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden, to refrain from and cease the following: (1) Video files are independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video, and/or (2) Records of files according to item (1) and/or (3) Media Player, which are suitable and intended to be used in a method for representing rate- adaptive currents, for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, or to offer or supply to customers for use in the territory of one or more of the above-mentioned States, the method comprising Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end user station, where each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 35 where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video, such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent portions of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such portion, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising periodically generating (706) a performance factor according to the responses to the requests of files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, the performance factor relating to the performance of the network; and Perform successive determinations to change the playback quality based on the power factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality files of the copies that were determined to be sustainable at the time, wherein making the successive determinations to change comprises: switching up to one of the different copies having a higher quality when the power factor is greater than a threshold; and determining, based on a combination of factors, whether reproduction at the higher quality can be maintained, wherein the combination of factors is selected from a group consisting of a set of contiguously available files stored in a staging module, a minimum safety margin, and a current read-ahead margin; and2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 36 Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary request 17 according to the request for amendment of the patent (contributory infringement) -; 1.s. In the alternative to motion I.1.r.: we are submitting applications I.1.a to I.1.r again in the same order, with the proviso that "bit rate" is replaced by "quality" in feature 1.2; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 1 to 17 according to the request for amendment of the patent with equivalent A (contributory infringement) -; 1.t. In the alternative to motion I.1.s.: [...]; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 1 to 17 according to the request for amendment of the patent with equivalent agent B (contributory infringement) -; 1.u. In the alternative to motion I.1.t.: we are submitting applications I.1.a to I.1.r again in the same order with the proviso that in feature 1.2.3 and in feature 1.3 "Time index" is replaced by "sequence index" or "time indices" is replaced by "sequence indices"; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 1 to 17 according to the request for amendment of the patent with equivalent agent C (contributory infringement) -; 1.v. In the alternative to motion I.1.u.: we re-submit motions I.1.a to I.1.r in the same order with the proviso that in feature 1.2 "bit rate" is replaced by "quality" and [...]; - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 1 to 17 according to the request for amendment of the patent with equivalents A and B (contributory infringement) -; 1.w. In the alternative to motion I.1.v.: we re-submit motions I.1.a to I.1.r in the same order with the proviso that in feature 1.2 "bit rate" is replaced by "quality" and that in feature 1.2.3 and in feature 1.3 "time index" is replaced by "sequence index" and "time indices" by "sequence indices" respectively;2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 37 - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 1 to 17 according to the request for amendment of the patent with equivalents A and C (contributory infringement) -; 1.x. In the alternative to motion I.1.w.: we re-submit motions I.1.a to I.1.r in the same order with the proviso that in feature 1.2 "bit rate" is replaced by "quality" and [...]; that in feature 1.2.3 and in feature 1.3 "time index" is replaced by "sequence index" and "time indices" by "sequence indices" respectively - Claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 1 to 17 according to the request for amendment of the patent with equivalents A, B and C (contributory infringement) -; 2. to pay the court a (possibly repeated) penalty payment of up to EUR 10,000.00 per day in the event of any infringement of the orders under section 1.1; 3. to provide the plaintiffs with information on the extent to which they have committed the acts referred to in section I.1. since 28 August 2019, stating a) the names and addresses of manufacturers, suppliers and other previous owners, b) the names and addresses of the commercial customers and the points of sale for which the products were intended; c) the quantity of products manufactured, delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the products concerned; whereby copies of the corresponding purchase documents (namely invoices, alternatively delivery notes) must be submitted as proof of the information, whereby details requiring confidentiality outside the data subject to disclosure may be blacked out; 4. to account to plaintiff no. 2 for the extent to which they have committed the acts described in section I.1. since 28 August 2019, stating a) of the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities and times, -prices and type designations as well as the names and addresses of the customers, b) of the individual offers, broken down by offer quantities and times, -prices and type designations as well as the names and addresses of the commercial offerees,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 38 c) of the advertising operated, broken down by advertising media, their circulation, distribution period and distribution area, d) the after the individual cost factors of the profit realised, broken down by individual cost factors, whereby the defendants reserve the right to anonymise the names and addresses of the non-commercial purchasers and the offerees and/or, instead of the plaintiffs, to inform a sworn auditor domiciled in the Federal Republic of Germany to be designated by the plaintiffs and bound to secrecy towards the plaintiffs, provided that the defendants bear his costs and authorise and oblige him to inform the plaintiffs upon specific request whether a specific purchaser or offeree is included in the list; II. It is established that the defendants are obliged to compensate the second plaintiff for all damages that the plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer as a result of the acts described in section I.1. committed in the period since 28 August 2019. 15. In the alternative, the plaintiffs maintain their motions from the replicas of 9 August 2024, 19 August 2024 and 10 September 2024 (see statement of 30 April 2025, p. 4, main workflow infringement action). At the oral hearing, they clarified that the requests only relate to actions up to the expiry of the patent in suit. 16. In addition, they apply for this in the oral hearing after the expiry of the time limit for filing the action (see minutes of the oral hearing): to establish patent infringement until the expiry of the patent in suit. 17. As the plaintiffs clarified in their written submission dated 30 April 2020, the court is to examine all of the challenged streaming services for patent infringement, whereby defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6 are only accused of infringement with regard to the streaming services they operate. 18. The defendants request: 1. dismiss the action; 1a. dismiss the action in the form of the motions filed in the replicatory pleadings of 9 August 2024, 19 August 2024 and 10 September 2024 2. order the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the proceedings and the defendant's other costs;2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 39 in the alternative: 3. grant the defendant a conversion period of 6 months from the date of delivery of the judgement, during which they are entitled to continue to offer or supply the contested embodiments; 4. to make any injunctive relief, disclosure and/or accounting orders against the defendant subject to the provision of security to be determined by the court pursuant to R. 352 VerfO and to be provided by the plaintiffs, whereby this security is to be at least EUR 10,000,000.00 for the injunctive relief and EUR 1,000,000 for the disclosure and/or accounting, whereby the security may be provided in the form of a bank guarantee; 5. order that the data and information to be disclosed in the context of the provision of information and rendering of accounts is confidential information that must be treated as strictly confidential and may not be used or disclosed outside the present legal dispute, even after its conclusion; the plaintiffs may only make the specified information accessible to those litigants in the present proceedings and internally only to those employees who have a legitimate interest in it; internal access is to be restricted to a maximum of two reliable persons who are to be named to the court and the defendant, whereby access to information relating to non-commercial customers in accordance with the application under I.4. shall not be granted beyond the sworn auditor bound to secrecy named in this respect in the application under I.4; 6. to make the decision, including the orders contained therein, subject to the condition that the patent in suit is not declared invalid in whole or in part with the final decision on the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity; 7. to condition any injunctions against the defendant to cease and desist, provide information and/or render accounts by the defendant providing security, the amount of which is at the discretion of the court. 19. With regard to their single action for annulment (Defendants 1 to 3: CC 26845/2024; Defendant 4: CC 39805/2024; Defendant 5: CC 45814/2024; Defendant 6: CC 36413/2024), the Defendants request the following: revoke the patent in suit EP 2 479 680 in its entirety with effect for the territory of Austria (AT), Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), the Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT), and Sweden (SE). 20. The applicant re 1, who has filed a request for amendment of the patent (App 46380/2024 for CC 26845/2024; App 47478/2024 for CC 39805/2024; App 47476/2024 for2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 40 CC 45814/2024; App 47477/2024 for CC 36413/2024), applied for with a view to the action for annulment: 1. The counterclaim is dismissed. In the alternative: The counterclaim is dismissed insofar as it is also directed against one of the versions of the patent in suit pursuant to auxiliary requests 1 to 17. Further in the alternative: The counterclaim is dismissed insofar as it is directed against the patent in suit as granted and, in the alternative, also against one of the versions according to auxiliary requests 1 to 17, in which the features of the patent are derived from the features: "requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over one or more Transmission Con- trol Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes, wherein each file is individually requested by one or more respective HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatically requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections subsequent portions of the video by requesting for each such portion one of the files from one of the copies dependent upon successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback quality to a higher or lower quality one of the different copies, wherein each file is indi- vidually requested by one or more respective HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, said automatically requesting including" in German translation: "Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by a media player, wherein each file is requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatic requesting by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of sequential portions of the video by requesting for each such portion one of the files from one of the copies subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, the automatic requesting comprising no rights can be derived ("disclaimer") insofar as the following case constellations are covered:2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 41 requesting a file over one TCP connection from multiple servers and/or requesting a file over multiple TCP connections by one HTTP request in German translation: Requesting a file via a TCP connection from multiple servers; and/or Requesting a file via several TCP connections using an HTTP request. 2. The counterclaimant shall bear the costs of the counterclaim. 21. In the notice of motion for amendment, the plaintiffs submit corresponding motions, which are formulated for a corresponding maintenance of the patent in suit instead of dismissal of the nullity counterclaim. A verbatim reproduction is not provided. 22. With regard to the application to amend the patent, the defendants request that the court 1. revoke the patent in suit EP 2 479 680 in the granted version; 2. dismiss the auxiliary requests HA1 to HA17 submitted by the counter-defendant; 3. reject the "disclaimer" requested by the counter-defendant as inadmissible; 4. order the defendant to pay the costs of the counterclaim; and 5. order the defendant (= applicant) to pay the additional costs incurred by the application to amend the patent. FACTUAL AND LEGAL POINTS OF CONTENTION ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION 23. In the defendant's view, the fact that the plaintiffs are proceeding against it in national proceedings before the Regional Court of Munich I at the same time as the present proceedings on the basis of a further patent arising from the same parent application as the patent in suit constitutes an abusive multiple action.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 42 LEGITIMISATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS 24. The defendants are of the opinion that insolvency or imminent insolvency of the plaintiffs and their group of companies must be assumed and that plaintiff 1 is therefore no longer the material owner of the patent in suit as a result of the occurrence of the security event under the existing security agreement. The plaintiffs have countered this objection, which was also discussed in particular in the proceedings concerning the provision of security for legal costs by the plaintiffs. 25. In the opinion of the defendant, the second plaintiff is neither an exclusive licensee pursuant to Art. 47 (2) UPCA nor a simple licensee entitled to sue pursuant to Art. 47 (3) UPCA. INJURY DISCUSSION patent-infringing properties of the streaming methods - literal infringement 26. The plaintiffs are of the opinion that the method of the patent-in-suit is used when streaming the videos that can be accessed from the challenged streaming services and that the defendants therefore indirectly infringe claim 1 of the patent-in-suit in the literal sense. 27. The defendants, on the other hand, are of the opinion that when streaming from the challenged version brazzers.com and pornhub.com at least the characteristics 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3 and additionally at brazzers.com the characteristic 1.4.2 are not realised. On the basis of the interpretation advocated by the plaintiffs, in particular with regard to the body of law, feature 1.4 in the case of brazzers and feature 1.4.2 in the case of pornhub were also not realised. 28. The storage of a copy of the video divided into several files on one or more servers in the form of a database, as required by feature 1.2, does not take place in the challenged embodiments. [...]. The copies of the videos are also not encoded at a constant bit rate, as required by the wording of the claim and the description (Fig. 2c); the bit rate between individual sections of the same copy fluctuates considerably in some cases because they are instead encoded [...], [...]. Controlled up- and down-switching to utilise the available bandwidth as efficiently as possible is not possible.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 43 wide in the highest possible quality is therefore not possible. Apart from that, the change in bit rate across the different copies of the video is not uniform. Rather, as the plaintiffs' own illustration on p. 37 of the reply to brazzers shows, the bit rate can increase in one copy during the transition from one segment to the next, while it decreases in another copy. In addition, switching to a segment of a copy with a higher quality could result in this segment having a lower bit rate than the previous segment of the copy with a lower quality and vice versa. The corresponding figure from the replica (p. 63) to pornhub shows peaks and valleys in copy f4 that are not present in the other copies f1-f3. Moreover, the video files of the challenged embodiments [...]. 29. With regard to the other streaming services, the defendants are of the opinion that the plaintiffs have not substantiated an infringement. Irrespective of this, they did not make use of the teaching of the patent in suit for the same reasons as brazzers and pornhub. According to the information provided by the defendants in the reply to the infringement proceedings, the streaming services that the plaintiffs attributed to defendant 1, as well as the streaming services mygf, bangbros and bangprovbros, correspond to the embodiment brazzers in terms of the properties and functionalities relevant for the non-realisation of all claims of the patent in suit. Similarly, the streaming services which the plaintiffs attributed to the third defendant correspond to pornhub, although the website pornmd never included its own media player. PATENT INFRINGING PROPERTIES OF THE STREAMING PROCESSES - EQUIVALENT INFRINGEMENT 30. The plaintiffs are of the opinion that there is in any case an equivalent contributory patent infringement with the modified means described in their auxiliary requests. In particular, the modified means have the same effect. Coding according to different quality instead of bit rate (substitute means A) serves the same function and effect as coding with a constant bit rate. The different qualities placed different demands on the performance of the network and made it possible to determine the appropriate copy at the relevant time, namely the copy with the highest quality, which was determined to be sustainable at the relevant time. In addition, paragraph [0023] of the patent in suit equates bit rate and quality. In particular, the replacement means B in feature 1.2 [...] also had the same function and effect. [...]. The2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 44 Replacement means C "sequence index" instead of "time index" in features 1.2.3 and 1.3 also has the same function and effect in particular, because a sequence index can also be used to assign each file its unique position within the playback sequence. 31. In contrast, in the defendant's view, the substitution means A "quality" instead of "bit rate" in feature 1.2 does not have the same effect because it does not ensure that the bit rate is adapted to the performance of the network. The substitution means B in feature 1.2 is not implemented by the challenged embodiments because no video files are encoded there. In any event, it does not have the same effect because it avoids the disadvantage [...] to be avoided in accordance with the patent. Moreover, the plaintiff 1 had only obtained the patent in suit because it had excluded the replacement means precisely in order to distinguish itself from the prior art, in particular EP 1 298 931 A2 cited in the description. The replacement means C is also not equivalent because a sequence index, which merely determines the playback order, requires further calculation steps to determine the playback time of a video file, which are contrary to the objective of reducing latency. In addition, the patent in suit referred to index forms other than a time index (see para. [0024]). In any event, the teaching with replacement means C is not new and inventive compared to BPNW 11 (moulding stone, Gilette objection). PATENT INFRINGING ACTS 32. The plaintiffs argue that the streaming services are offered for viewing in the relevant EPG country as intended. The server locations are therefore irrelevant for the required domestic connection. However, servers of intermediary CDN operators are in any case located in the EPG country. The video files are also an important means. Defendants 2 and 4 are also passively legitimised as co-perpetrators of a division of labour, at least as intermediaries pursuant to Art. 63 para. 1 sentence 2 UPCA. 33. The defendants believe that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently demonstrated the necessary domestic connection. Moreover, the video files as such are not an essential means, but merely the object of the procedure, which does not actively contribute to this. The fact that, according to the plaintiffs' submission, defendants 2 and 4 are used for payment processing is not sufficient for the assumption of patent infringement. There is neither a division of labour2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 45 cooperation nor a common plan to commit the offence. Since the videos could and would also be offered without the defendants 2 and 4, they could be ruled out as intermediaries. within the meaning of Art. 63 para. 1 sentence 2 UPCA. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES 34. The parties dispute i n particular whether an indirect patent infringement justifies a prohibition in bad faith. REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS 35. For further details, please refer to the exchanged written submissions and attachments. ACTION FOR ANNULMENT 36. The defendants base their identical actions for revocation on the following grounds for invalidity pursuant to Art. 138 EPC in conjunction with Art. 65(2) UPCA. Art. 65(2) UPCA: - lack of novelty (Art. 138(1)(a) in conjunction with Art. Art. 54(1), (2) EPC); - Lack of inventive step (Art. 138(1)(a) in conjunction with Art. 56 EPC). Art. 56 EPC); - insufficient disclosure (Art. 138(1)(b) EPC); - inadmissible extension compared to the content of the application as originally filed (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC); 37. The defendants consider the subject-matter of the patent in suit to be not novel, or alternatively not inventive, compared to WO 02/49343 (WO'343; Annex BPWN 11) and US 6,161,137 (US'137; Annex BPWN 13). 38. Moreover, the subject-matter of the invention is not disclosed so clearly that a person skilled in the art can carry it out. For example, it is not apparent how the combination of "one TCP connection" with "several servers" covered by claim 1 can be realised. The same applies to the combination "several servers" with "several TCP connections" and the alternative, according to which each file is requested individually by a single HTTP request via several TCP connections.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 46 39. Furthermore, the subject matter of the patent in suit goes beyond the content of the original application in several respects. 40. For further details, please refer to the exchanged written submissions and attachments. REASONS FOR THE DECISION A. ADMISSIBILITY OF ACTION AND COUNTERCLAIM 41. The action and counterclaim are admissible, but the action is only admissible insofar as it does not relate to the request for a declaratory judgement made at the oral hearing after the expiry of the patent in suit. I. INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE UPC AND LOCAL JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL DIVISION MANN- HOME 42. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the UPC has international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 7(2), Art. 71b(1) Brussels 1a Regulation (see order of 3 September 2024, UPC CoA 188/2024, GRUR 2025, 101) in the procedural relationships with the defendants 1 to 3, who are domiciled outside the UPCA territory. There is no other assessment for the defendants 4 to 5, who are also domiciled outside of Germany. The submission relevant for international jurisdiction does not differ significantly for defendants 5 and 6, which also operate the challenged streaming services, from that for defendants 1 and 3. Nor does the submission for defendant 4 differ from that for defendant 2 with regard to payment processing services. Whether the submission, assuming use of the teaching of the patent in suit by the streaming services, establishes a patent infringement for each of the defendants in the asserted UPC states, concerns only the merits of the action. 43. Similarly, the Local Division Mannheim has local jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. The aforementioned decision of the Court of Appeal on the appeals of the defendants 1 to 3 is also transferable to the appeals of the defendants 4 to 6 in this respect in the absence of significant differences.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 47 II. NO ABUSIVE MULTIPLE FILING OF LAWSUITS 44. The defendants' objection that the plaintiffs had filed a patent infringement action against the defendants before the Munich I Regional Court one day before the present infringement action, which was based on the same (actual) acts and on a patent from the same patent family, does not constitute an abuse of rights. The patent proprietor or other person entitled to bring an action is in principle free to decide individually for each of his non-opt-out patents during the transitional period pursuant to Art. 83 UPCA whether to assert it before the national courts or the UPC. A provision comparable to Section 145 of the German Patent Act has not been included in the UPCA. Whether additional special circumstances can nevertheless justify a misuse of rights in exceptional cases does not require a final decision. Such circumstances are not apparent in the present case. III. customised claim applications 45. The status of the application reached at the hearing is decisive. The amendments to the claim are not objectionable as such. Amendments with the plaintiffs' reply 46. Insofar as the plaintiffs in their replies have moved the passage "whereby the automatic request includes" in the application for injunctive relief from before feature 1.4.2 to feature 1.4.1, this is a permissible correction of an obvious typographical error that does not change the subject matter of the application. 47. The replacement of the word "maintainable" by "sustainable" in the request for injunctive relief in the reproduction of the patent claim to feature 1.4.2 ("to achieve the highest quality determined at the time to be maintainable") is permissible because, according to the plaintiffs' submission, the terms have the same meaning in the sense of "maintainable" and this is intended to avoid disputes about the correct translation (see Reply, p. 27/28)1. Accordingly, this is a purely linguistic change with no difference in meaning. The meaning of the phrase "determined sustainable" in the relevant English original wording is a question of substance. 1 Unless otherwise stated, the references are cited here and in the following according to the pleadings in the procedural law relationship with the defendants 1 to 3.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 48 48. Insofar as the plaintiffs have dropped the "in particular" additions still contained in the statement of claim in their replies, this does not constitute a partial withdrawal of the claim, as this does not involve any restriction on the subject matter. Insofar as this constitutes an amendment to the action, it must be admitted. A conflicting interest of the defendant is not apparent. 49. The fact that the plaintiffs now allow the defendants to anonymise the names and addresses of the non-commercial purchasers and the offerees in the information as an alternative to the audit reservation is a partial withdrawal of the action. However, it is to be admitted as such and, if applicable, as an amendment to the action, because conflicting interests of the defendant have not been demonstrated and are not otherwise apparent. 50. Insofar as the plaintiffs have supplemented the infringement action in the reply with auxiliary requests that take into account the versions of the patent in suit defended in the alternative with the request pursuant to R. 30.1 RP, this is not objectionable. Such adjustments are not an amendment within the meaning of R. 263 RP, but merely clarify that the plaintiff also seeks a judgement to a lesser extent if the patent-in-suit is partially revoked in accordance with the request for amendment of the patent. Insofar as the request for amendment of the patent is admissible pursuant to R. 30 VerfO, the subsequent amendments to the infringement action are therefore also admissible. In this respect, R. 30 VerfO is lex specialis to R. 263 VerfO. In any case, the possibility of amending the patent in suit pursuant to R. 30 VerfO in order to obtain a judgement against the defendant for infringement in a version partially maintained in accordance with the requested amendments must not be frustrated. Insofar as the subsequent amendments were to be regarded as an amendment to the infringement action pursuant to R. 263 RP, they would therefore be admissible without further ado. A formal application in accordance with R. 263 VerfO is therefore not required. 51. It is irrelevant whether the assertion of an equivalent patent infringement subsequent to the statement of claim changes the cause of action or otherwise constitutes an amendment to the claim within the meaning of the German Civil Code. R. 263 VerfO. In any event, such an amendment to the action would be admissible in the case in dispute. The amendment could not have been made earlier if due care had been exercised (R. 263.2 (a) RP). It represents a reaction to the submission made in the statement of defence. There was no sufficient reason to assert an equivalent patent infringement in the alternative with the statement of claim in anticipation. The corresponding2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 49 The objections in the statement of defence did not have to impose themselves on the plaintiffs in this way. In this respect, there was no need for the plaintiffs to give separate reasons. Furthermore, the possible amendment of the action does not unreasonably hinder the defendant's conduct of the proceedings (R. 263.2 (b) VerfO). The duplicate period available to the defendants was sufficient to reply to the questions associated with the equivalent patent infringement asserted in the alternative. They are also closely related to the questions of literal patent infringement discussed above. Amendments with plaintiff's statement of 30.04.2025 52. The amendments to the application in the statement of 30 April 2025 are aimed at eliminating conceivable objections that the judge-rapporteur addressed in his order of 23 April 2025 and do not go beyond these objections, as can be seen from the unobjected version of the settlement, which identifies the amendments. They are therefore admissible as a reaction to a judicial objection. Application for a declaratory judgement from the oral hearing 53. The request for a declaratory judgement made at the hearing is not admissible as an extension of the claim, R. 263.1, .2 (a) VerfO. 54. The application for a declaratory judgement is not prompted by the expiry of the patent in suit and thus the lapse of the injunctive relief. Rather, it goes beyond the original claim for injunctive relief because it seeks a declaration of patent infringement. According to the system of the UPCA, the declaration of patent infringement (Art. 64 (2) (a) UPCA) is one of the remedies under Art. 64 UPCA, which are in particular in addition to the right to injunctive relief (Art. 63 UPCA). It is independent of the existence of a claim for injunctive relief. In particular, a judgement to cease and desist does not contain a binding finding of patent infringement. Thus, a declaratory judgement does not correspond to an application for an injunction which is supplemented by the pronouncement of a prohibition, but is an aliud. There are therefore no apparent reasons why the application for a declaratory judgement was not filed until the oral hearing. 55. Even if the extension of the action associated with the application for a declaratory judgement were to be allowed, the application for a declaratory judgement would in any case be inadmissible due to a lack of interest in a declaratory judgement. Further claims arising from the asserted patent infringement, which in addition to the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 50 claims for damages and information would require a binding determination have not been presented and are not otherwise apparent. In particular, claims for recall and removal from the distribution channels are not conceivable because the defendants distribute their products themselves. For this reason and, moreover, because the patent has expired, there are no distribution partners or other third-party suppliers who would have to be notified of a patent infringement in the form of a court judgement in order to prevent them from infringing in the future. Nor is there any apparent market confusion that a patent proprietor could have an interest in eliminating by having the patent infringement determined by a court in order to then publicise the determination to the affected parties, for example by publication. IV. DETERMINATION 56. The most recent applications of the main application are sufficiently specific. 57. In their statement of 30 April 2020, the plaintiffs clarified the term "video files" contained in the original applications by adding the wording "(1) independently playable files, each of which encapsulates a section of a video and/or (2) sets of files according to point (1)" as well as the newly added requirement of the provision for use in the method according to the patent. On the one hand, this clarifies the relationship to the terms video and files, which are contained in the following German translation of the patent claim in the application. On the other hand, the applicants thereby express that they are only objecting to files that are also intended to be used in the method according to the patent, which ensures that not every conventional file is already covered. As a result of the amendments, the application is sufficiently specific in this respect. 58. According to the practice of the Local Court of Mannheim, the fact that the challenged embodiments are not described by name in the applications but are described in abstract terms by reproducing the patent claim is permissible if the challenged embodiments are clear from the grounds of the application, which is the case here. In their written submission dated 30 April 2025 at the latest, the plaintiffs also made it clear that the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 51 The Court of First Instance states that the panel is to examine the patent infringement cumulatively with regard to all challenged embodiments and that defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6 are only accused of patent infringement insofar as they each operate the streaming services as stated in the statement of grounds (p. 12 f.), but not insofar as other defendants are named as operators. 59. It is not necessary to include the act of defendants 2 and 4, which is considered by the plaintiffs to be the basis for liability, in the claim from the point of view of certainty. Whether the payment processing services provided by these defendants for the challenged streaming services justify a judgement to the extent requested or whether the judgement must be limited to the provision of the same service is a question of the merits. 60. The claims for equivalent patent infringement are also sufficiently specific. It is not objectionable how the plaintiffs have characterised the means of substitution in the application. As with the literally realised features, it is not necessary to include the specific embodiment of the substitute means in the challenged embodiment in the application. Rather, to a certain extent, more abstract designations are not objectionable from the point of view of certainty as long as the challenged specific design is unambiguously apparent from the grounds of the application, which must always be used for interpretation. This is still the case for the designations used by the plaintiffs in the applications for the replacement means ("quality", "[...]" and "[...]" as well as "sequence index"). In particular, it is clear from the statement of reasons that "quality" means [...] as achieved by [...]. The second means of exchange is already clear in itself. Insofar as this is not yet apparent from the term "sequence index" itself in the case of the third means of exchange, it follows in any case from the statement of reasons with the necessary clarity that a sequence index is an index which indicates the position of a file in the sequence of all files within each video and at the same time indicates the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the video.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 52 V. FURTHER ASPECTS OF ADMISSIBILITY 61. Otherwise, there are no objections to the admissibility of the action and the action for revocation. In particular, the action for revocation is admissible despite the lapse of the patent-in-suit in the meantime due to the maximum term of protection having been reached. Since the defendants are being sued for infringement of the patent-in-suit in the past, they have a legitimate interest in eliminating its effects for the past. B. Interpretation of the patent in suit 62. The patent in suit relates to a method for displaying a rate-adaptive stream. 63. According to the information in the patent in suit, there were essentially two technologies in the prior art for consuming media files, i.e. music or video files, from the Internet. Either they are streamed, i.e. transmitted at a speed that is sufficient to display them to a user in real time while the data is being received. Or they are downloaded, stored locally and only played back afterwards. However, downloading complete media files can take a long time, and the user usually wants to see or hear the media files immediately. According to the patent in suit, streaming offers the advantage of instant access to the content, but sacrifices quality at the priority point compared to downloading a file with the same content because the audio/video quality that can be received for real-time viewing is limited by the available bandwidth of the user's network connection. Streaming also offers the user the ability to spontaneously select different content to view, whereas downloading is by definition limited to receiving a specific selection of content either in its entirety or not at all. Downloading also supports rewinding, fast-forwarding and direct search, while streaming does not fully support these functions. Streaming is also susceptible to network outages or congestion. Another technology, known as "progressive downloading", attempts to combine the strengths of the two aforementioned technologies. Here, the download of the media file begins after the start and the media player waits to start playback until enough of the file has been downloaded to begin playback, in the hope that it will be able to continue.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 53 the rest of the file will be fully downloaded before playback "catches up". However, the waiting time before playback could be significant depending on network conditions, and progressive downloading is therefore also not a complete or fully acceptable solution to the problem of media presentation over a network (see paras [0002] to [0006]). 64. In this context, the patent-in-suit generally identifies three fundamental challenges in connection with streaming by way of data transmission over a network such as the Internet, in which various data losses occur. The first challenge is reliability. Most streaming solutions use a TCP connection or a "virtual circuit" for data transmission. If a network adapter detects delays or losses in a TCP connection that guarantees a transmission despite data loss, it will delay the transmission attempts for a moment and then slowly resume the original transmission speed to reduce the perceived overload. Such a slowdown impairs the user's viewing or listening experience and is therefore unacceptable. The second challenge in data transport is efficiency. Efficiency refers to how well the user's available bandwidth is utilised for the transmission of the content stream. This measure is directly related to the reliability of the TCP connection. If the TCP connection suffers from reliability problems, there is a loss of bandwidth utilisation. The efficiency can sometimes change suddenly and significantly impair the viewing experience. The third challenge is latency. Latency, measured from the client's perspective, is the time interval between the time a request is made and the time at which the response data arrives. This value is influenced by the reliability and efficiency of the network connection as well as the processing time required by the origin to prepare the response. For example, a busy or overloaded server requires more time to process a request. Just as latency affects the start time of a particular request, it also has a significant impact on the network throughput of TCP (see [0007] to [0009]). 65. From the point of view of the patent in suit, which refers to EP 1 298 931 A2 and US 2002/0144276 A 1 as prior art, there is a need for a device, a system and a method which solve the problems of reliability, efficiency and2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 54 minimise latency. At the same time, instant playback should be possible in addition to the ability to fast-forward and rewind, search directly and browse multiple streams. It is also advantageous to use multiple connections between a source and a destination and to request streams with different bit rates depending on the network conditions. The patent in suit regards the problems associated with this as not yet fully solved in the prior art (paras. [0010] to [0013]). 66. Against this background, the patent-in-suit sets itself the objective task of improving reliability, efficiency and latency while enabling instant playback, fast-forwarding and rewinding, direct search and browsing of multiple streams. 67. To solve this problem, the patent in suit proposes a method in claim 1, the features of which can be structured and translated as follows: 1. a method for presenting rate-adaptive streams, the method comprising: 1. a method of representing rate-adaptive currents, the method comprising: 1.1 streaming by a media player (114) operating on an end user station (104) a video from a set of one or more servers (116), 1.1 Streaming a video from a set of one or more servers through a media player operating on an end-user station, 1.2 wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, 1.2 wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, 1.2.1 wherein each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different portion of the video for playback, 1.2.1 where each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different section of the video for playback, 1.2.2 wherein the multiple files across the different copies yields the same portions of the video on playback, 1.2.2 where the multiple files across the different copies result in the same sections of the video on playback, 1.2.3 each of said files having a time index indicating the position of the content in that file in relation to the beginning of the video such 1.2.3 wherein each of the files has a time index indicating the position of the content in the file in relation to the beginning of the file. of the video, so that the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 55 that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, Files whose playback is the same section of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises: and which includes streaming: 1.3 requesting by the media player (114) a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes, wherein each file is individually requested by one or more respective HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; 1.3 Requesting a plurality of sequential files from one of the copies of the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indices by the media player, each file being requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; 1.4 automatically requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers (116) over the one or more TCP connections subsequent portions of the video by requesting for each such portion one of the files from one of the copies dependent upon successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback quality to a higher or lower quality one of the different copies, wherein each file is individually requested by one or more respective HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, 1.4 automatic request by the media player from the set of servers over the one or more TCP connections of subsequent sections of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each such section, subject to successive determinations by the media player to switch the playback quality to a higher or lower quality of the various copies, each file being individually requested by one or more corresponding HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, said automatically requesting including, where the automatic request includes, 1.4.1 regularly generating (706) a set of one or more factors indicative of the current ability to sustain the streaming of the video using the files from different ones of the copies, 1.4.1 regularly generate a set of one or more factors indicating the current ability to stream the video using the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 56 files from different copies, 1.4.1.1 wherein the set of one or more factors relate to the performance of the network; and 1.4.1.1 where the set of one or more the performance of the network; and 1.4.2 making the successive determinations (710,712) to shift the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors to achieve continuous playback of the video using the files of the highest quality one of the copies determined sustainable at that time; and 1.4.2 making successive determinations to change the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality copy files determined to be maintainable at the time; and 1.5 presenting the video by playing back with the media player on the end user station the requested files in order of ascending playback time. 1.5 Display the video by playing it with the media player on the end user station of the requested files in the order of ascending playback time. 68. Some features require explanation: proper description of the section of the video, the copy of the video and the files of a COPY 69. By "portion" of a video, the patent claim designates an excerpt from the reproduction of the video that can be perceived visually in accordance with the definition. In this respect, the patent specification uses the generic terms "media file" (see para. [0002]) and "content file" (see para. [0014], [0022], in each case in conjunction with Fig. 2a, para. [0003]) and "content stream" (see para. [0008]), which however also include the electronic embodiment of music, without any difference in meaning for the electronic embodiment of the video. The copies of the video mentioned in the patent claim are also referred to in the patent specification as "stream" with regard to their electronic embodiment (cf. para. [0014], [0023], in each case in conjunction with Fig. 2b), the files mentioned in the patent claim as "streamlets" (cf. para. [0014] in conjunction with Fig. 2c). Each electronic copy of the video, when played, makes the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 57 video, albeit in varying quality (cf. para. [0023] in conjunction with para. [0022]). The copies are each divided into a plurality of files containing a section of the video (cf. feature 1.2, para. [0024] in conjunction with Fig. 2c). FEATURE 1.2 - ENCODED ON THE SET OF ONE OR MORE SERVERS 70. The files are encoded on the set of one or more servers within the meaning of feature 1.2 if the files constituting them are available as such in a pre-assembled form, as in a data cabinet, so that the set of servers can access them without having to generate them for specific access in response to their specific request. 71. According to features 1.3 and 1.4, the media player requests the files from the set of servers. In conjunction with the requirement of feature 1.2 that each copy is encoded as a plurality of files on the set of servers ("each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers"), it already follows from the wording and overall context of the patent claim that the files as such must be present on the set of servers, which has no intelligence of its own, as in a data cabinet. It is true that this is a procedural claim. However, the claimed embodiment of the objects/functionalities mentioned in the patent claim, in particular the files and servers, is inherent in the method because the claimed method requires a certain type of interaction and therefore a corresponding embodiment. 72. This finding is confirmed by the patent description. 73. As can be seen from para. [0028], the patent in suit dispenses with a specialised media server or a server-side intelligence that generates the files when they are retrieved. This is possible because the files ("streamlets") are available as essentially static files, which the web server only has to retrieve and serve in response to a request from the client module. This and the optimised use of several web servers and additional cache servers provide a highly scalable solution that is not hindered by a large number of client module requests. This distinguishes the patent in suit from the prior art discussed in the patent specification in EP 1 298 931 A2, in which, according to the explanations in the patent specification (para. [0010]), the video is only stored on servers in a large number of aggregate copies of different quality and the cache server is not used.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 58 client can switch between the copies by requesting a specific byte range of the desired copy. Such an approach requires server-side processing steps to provide the requested byte range upon its request. However, the patent specification does not regard such a solution as satisfactory (cf. para. [0012], [0013]); rather, in the context of latency, a "busy" or "overloaded server" which has to perform server-side processing steps (cf. para. [0009], [0028]) is precisely to be avoided. On the other hand, avoiding such processing steps by storing the files in a pre-assembled form, as in a data cabinet, and merely retrieving them when they are requested and delivering them without processing steps, leads to a reduction in latency compared to the prior art. Such a reduction in latency is precisely what the patent in suit seeks to achieve (see para. [0012]). The above finding is therefore confirmed by the functional interpretation. 74. All embodiments also assume that the copies ("streams") and the files that make them up ("streamlets") are initially generated independently of a specific retrieval and that the files are stored for later retrieval (cf. para. [0025] f., [0043] f., Fig. 3, Fig. 5). Only then are they available for retrieval by the client module. This is emphasised by the wording "Once the streamlets have been received and processed [Note by the content module 112]" (para. [0028]) or "Once stored 512 [Note in the streamlet data base], the web server 116 may then serve 514 the streamlets" (para. [0044]). That in para [0028] receiving means receiving the video from the publisher by the content module 112 is clear from the context of para [0025]. In the above-mentioned embodiments, the files in the content module 112 are transmitted by a "stream module 302" and the files are transmitted by a "stream module 302". "streamlet module 304" and the generated files are stored in a "streamlet data base 308". Even if the claim is not limited to the use of the functionalities mentioned, in particular not to the use of a database structure, the embodiments show that the encoded files are stored as such in a pre-assembled form for retrieval and kept ready as in a data cabinet, without this being caused by a specific previous retrieval. The patent specification does not contain any indications that files are only generated serially on retrieval by the media player in accordance with the patent.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 59 75. Insofar as the patent claim also covers the streaming of live programmes (see paragraphs [0003], [0021], [0022], [0025], [0043]), this does not lead to a different result. Also in this case, according to the embodiments, copies of different quality, each divided into files, are made, with the files being stored and retrieved from the storage location on demand (cf. para. [0043] f. ("Alternatively, receiving 504 content may comprise capturing a (...) television broadcast. Once received 504, the stream module 302 generates 506 a plurality of streams 202, each stream 202 having a different quality. (...) [0044] The streamlet module 304 receives the streams 202 and generates 508 a plurality of streamlets 212. (...) The encoder module 306 then encodes 510 the streamlets (...) The encoder module 306 then stores 512 the encoded streamlets in the streamlet database 308. Once stored 512, the web server 116 may then serve 514 the streamlets. (...)"). Also in connection with paragraphs [0021], [0022] and [0025], there is no indication that the live content would not be stored in the form of files of a copy before one of the pre-assembled files is retrieved. Otherwise, it would also not be possible to rewind (cf. para. [0012]). FEATURE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 - SET OF ONE OR MORE SERVERS 76. A patentable set of one or more servers shall comprise at least a subset of one or more servers on which, taken together, all files of each of the copies of the video are kept available for retrieval at any time, so as to ensure that the files according to features 1.3 and 1.4 can be successfully requested in the sense that their retrieval does not fail for lack of existence. 77. The patent in suit recognises web servers (see for example [0028]), content servers (which may comprise a web server, see para. [0020] f. in conjunction with Fig. 1), media servers (see para. [0028]) and cache servers (see para. [0028]) or web caches (see para. [0036]), which have different functions. As is already apparent from the context of the claim, the set of one or more servers must at all times provide the files necessary for the media player to play the video. This precludes a set of one or more servers from being regarded as compliant if it does not guarantee this. Therefore, a set of cache servers that provides the files, albeit for a longer period of time, but only temporarily, i.e. possibly for a shorter period of time than the video itself can be streamed as intended, is ruled out. 78. There are no indications that a video would not have to be made available for streaming at all times during the period in which it is intended to be made available for streaming,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 60 that the required files are available on the set of servers does not exist. Rather, the patent specification assumes that - apart from server failures - the set of servers can deliver at any time and not only randomly (cf. para. [0025] f. in conjunction with para. [0028] and para. [0034]). 79. Whether a server within the meaning of the patent claim is to be understood as only a content server, possibly with one or more web servers, which permanently stores the files in the sense described, or also a cache server, can be left open. In favour of the former could be the fact that the patent specification merely assigns the use of cache servers to the acceleration of access and the relief of the web servers, but not to the permanent provision of the files (cf. para. [0028]). In any case, according to the above, a set of servers must comprise at least one server which ensures permanent retrievability and therefore permanently stores the files in the sense described. FEATURE 1.2 - BIT RATE 80. Feature 1.2 requires that each of the different copies of the video is encoded with a different bit rate. According to feature group 1.4, the media player requests subsequent sections of the video by requesting one of the files from one of the copies for each of these sections depending on successive determinations to switch the playback quality to one of the different copies with a higher or lower quality (feature 1.4). The successive determinations are made to achieve continuous playback of the video using the files of the copy with the highest playback quality determined to be sustainable at that time (feature 1.4.2). With a requirement according to feature 1.3, fast forward or skip forward can also be realised (see par. [0012], [0032]). 81. It already follows from this context of the patent claim that the bit rate is representative of the copy and the files constituting it, so that the files can be addressed via their affiliation to a specific copy (feature 1.4 - " ... requesting ... one of the files from one of the copies dependent upon successive determi- nations by the media player to shift the play back quality to a higher or lower one of the differenct copies ... ", feature 1.4.1 - " ... to sustain the streaming of the video using the files from different ones of the copies,", feature 1.4.2 "... to achieve continuous playback2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 61 of the video using the files of the highest quality ones of the copies ..."; feature 1.3 "... sequential ones of the files of one of the copies ..."). The method according to feature group 1.4 has the patent effect that the available transmission bandwidth can be well utilised (cf. para. [0026], [0008]). The respective request of the files from the copy with the highest quality determined as maintainable leads under normal circumstances to the fact that the expected transmission bit rate is neither exceeded nor undercut and thus, in the latter case, reproduction quality is unnecessarily lost. In this way, the patented objective of improving efficiency is achieved (see paras. [0008], [0012] f.). The patent claim leaves it to the implementer of the patent-compliant method to decide which copy and thus which bit rate is regarded as maintainable, in particular whether and to what extent safety reductions are planned. 82. In the case of a variable bit rate, each copy can also be assigned a different bit rate, such as the average bit rate or a maximum bit rate ("peak bit rate"), which is also representative of all the files that make up the respective copy. However, the files cannot be addressed and requested via this representative bit rate without further precautions in such a way that continuous playback is possible using the copy with the highest quality within the meaning of feature 1.4.2 that is currently considered maintainable, because it would not be known in which specific bit rate the individual files of a copy are encoded. This would no longer ensure that the user's available bandwidth is utilised efficiently. 83. For this purpose, a separate exchange of information about the specific bit rate in which the files of the different copies are encoded for the next section of the video to be requested might be necessary, neither in the claim nor in the patent description. Depending on the coding effort for this section, which can vary greatly from section to section depending on the image content to be displayed and possibly also the differences to the previous image content, the file of a copy with low quality could require a higher bit rate than the file of a copy with higher quality for the previous section. Conversely, the file of a copy with higher quality for the next section to be requested could also require a lower bit rate than the file of a copy with lower quality2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 62 to the previous section. Ultimately, in order to request the file with the appropriate bit rate, the files would be addressed directly and no longer via affiliation to a copy of a certain quality. Figuratively speaking, blindly reaching into the appropriate compartment of the data cabinet, whose compartments symbolise the individual copies, would no longer be sufficient. Instead, the actual bit rate of the file for the next section of the video to be requested would have to be determined for each compartment in order to find the file with the appropriate bit rate. Accordingly, the assignment of a file to a copy of a certain quality in feature group 1.4 would be superfluous, because it would no longer be decisive to which copy a file belongs, but which file encodes the section to be requested next with the appropriate bit rate, irrespective of which copy the file originates from. It is true that the teaching according to the patent leaves it up to the implementer to decide when he considers playback using the files with the highest quality to be currently maintainable. However, a method that systematically refrains from bringing the bit rate of the files to be requested according to feature group 1.4 into line with the estimated expected transmission bandwidth, possibly taking into account safety margins, would no longer be in accordance with the patent. The same applies to a method that does not address these files via their affiliation to a specific copy. 84. It cannot be ruled out that a patent claim does not expressly mention all the means (such as the aforementioned exchange of information) that are necessary to achieve the effects according to the patent. Nor can it be ruled out that a patent claim contains a superfluous aspect (such as here the fact that features 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 address the files via their belonging to a copy with a certain quality). In the case in dispute, however, there are no indications for the existence of such a constellation. 85. On the contrary, the patent specification does not contain sufficient indications that the claimed bit rate could be variable. For example, according to the embodiment example in para [0023], the low quality copy ("stream") is encoded and compressed at a bit rate of 100 kilobits per second (kpbs), the medium quality copy at a bit rate of 200 kpbs and the high quality copy at a bit rate of 600 kpbs. According to para [0026], the copies ("streams"), not the files constituting them, are the relevant reference points which must necessarily be taken into account,2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 63 to accommodate the user's bandwidth. However, this assumes that the bit rate is a target bit rate for the entire copy and that the bit rate at which the files of a copy are encoded and the bit rate of the copy are the same. Otherwise, the copies could not be relevant to the end user's bandwidth accommodation. Consistent with this is the fact that in the embodiment example of para. [0043] the quality of the copies ("streams") can be determined according to the bandwidth of the user (cf. para. [0043] aE). Insofar as the patent specification speaks of the copies ("streams") having different degrees of quality and bandwidth (cf. para. [0014], [0023], in each case in conjunction with Fig. 2b), this merely means that the copies have different quality and bit rates from one another, not that the quality and bit rate vary within the same copy. This follows from the context of the patent specification, in particular from Fig. 2b referred to in this context, which shows copies with a constant bit rate in each case (visualised by the constant bar height in the direction of the vertical axis). Finally, the copy illustrated in Fig. 2c, which is divided into files ("streamlets") ("stream") (cf. para. [0014], [0024]), also has a constant bit rate across all the files that make it up, as evidenced by the constant height of the rectangles symbolising the files. There is nothing to suggest that the height of the rectangles in Fig. 2c has a different meaning than the height of the bars symbolising the copies in Fig. 2b. 86. Nor does the specification of the patent in suit contain any indications that a method according to which the selection of the files according to feature group 1.4 is carried out by means of separate information about the specific (possibly variable) bit rate in which the files for the next section of the video to be requested are encoded in the respective copy would also be appropriate. Rather, the files are requested in the embodiment examples in the method according to memo group 1.4 exclusively via their affiliation to a copy of a certain quality, because the decision to switch to an up- or down-switching refers to a copy ("stream") with higher or lower quality (cf. para. [0030] aE in conjunction with para. Fig. 7, par. [0045] aE in conjunction with. Fig. 7, para. [0050] (" (...) will upshift 717 the quality and subsequently request higher quality streams. (...) the decision of whether or not the higher stream rate is sustainable 716 (...) "). Moreover, the patent in suit only mentions network behaviour as a reason for switching (cf. para. [0048]: "... network behavioral characteristics fluctuate ..."), but not a variable bit rate within one and the same copy. Accordingly, the embodiment example with the "read2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 64 ahead margin" in connection with their dimensioning also only refers to network disruptions (cf. para. [0050]: " ... to withstand network disruptions ..."). The patent in suit also otherwise considers the bandwidth available to the user, but not a variable bit rate of the encoding, as the reason for the provision of copies of different quality (cf. para. [0026]: "The plurality of streams 202 may comprise the low quality stream 204, the medium quality stream 206, and the high quality stream 208. Alternatively, the plurality of streams 202 may comprise any number of streams deemed necessary to accommodate end user bandwidth"). The patent specification also does not otherwise explain how a patent-compliant method could be designed in which - in deviation from the embodiment example described in para. [0023] ff - the bit rates vary within one and the same copy. 87. The question disputed between the parties as to whether the DivX® media player provides encoding with a constant bit rate at the relevant priority time, possibly using the so-called video buffer verifier (Annex K16, p. 93 f.), does not need to be decided in this context. Even if DivX® were to provide for mandatory encoding with a variable bit rate, this would not be decisive. It is true that, in case of doubt, an interpretation must be chosen which covers all embodiments described in the description as being in accordance with the invention. However, it is already questionable whether DivX® as such is part of an embodiment example at all, since it is only mentioned as an example of an encoding and compression method in order to make it clear that the teaching according to the invention is not limited to the use of a compression algorithm (cf. para. [0022], [0026]), without this necessarily meaning that each of the coding and compression methods mentioned is suitable for realising the teaching according to the patent without additional measures which bring about a stabilisation of the bit rate of the coded data stream. In any event, in view of the circumstances discussed above, the mention of DivX® does not carry such weight that it would cast doubt on the above finding. In the absence of doubt, but in any case in the overall view, the inclusion of a variable bit rate in the subject matter of the patent claim can therefore be ruled out. For the same reasons, the question disputed between the parties as to whether the variable bit rate coding was currently or at least foreseeably considered suitable for streaming at the priority date can be left open.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 65 88. If, despite a constant target bit rate, natural fluctuations in the bit rate of the coding occur during the coding process, this does not lead to a different result. The person skilled in the art takes such minor fluctuations into account by means of appropriate security surcharges in the procedure according to feature group 1.4. 89. Even if the patent claim were to permit coding at a variable bit rate, it follows from the above at least that the method according to the patent must address the files of a copy via the bit rate in order to efficiently utilise the bandwidth available to the user for transmission. FEATURE 1.2.1 - INDEPENDENTLY ENCAPSULATED FOR PLAYBACK 90. According to feature 1.2.1, each of the multiple files as which each of the different copies of the video is encoded on the set of one or more servers (feature 1.2) shall independently encapsulate a different portion of the video for playback. A section of the video is independently encapsulated for playback by a file if the file can be played like an independent video, in particular if no recourse to data in other files that also contain a section of the video is necessary. This understanding is confirmed by the description, which states that the respective section of the video is encapsulated as an independent media object (cf. [0024]). 91. This makes it possible to switch back and forth between copies of different quality according to feature group 1.4. This excludes a file that begins with a dependent frame, for example, for the decoding of which a frame in another file must be used. 92. Whether a different section of the video within the meaning of feature 1.2.1 means that successive files of the same copy must be free of overlapping when reproduced does not need to be conclusively clarified in the case in dispute. CHARACTERISTIC 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1 - SET OF ONE OR MORE FACTORS 93. According to feature 1.4.1, the successive decision to switch when requesting files according to feature 1.4.1 comprises the regular generation of a set of one or more factors indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different ones of the copies.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 66 According to feature 1.4.1.1, the set of one or more factors refers to the performance of the network. 94. According to the wording and context of the claim, the factors must be indicative of said capability because based on at least one factor, according to feature 1.4.2, the decision is made to switch the playback quality to achieve continuous playback of the video using the files of the highest quality copy determined to be maintainable at the time. However, it does not follow that the performance of the network referred to in the set of factors of feature 1.4.1.1 is necessarily determined on the basis of reactions/responses to requests for files. Rather, feature 1.4.1.1 in particular does not contain any specifications regarding the method of determination. 95. It is true that the performance in the single embodiment example is determined on the basis of the response times to streamlet requests (para. [0047 ff.]). Also, the combination of factors used to determine the threshold for, in particular, switching up (see par. [0050]) refers to circumstances that also depend, inter alia, on the response times to streamlet requests, namely the read ahead margin (i.e. the number of streamlets available contiguously to the current playback time index that have been sequenced by the staging module 409, see par. [0050]) and a minimum safety margin. However, the patent claim cannot be narrowed down to this in the absence of clear indications that the performance of the network refers exclusively to a performance determined on the basis of responses to file requests. FEATURE 1.4.2 - CONTINUOUS PLAYBACK 96. The purpose statement in feature 1.4.2 is to be interpreted as meaning that a claimed method must be suitable for achieving continuous reproduction, i.e. it must not provide for any interruptions of the reproduction due to the method. This is in line with the aim of reducing, inter alia, the problem of reliability, which is impaired by interruptions caused by the process (see para. [0007] in conjunction with para. [0012] f.). The embodiments explained in the patent application are also aimed at continuous reproduction (cf. para. [0050]) and offer no indication that a process-related interruption would still be patentable.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 67 97. The reference point for the continuous playback of the video are the consecutive sections of the video (feature 1.4), for the requesting of which the procedure according to feature group 1.4 is applied ("automatically requesting (...) subsequent portions of the video by requesting for each such portion one of the files from one of the copies dependent upon successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback quality to a higher or lower quality one of the different copies (...)"). The person skilled in the art will therefore understand the feature from the context of the claim in such a way that uninterrupted playback of the video is also to be ensured at the moment of switching to a different playback quality, i.e. to a different copy. FEATURES 1.3 AND 1.4 - MULTIPLE SERVERS AND ONE TCP CONNECTION; ONE HTTP REQUEST AND MULTIPLE TCP CONNECTIONS 98. According to features 1.3 and 1.4, the files mentioned there are requested by the set of servers via one or more TCP connections, with each file being requested individually by one or more corresponding HTTP requests via the one or more TCP connections. 99. Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, the skilled person will not interpret the patent claim to mean that the combination of a TCP connection with several servers or the combination that each file is requested individually by a single http request via several TCP connections are covered by the claim. On the contrary, a person skilled in the art will not include technically meaningless combinations in the claim when making a reasonable assessment (see also EPO, "Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekam- mern", 10th edition 2022, para. II.C.8.1, first paragraph, according to which variants which a person skilled in the art would have immediately rejected as being clearly outside the practical scope of the claimed subject-matter are not included). The skilled person, in this case a software developer or electrical engineer with at least a bachelor's degree and at least two years of practical experience in the design and implementation of network and/or media streaming technologies, knows that the establishment of a connection to a server requires at least one TCP connection that only addresses this server, and that each http request requires exactly one underlying TCP connection. The person skilled in the art will therefore understand the formulation as a shortened formulation for the fact that several servers, several TCP connections and several http requests are required.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 68 requests are permitted, but the TCP connection only establishes the connection to one server at a time and each http request requires exactly one TCP connection. Neither the wording of the patent claim nor the patent description contain any indication that the patent claim could be directed to combinations that are not technically meaningful. C. ACTION FOR ANNULMENT 100. The action for annulment is well-founded insofar as it is directed against the version granted and the restricted versions defended in the alternative with auxiliary requests 1 to 11 in this order. It is otherwise unfounded. I. GRANTED VERSION OF PATENT CLAIM 1 (MAIN CLAIM) 101. The granted version is novel and inventive over the prior art discussed in the proceedings, Art. 65 (2) EPC in conjunction with Art. 138 (1) a, Art. 54 (2) and Art. 56 EPC. Art. 138(1)(a), Art. 54(2) and Art. 56 EPC. The patent in suit also discloses the invention so clearly and completely that a person skilled in the art can carry it out, Art. 65 (2) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 138 (1) a), Art. 54 (2) and Art. 56 EPC. Art. 138(1)(b) EPC. However, the subject- matter of claim 1 as granted goes beyond the content of the earlier application as originally filed, Art. 65(2) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 138(1)(c) EPC. Art. 138(1)(c) EPC. 1) NOVELTY COMPARED TO WO 02/49343 (WO'343; ANNEX BPWN 11) 102. Citation WO'343 (Annex BPWN 11) relates to techniques for streaming audio and/or video signals in a network comprising a server 1 and a terminal 3 (cf. Fig. 1, Abstract). The audio or video material can be distributed to a sequence of sub-files, each of which can be retrieved independently of the terminal (cf. Abstract, p. 1 and p. 5). The citation first explains the invention using audio material (p. 2 fig. 5 to p. 16 fig. 5). 103. An original file containing the piece of music is divided into numbered sub-files, which are stored on a server in a folder for the piece of music and which can be retrieved by the user's terminal via the network for playing the piece of music via their file name, which contains their number in sequence, whereby the sub-files are decoded before playback and stored in an output folder.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 69 diode buffer (p. 3 lines 1-31, p. 5 lines 1-19). Playback takes place after a defined playout time TP has been reached, e.g. 10 seconds, which defines the degree of buffering (p. 5 line 20 to p. 6 line 2). An improved embodiment, in which the rate can be adjusted and jumping is another option, is shown on p. 6 lines 21 to p. 16 line 5. The recording can be encoded several times at different rates, whereby each of the versions can be split into sub-files (p. 6 lines 21-26). The table on page 7 shows the resulting quantities of sub-files, whose file names are numbered consecutively, for the coded bit rates 8, 16, 18, 24 and 32 kbit/s. A measurement of the current transmission rate is described on p. 8 lines 6-16 and a change to another version with a correspondingly higher or lower bit rate depending on threshold values is described on p. 8 line 16 to p. 9 line 7, whereby the process is summarised in a flowchart (p. 9 to 11). User commands, including a jump command, are presented on p. 11 line 7 to p. 12 line 7; further explanations, such as a more detailed explanation of the subdivision of the original file into sub-files, are contained up to p. 16 line 5. 104. The citation considers the doctrine initially presented for audio files to be generally transferable to video material (cf. p. 2 lines 7-9, p. 16 lines 6-7), whereby, if a change to a version with a different bit rate and jumps are permitted, further implications for the division of the original file into sub-files apply (cf. p. 16 lines 17-18). In this respect, the caveat initially deals with the cases in which each frame of an image is coded independently (intra-frame coding), resp. with the cases in which an inter-frame technique is used in the context of data compression, in which the position of the independent frames ("intra- frames"), which can be decoded without recourse to previous frames, can be determined in a controllable manner (cf. p. 16 lines 17-23), before turning to an inter-frame coding procedure such as the ITU H.261-standard, which does not permit the regular, orderly insertion of intra-frames and in which specially constructed bridging sub-files or bridging sequences must therefore be used in the case of jumps and bit rate changes (p. 16 line 24 to p. 19 line 17). Finally, the caveat also deals with the special features of live audio and -video recordings (see p. 19 line 18 to p. 22 line 7).2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 70 105. The examination of novelty under Art. 54(1) EPC requires an examination of the entire content of the earlier publication(s). The decisive factor is whether the subject matter of the claim with all its features is directly and unambiguously disclosed in the citation (see Court of Appeal, Order of 25 September 2024, UPC CoA 182/2024, para. 123). In any event, the citation does not directly and unambiguously disclose feature 1.4.2 because, according to the procedure described therein, the buffer is to be cleared after each change of bit rate (cf. p. 10, penultimate and last line of the table for the flowchart under "Stepup" and "Stepdown", respectively, "Clear Buffer"). Since the flowchart summarises the procedure presented above (cf. p. 9 lines 7-8), the preceding descriptions do not have any deviating disclosure content. In addition, once the buffer has been emptied, playback does not restart until the playout time TP, e.g. 10 seconds, which determines the degree of buffering, has been reached (p. 5 line 20 to p. 6 line 2), which increases the duration of the interruption. In addition, one of the conditions for switching to a lower bit rate is that the buffer is empty (cf. p. 8 line 18; p. 10, 14th line of the flowchart table, pseudo code line "If BufferFullness = 0 AND (...) AND (...) go to Stepdown"). This already leads to an interruption of the output. This means that the exclusion of process-related interruptions required by feature 1.4.2 is not shown. 106. Admittedly, the citation explains that many sound cards require a reset to change the bit rate at which they are operated and that this necessarily leads to an interruption in playback. In this respect, the caveat suggests running the sound card at the highest possible bit rate throughout and upsampling data encoded at a lower bit rate. With this change, in view of the previously discussed condition, which provided for a reduction of the rate only in the event of a buffer underflow and thus an interruption of playback, such interruptions could be avoided, which is why a criterion that anticipates an underflow and prevents it in most cases would be preferable. In this case, the first of the three AND conditions (namely that the buffer is empty) would no longer apply (cf. p. 14 line 25 to p. 15 line 8). However, the avoided interruption of playback referred to here only relates to the interruption caused by the buffer running empty before switching ("such interruption"; underlining added). Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, this does not directly and unambiguously also refer to the interruption to be avoided which is caused by the switching process as such, namely the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 71 buffer emptying is effected. This also results from the explanation for the selection of the buffer empty state as a condition for switching down. Accordingly, the buffer empty state was only selected as the time and condition for switching down because the sound card is not playing anything at this time anyway (cf. p. 8 lines 20-23). The counterargument therefore assumes that there is always an interruption during switching, as can also be seen from the fact that excessively long sub-files are regarded as disadvantageous because they require a larger buffer and cause an additional delay ("extra delay"), e.g. when changing instalments (p. 12 lines 31-33), precisely because the waiting time is extended, which must be waited in addition to the interruption caused by the switching process until playback starts again. Apart from this, the comments on p. 14 line 25 to p. 15 line 8 on special sound cards only relate to switching down and not to switching up, for which there is naturally no condition linked to the empty buffer anyway. 107. From the fact that claims 17 and 18 of the citation do not mention emptying the buffer when changing the bit rate, a direct and unambiguous disclosure cannot be inferred, if only because they also do not disclose uninterrupted reproduction when changing. 108. It is irrelevant whether the solution discussed in the citation with the bridging sub-files or bridging sequences (p. 18 line 17 to p. 19 line 5) involves emptying the buffer when switching. As mentioned, this solution is used in the event that an inter-frame coding method such as the ITU H.261 standard is used, which does not permit the regular, orderly insertion of intra-frames. This does not ensure that each sub-file from the copies of the video starts with an independent frame, from which the subsequent dependent frames can be decoded as a basis up to the next independent frame. Therefore, the sub-files are not encapsulated independently for playback within the meaning of feature 1.2.1, because in the event that a sub-file starts with a dependent frame, the last independent frame of the previous sub-file of the same copy must be used for decoding. This results in the very problems that the caveat aims to solve through the use of bridging sub-files and bridging sequences.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 72 109. Apart from that, these solutions do not anticipate the subject-matter of the granted patent application in any other way. The use of bridging sub-files (p. 18 lines 18-19 in conjunction with p. 17 lines 25 to p. 18 line 17), which contain four frames (cf. p. 18 lines 1-2, line 30), causes the image to freeze for 160 ms (cf. p. 18 lines 19-21). Even if this were not considered an interruption of playback, the entirety of the bridging sub-files of each instalment change does not make up the entire video and is therefore not another copy of the video. They also do not contain the same section of the video as the sub-files with the same index from the regular copies of the video. Rather, these sub-files are each 4 seconds long (cf. p. 17 line 15, p. 18 line 23), while a bridging sub-file is only 160 ms long (cf. p. 18 lines 1-2, lines 20/21). The bridging sub-files are also not encoded at a different bit rate, but at the target bit rate, because the first frame of the sub-file is re-encoded at the target bit rate to generate the bridging sub-file (cf. p. 18 lines 7-17). The bridging sequences (p. 18 line 23 to p. 19 line 5) are 4 seconds long like the sub-files of the regular copies of the video and contain the same section as the regular sub-files with the same index. However, since the bridging sequences of each instalment change refer to the transitions between two regular sub-files, they do not make up the entire video when taken together. The sub-file for the first and last section of the video is missing. In addition, the bit rate of the bridging sequences of each rate change corresponds to the target bit rate because it is made up of the first four re-encoded frames of the sub-file of the target bit rate and the remaining frames of this sub-file. They can therefore also not be regarded as a further copy of the video that meets the requirements. This means that the video is not played using the patent-compliant files. 110. Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, the citation does not contain a general teaching to avoid interruptions in reproduction or buffer emptying. Such a teaching is not explicitly contained in the citation. It is also not implied by the citation. As discussed, the flowchart provides for buffer emptying at each switchover. Furthermore, this example provides for a playout time TP, e.g. 10 seconds, which further delays the resumption of playback after each switching operation. For the reasons mentioned above, the example with the sound card, which is permanently operated at the highest bit rate and therefore does not change the playback after a switching operation.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 73 rate change does not have to be restarted. Insofar as an uninterrupted playback in the event of a rate change is intended in the embodiment examples with the bridging sub-files and the bridging sequences, this would refer to the specific procedure with the bridging sub-files or bridging sequences dealt with there, but not to a general teaching to avoid interruptions and buffer emptying. Nothing else follows from the mention on p. 11 lines 17- 20 that, in the event of a jump, suspending decoding and emptying the buffer is preferable but not really essential. The suspension of decoding and the emptying of the buffer does not refer to a rate change, but to the situation of a jump during playback, where it serves to accelerate the request of the files for the destination of the jump (so that the new request is sent immediately), which is considered dispensable, and thus to accelerate the execution of the jump itself. 2) INVENTIVE STEP BASED ON WO'343 (ANNEX BPNW 11) 111. The subject-matter of granted claim 1 is also inventive over citation WO'343. According to Article 56 EPC, an inventive step is present if the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, taking into account the prior art. It is not apparent why, without hindsight, the skilled person should have had any reason to modify the teaching, insofar as it does not relate to the embodiment with the bridge sub-files and the bridge sequences, in such a way that emptying of the buffer during a rate change is avoided without resorting to bridge sub- files or bridge sequences. As discussed, the caveat does not contain a general teaching to avoid interruptions, so omitting buffer flushing would be retrospective. 3) NOVELTY AND INVENTIVE STEP OVER US 6,161,137 (US'137; EXHIBIT BPWN 13) 112. The counterpart is concerned with a different, participant-specific presentation of a presentation to participants with different transmission capacities, to which the type of presentation is adapted. The process and manner of streaming as such is dealt with in the counterpart.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 74 not, however. Insofar as "video portion(s)" or "video segment(s)" are mentioned there, this does not mean, at least not directly and unambiguously, sections of a video within a presentation, but a section of the presentation that contains a video. In any case, switching is only carried out directly and unambiguously with regard to segments of the presentation, but not independently of this between sections of a video contained in a segment. 113. There is also no apparent reason to modify the teaching of the citation in such a way that it corresponds to the teaching of the patent in suit. 4) FEASIBILITY 114. Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, the patent in suit discloses the invention so clearly and completely that a person skilled in the art can carry it out. 115. The defendants argue that it is not obvious how the combination of a TCP connection with several servers and the combination that each file is requested individually by a single HTTP request via several TCP connections could be implemented (features 1.1, 1.3, 1.4). However, as explained above in the context of the interpretation, the contested combinations are not covered by the patent claim. It is therefore irrelevant whether and to what extent a patent claim must be executable over its entire width at the priority date. 116. The defendant's further objection that the combination of several servers each with several TCP connections (features 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) is not executably disclosed is also not valid. The objection is already inconclusive. The defendants merely argue that the patent in suit does not teach anything about this combination and that the skilled person is not provided with any information on how such a complex scenario can be implemented (cf. revocation counterclaim, p. 82 para. 222, cited from the revocation counterclaim of the defendant at 5). Since the skilled person has his technical knowledge and expertise at his disposal, the mere reference to missing statements in the patent specification is not sufficient without further ado. Apart from this, it is not apparent why the use of several servers and several TCP connections per server should present the skilled person with difficulties which he could not solve solely by recourse to his technical knowledge and expertise.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 75 117. Insofar as the defendants in their reply to the nullity counterclaim believe that, if the objection of the plaintiff re 1 against the novelty of WO'343 (Annex BPWN 11) is correct, that it does not disclose in detail how a coded overall file can be partitioned into several (sub)files, this also applies to the patent in suit with regard to feature 1.2, the objection is recognisably only intended to prevent the situation that the WO'343 citation does not prevail only because, contrary to the defendant's view, the teaching of the citation is considered to be non-executable in this point, and in this context to ensure that the teaching of the patent in suit is treated equally. The objection therefore does not have any independent significance. Since the panel did not allow the novelty attack based on WO'343 to fail due to the lack of practicability of the teaching disclosed therein, it is not necessary to decide whether the teaching of the patent in suit is practicable in this respect. Apart from this, it is not apparent why the partitioning of a coded overall file should present the skilled person with difficulties which he could not solve by recourse to his technical knowledge and expertise alone. 5) UNAUTHORISED EXTENSION 118. An inadmissible broadening exists if the granted claim comprises subject-matter which goes beyond the content of the application as filed. In order to determine whether there is an impermissible extension, it is therefore first necessary to determine what the skilled person would directly and unambiguously derive from the entire application as filed, using his general knowledge of the art and objectively considered at the time of filing, whereby implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. subject-matter which follows clearly and unambiguously from what is expressly stated, is also to be regarded as part of the content. If the patent is a divisional application, this requirement applies to any earlier application (see Court of Appeal, order of 14 February 2025, UPC CoA 382/2024, APL 39664/2024, p. 12/13, para. 52 - Abbott/Si- bio). The subject-matter of the granted patent claim 1 thus goes beyond the content of the parent application as filed in several respects.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 76 Objection "Decisions to switch the playback quality up or down according to the claim" (characteristics 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1, 1.4.2) 119. In this respect, the defendants argue that a set of one or more factors within the meaning of features 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1 and 1.4.2 is not originally disclosed. Rather, only a certain performance factor is disclosed, which is generated in response to file requests. In addition, the successive provisions within the meaning of feature 1.4.2 are disclosed solely on the basis of a threshold comparison. 120. For the original disclosure of the set of factors, the applicant re 1 refers to the variables φcurrent and φhigher (cf. p. 15/16 of the parent application, Annex BPV 1b). Contrary to their opinion, however, these are not two different factors, but two manifestations of one and the same factor. The quantity φcurrent is determined on the basis of measured response times to file requests, the quantity φhigher is the same quantity, except that expected response times are used for the determination, as they are to be expected when using a file ("streamlet") in higher quality/bit rate (assumed to be persistent under the prevailing conditions). Even if they were to be regarded as different factors, it would in any case be precisely these two factors and not a set of one or more arbitrary factors that would be disclosed. It is true that the parent application points out on p. 16 lines 16-18 that the preceding equations and algorithms are merely illustrative and could be replaced by alternative streamlet moni- toring solutions. This means that factors other than the specifically explained variables φcurrent and φhigher can be calculated and used. However, this does not result in a direct and unambiguous disclosure that a set of one or more factors could be used in general. The same applies to the subsequent general passage, which is not unusual, that the embodiment examples discussed are generally for illustrative purposes only and are not to be understood restrictively (see Annex BPV 1b, p. 16 lines 19-23). 121. Irrespective of this, both sizes, but at least the size φcurrent, are in any case responses to file requests in the aforementioned sense. The parent application does not contain a disclosure according to which the size φcurrent would not be generated on the basis of such responses. Without being decisive, the parent application also does not contain a disclosure that the size φhigher is not generated as a result of a file request.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 77 would be generated in response to requests for files of a higher quality copy. Again, nothing deviating results from the passages on p. 16 lines 16-19 and p. 16 lines 19-23 discussed above. Rather, the passage on p. 16 lines 16-19 even explicitly refers to alternative solutions that also monitor the files ("alternative streamlet monitoring solutions"), which in this context means files requested for playback, and therefore excludes alternative solutions that do not use responses to file requests. 122. Thus, the subject matter of the granted version goes beyond the content of the parent application because it is in any case not limited to the factors or at least one of them being generated according to responses to file requests. 123. In addition, the successive determination according to feature 1.4.2 is only originally disclosed in connection with a threshold value comparison, at least if a performance factor as defined in the parent application and the patent in suit is used. The embodiments of the parent application describe both upshifting and downshifting solely in connection with a threshold comparison. This applies at least with regard to the performance factor which the plaintiff re 1 has included in the patent claim in auxiliary requests 1 and 8. Contrary to the opinion of the first applicant, claims 20 and 22 of the parent application, which do not contain any threshold values, do not change this. It is true that the application documents in their entirety, which include in particular the patent claims applied for, must be used to determine the disclosure content. However, as the system of the claims applied for shows, they do not extend the disclosure content compared to the description. Claim 20 does not yet mention a performance factor. Claim 22, which introduces the performance factor, only deals with its generation, but does not yet address its role for requesting files of higher or lower quality, which is why it cannot be concluded from the fact that a threshold comparison is not mentioned there that the performance factor is not necessarily associated with a threshold comparison. The role of the performance factor in switching to a higher or lower quality is then only examined in claims 22 and 23, both of which provide for a threshold comparison. Insofar as the plaintiff re 1 refers to the above-mentioned passage on p. 16, lines 16-18, this does not disclose the use of a performance factor without a threshold value comparison, because these claims do not contain a threshold value comparison.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 78 The passage only concerns the monitoring of the files, but not the question of how the decision to switch to a different quality is made. Again, the subsequent general passage on p. 16 lines 19-23 does not directly and clearly reveal the use of a peformance factor without a threshold value comparison for the reasons mentioned above. 124. It can be left open whether the combination of factors (p. 3 lines 22-26, p. 15 lines 24-30 of the parent application) discloses a set of one or more factors within the meaning of feature 1.4.1. According to the aforementioned descriptive passages, a switch to a higher quality is made if the performance factor exceeds a threshold value which is determined on the basis of the combination of factors. This means that the combination of factors is only disclosed together with a threshold value comparison. As can be seen from the factors mentioned by way of example, namely a number of contiguously available files ready for playback, a minimum safety margin and a current read ahead margin, as well as the context of the master application, these factors also depend on the delivery speed for requested files, among other things. These factors are therefore also factors that are generated according to responses to file requests. Objection "sequential requirements of streamlets" (features 1.3, 1.4) 125. The defendants criticise the fact that, contrary to the subject matter of the granted patent claim, the application documents of the parent application required that the files ("streamlets") be requested simultaneously. 126. The defendants refer to the description on p. 7, lines 23-33, and p. 12, line 29 to p. 13, line 5 of the parent application. In addition, the defendants refer to the determination of the power factor on p. 14, lines 20-22 and p. 15, lines 19-24 of the parent application, which also requires a simultaneous request for several streamlets. The original claim 20 of the parent application is also limited accordingly. 127. However, as the first plaintiff rightly asserts, the examples of implementation - no different from those in the patent application - present the simultaneous request as optional. Already on p. 3 lines 11-16 in conjunction with p. 4 lines 4-15. p. 4 lines 4-15, the possibility of simultaneous requesting is merely presented as a method that the subject-matter of the invention is capable of. Accordingly, the description provides that files ("streamlets")2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 79 and assigns the simultaneous request of a large number of files to only one further embodiment (Annex BPV 1b, e.g. p. 11 lines 17-26). The simultaneous request of several files is also expressly described as an alternative on p. 14 lines 20-22. In particular, contrary to the defendant's view, the simultaneous request is also not a prerequisite for the generation of a performance factor. In this respect, the parent application does not specify whether the files originate from a sequential or simultaneous request (Annex BPV 1b, p. 15 para. 4 et seq.). The fact that claim 20 as filed refers to a simultaneous request does not limit the disclosure of the application documents in view of the further disclosure of the embodiments. 128. Insofar as the defendants object in response to the plaintiffs' interpretation of the patent claim that, on the basis of the plaintiffs' interpretation in the infringement proceedings, the subject matter of the granted claim is also inadmissibly broadened insofar as no embodiment is disclosed in the original application documents in which a factor is generated after receipt of the very first streamlet and, if necessary, an upshift and downshift is carried out based on this factor. The objection already fails because the parent application as well as the patent in suit leave it to the discretion of the skilled person when the procedure according to feature 1.4 starts, as long as a procedure according to feature 1.3 remains possible. Moreover, the defendant's argument that such an embodiment is not open to origin does not apply. According to the description of the embodiment example of Fig. 6 (cf. p. 14 lines 17-27 of the parent application according to Annex BPV 1b and p. 17 lines 12-24 of the divisional application according to Annex BPV 1a), the agent controller module 402 of the client module 114 requests a single streamlet from the streamlet cache module 404. As already explained above, requesting multiple streamlets is explicitly described there only as an alternative. The agent controller module 402 then analyses the individual streamlet to determine whether to switch to a copy of a different quality. In this respect, the description provides a sufficient basis for the change in playback quality in feature 1.4, which depends on the analysis of a single streamlet.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 80 Objection 3 - Functionalities of the media player (feature 1.1) 129. The defendants argue that the parent application only discloses a media player in the form of a simple viewer, whereas relevant functionalities are provided by other elements, such as the agent controller module, which act with the media player and are to be distinguished from it. In any event, the originally disclosed media player was not designed to perform the method steps of features 1.3, 1.4, 1.4.1 and 1.4.2. 130. The success of the objection is already contradicted by the fact that the parent application (Annex BPV 1b) contains a media player - in accordance with the patent in suit - on p. 1, lines 12-14, and p. 2, Z. 4-7, also refers more generally to a device for playing media. This media player is used in the sense of the "client module 114" of the embodiments. Apart from this, the parent application with the agent controller module and the other modules recognisably only addresses functionalities without making a specification for the spatial-structural localisation that goes beyond the fact that some functionalities must necessarily be assigned technically and functionally to the side of the server and others must necessarily be assigned to the side of the user. Objection 4 - Reproduction without prior staging 131. In this respect, the defendants argue that the reproduction of the video is only disclosed in the application documents of the parent application in connection with a prior staging of the streamlets. In this regard, they refer to independent claims 1, 11, 20, 27 and 34 of the parent application and to the embodiment example on p. 10, lines 22-28 and p. 14, lines 17- 29. 132. Again, the success of the objection is already precluded by the fact that the parent application - like the patent in suit - with the staging module recognisably only addresses a functionality that ensures that the requested files ("stream- lets") are available for playback in the correct order. However, the granted patent claim also presupposes such a functionality by specifying in feature 1.5 that the video is displayed by playing the requested files "in the order of the ascending playback time" with the media player on the end user station.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 81 Objection 5 - Functions of claim 1 disclosed at most in relation to agent controller module interacting with a media player (features 1.3 to 1.4.2) 133. The defendants argue that the parent application provides that the steps of "re-questing...", "automatically requesting...", "regularly generating a set of ... factors" and "making the successive determinations" of features 1.3 to 1.4.2 would at best be carried out by an agent controller module, whereas the granted patent claim also covers embodiments in which the corresponding functions are not carried out by a structural and functional element, the agent controller module, which has an interface to a media player. 134. Again, the objection fails because the parent application with the agent controller module - like the patent in suit - only addresses a functionality on the side of the end user station without linking it to a specific spatial and structural location within the end user station. The original claim 20 of the parent application and the dependent claims 21 to 26 also merely specify method steps without restricting themselves to the components of the end user station in which the corresponding functionalities are spatially and structurally located. Objection 6 - Other embodiment not originally disclosed by the multiple use of the term "one or more" in features 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 135. As explained, the patent claim does not, on a reasonable assessment, cover the combination of a TCP connection with several servers and the combination that each file is requested individually by a single http request via several TCP connections. Therefore, contrary to the defendant's view, the fact that the parent application (Annex BPV 1b) - like the description of the patent in suit - does not disclose the above-mentioned technically inappropriate combinations does not constitute an inadmissible extension. 136. Contrary to the defendant's view, the parent application and the divisional application disclose the combination of several servers and several TCP connections in each case. The parent application and the divisional application disclose both a video streaming via several2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 82 server (Annex BPV 1b, p. 9 fig. 32 ff.; Annex BPV 1a p. 11 fig. 33 ff.) as well as the use of several TCP connections between the client and the web server (Annex BPV 1b p. 12 fig. 1 ff., fig. 29 ff.; Annex BPV 1a p. 14 fig. 13 ff., p. 15 fig. 13 ff.). The person skilled in the art understands these statements in context directly and unambiguously to mean that several TCP connections can also be used when several servers are used. 137. Contrary to the defendants' opinion, the parent application and divisional application also disclose the combination that each file is requested individually by several http requests via a TCP connection (see Annex BPV 1b, p. 11 lines 24-26 in conjunction with lines 19-21); Annex BPV 1a, p. 13 line 36 to p. 14 line 2 in conjunction with P. 13 LINES 30-32). Requesting a file in parts via several TCP connections is merely an additional option (see Annex BPV 1b, p. 11 lines 27-33; Annex BPV 1a, p. 14 lines 4-11). Objection 7 - uninterrupted playback of the video (feature 1.4.2) 138. Contrary to the opinion of the defendant (duplicate to the request for amendment of the patent, p. 9), the skilled person directly and unambiguously takes the suitability for uninterrupted playback of the video from the parent and divisional application as belonging to the invention. Like the patent in suit, they describe a process-related suspension of the TCP connections and a subsequent slow restart of the data delivery as unacceptable in the context of the explanation of the challenge of reliability (see Annex BPV 1b p. 2 lines 15-20; Annex BPV 1a p. 2 lines 20-27). Among other things, it is precisely the reliability that the invention applied for seeks to improve (Annex BPV 1b p. 2 para. 32 to p. 3 para. 9; Annex BPV 1a p. 3 para. 8-19). In the absence of indications to the contrary, the skilled person will understand the measures described in the application documents relating to the continuous playback of the video as being aimed at enabling continuous playback of the video within the meaning of feature 1.4.2 of the patent in suit. The question of whether the objection is late is therefore irrelevant. 7) LEGAL CONSEQUENCES Issued version 139. It follows from the above that the granted version is to be revoked due to an inadmissible extension of patent claim 1.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 83 Number of auxiliary applications 140. Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, the threshold of the number of auxiliary requests appropriate in the circumstances (R. 30.1 c) VerfO) has not yet been exceeded in the case in dispute, without the need for a final clarification of when this threshold is reached. The applicant re 1 uses auxiliary requests 1, 8 and 12 to overcome the inadmissible extensions discussed above under objection 1, which concern three aspects. Auxiliary request 1 restricts claim 1 to the "performance factor", auxiliary request 8 supplements this subject- matter by specifying that the performance factor is generated according to responses to file requests ("responses"), and auxiliary request 12 further supplements this subject-matter by the threshold comparison ("threshold"). The plaintiff re 1 does not counter the other objections concerning inadmissible extensions with auxiliary requests, nor does it counter the objections of lack of practicability. In contrast, auxiliary requests 2, 3, 6 and 16 serve to overcome a lack of patentability, whereby auxiliary request 3 builds on auxiliary request 2, auxiliary request 6 supplements patent claim 1 with the features of granted sub-claim 6 and auxiliary request 16 adds an additional new feature 1.4.3.1 to granted patent claim 1 and at the same time tackles the elimination of the inadmissible extension under the aspect of "performance factor" and "threshold" in accordance with auxiliary requests 1 and 12, but still without the aspect of "responses". The other auxiliary requests are merely combinations of previous auxiliary requests, namely auxiliary requests 4 and 5 are combinations of auxiliary request 1 with auxiliary requests 2 and 3 respectively, auxiliary request 7 is a combination of auxiliary request 1 and 6, auxiliary requests 9 to 11 combinations of auxiliary request 8 with auxiliary requests 2, 3 and 6 respectively, Auxiliary requests 13 to 15 Combinations of auxiliary request 12 with auxiliary requests 2, 3 and 6 and auxiliary request 17 corresponds to auxiliary request 16 supplemented by the following aspect "responses". Against this background, a maximum of four objects for the elimination of a possible patentability and 3 objects for the elimination of one of the alleged possible inadmissible extensions must ultimately be examined. In view of the fact that the defendants have raised at least 6 main objections from the point of view of an inadmissible extension, of which the plaintiff re 1 only takes up objection 1, which concerns three aspects, by means of auxiliary requests, and the defendants additionally attack the practicability, the number of auxiliary requests in the case in dispute is not objectionable.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 84 Versions according to auxiliary requests 1 to 11 141. The alternatively defended versions according to auxiliary requests 1 to 11 do not eliminate the inadmissible extension discussed above as objection 1. Auxiliary request 8 does include the restriction in note 1.4.1 that the performance factor, which according to auxiliary request 1 is to replace the set of one or more factors in features 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1 and 1.4.2, is generated according to responses from file requests. However, it does not contain a mandatory threshold comparison. The same applies to auxiliary requests 9 to 11, which do not add anything to the subject-matter of auxiliary request 8 to eliminate the inadmissible extension. Version according to auxiliary request 12 142. Only auxiliary request 12 additionally includes the threshold value comparison in the claim for the aforementioned performance factor with the newly added feature 1.4.3, so that the features 1.4.1 to 1.4.3 read as follows (changes compared to the granted version are indicated by deletions or underlining: 1.4.1 regularly generating (706) a set of one or more factors performance factor according to responses from file requests indicative of the current ability to sustain the streaming of the video using the files from different ones of the copies, 1.4.1 periodically generating a set of one or more factors of a performance factor according to responses to requests from files indicating the current ability to maintain streaming of the video using the files from different copies, 1.4.1.1 wherein the set of one or more factors relate perfor- mance factor relates to the performance of the network; and 1.4.1.1 wherein the set of one or more power factor factors relates to the performance of the network; and 1.4.2 making the successive determinations (710,712) to shift the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors performance factor to achieve continuous 1.4.2 Carry out successive determinations of reproduction quality based on at least one of the set of Factors the power factor2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 85 playback of the video using the files of the highest quality one of the copies determined sustainable at that time, and modify to achieve continuous playback of the video using the highest quality copy files determined to be maintainable at the time; and 1.4.3 wherein said making the successive determinations to shift comprises: upshifting to a higher quality one of the different copies when the performance factor is greater than a threshold; and determining if the higher quality playback can be sustained according to a combination of factors; and 1.4.3 whereby the implementation of successive provisions for modification is included: Switching up to one of the different copies with a higher quality if the power factor is greater than a threshold; and Determine, based on a combination of factors, whether playback can be maintained at the higher quality; and 143. Contrary to the German translation of the applicant re 1, two incorrect specific articles "den" before "Antworten" and "die" before "Anforderungen" were omitted from the amended feature 1.4.1. The version in the language of the proceedings of the patent is decisive for the subject matter of the patent claim. In the absence of any indications to the contrary, this also applies to the formulation of an alternatively defended version by the patent proprietor, at least if the latter formulates the auxiliary request in the language of the proceedings of the patent, as is the case here, and provides a translation into the German language of the proceedings of the legal dispute. There are no such deviating indications in the case in dispute. The first plaintiff bases the additional feature on the disclosure in p. 3 items 20/21 of the parent application (cf. Annex BPV 1b, which corresponds to p. 4 items 27-29 of the divisional application (Annex BPV 1a)). This contains "responses" and "requests" as well as the English version of the amended feature without the respective definite article. Against this background, the definite article in the German translation of the amended feature is a mere inaccuracy in the translation, which is not intended to limit the subject-matter of the auxiliary request beyond its English wording. A generation including each response is not possible without the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 86 As can be seen from the above citation, the divisional application does not use the definite article. This is not altered by the fact that the claims applied for, to which the disclosure cannot be limited anyway, partly use the definite article (cf. for example claims 5, 14 of the parent application, but claims 22, 29 of the parent application are different). No new inadmissible extension by auxiliary request 12 144. Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, the amendments according to auxiliary request 12 do not lead to subject matter that goes beyond the content of the original application or the parent application. 145. The defendants believe that it is not originally disclosed that the performance factor indicates the current ability to maintain streaming. It remains to be seen whether this objection, which is expressly raised in auxiliary requests 1 and 8, is justified. In any case, together with the threshold comparison, which is also included in auxiliary request 12, a performance factor is originally disclosed which indicates said capability. The comparison of the performance factor with the corresponding threshold value shows, according to the parent application and the divisional application, whether the streaming can be maintained (Annex BPV 1b p. 15 para. 4 to p. 16 para. 18; Annex BPV 1a p. 18 para. 3 to p. 19 para. 27). The performance factor thus indicates said ability, at least in this context, to which the subject matter is limited according to auxiliary request 12. It is possible that the defendants do not see it differently, as they discuss this objection in auxiliary requests 1 and 8, but not in auxiliary request 12. 146. According to the defendant, a further new inadmissible extension justified by the subject- matter of auxiliary request 12 is that the disclosure referred to by the plaintiff re 1 p. 3 lines 22-25 (Annex BPV 1b) contains features which are not contained in the subject-matter of auxiliary request 12, namely the features "simultaneous re- quests" mentioned in the preceding section p. 3 lines 10 to 21, the "continuous monitoring of "streamlet requests and subsequent responses" and the distinction between "agent controller module and "content player" or "content player". 3, lines 10 to 21, the "simultaneous re- quests", the "continuous monitoring" of "streamlet requests and subsequent responses" and the distinction between "agent controller module" and "content player" or "media player", which requires "staging". As already discussed, however, the agent controller module and the staging module are only functionalities that do not require any physical separation on the part of the user and can be regarded as "staging".2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 87 functionalities are already contained in the granted patent claim 1. The text passage on P. 3 of the parent application relates to an apparatus for adaptive-rate content streaming, which comprises an agent controller module and a staging module (see p. 3, lines 10-16). The description on p. 3, lines 10-16 essentially corresponds to the original claim 1 of the parent application, which in turn essentially corresponds in its content to the independent method claim 20 of the parent application. However, method claim 20 does not specify an "agent controller module" or a "staging module". The skilled person therefore understands from the parent application that, in the context of the described method, an "agent controller module" and a "staging module" are not essential to the invention and that the method according to the patent is originally disclosed even without this spatial-structural localisation of the functionalities. 147. Due to the fact that the explanations on the threshold value comparison on p. 3 lines 22-25 expressly relate to a further embodiment example, it cannot be inferred that this embodiment example must also have all aspects of the previous example. The fact that the generation of the performance factor and the threshold comparison in particular do not necessarily require the simultaneous request of several streamlets already follows from the fact that the successive or simultaneous request is irrelevant for the evaluation of the performance of the network on the basis of the responses. Accordingly, the disclosure relating to Fig. 6 provides for both the sequential and alternatively the simultaneous request of streamlets and refers for both equally to the following description of the generation of the performance factor and the execution of the threshold comparison on the basis of Fig. 7 (cf. appendix BPV 1b p. 14 lines 17-27 in conjunction with p. 15 lines 4 ff. p. 15 line 4 ff.; Annex BPV 1a p. 17 line 11-24 in conjunction with p. 18 line 3 ff. p. 18 line 3 ff.). 148. Contrary to the defendant's objection raised in auxiliary request 16, the new feature 1.4.3 already added in auxiliary request 12 is not unclear because it is not clear whether the maintenance must or can be determined after switching to the higher quality or whether this determination must be made before switching up. Rather, it is clear from the overall context of the claim that the request for data from a copy of higher or lower quality is made in response to the successive determinations to switch the reproduction quality to one of the copies of higher or lower quality (feature 1.4). In this context, feature 1.4.3 only contains2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 88 non-exhaustive ("comprising") aspects that are included in the determination, namely as a condition for an upshift that the performance factor is greater than a threshold value, and as a more detailed specification of the determination of maintainability that this is carried out on the basis of a combination of factors. The fact that the maintainability is determined on the basis of a combination of factors is described in the parent application (Annex BPV 1, p. 3, lines 22-26, p. 15, line 24 to p. 16, line 9) and the divisional application (Annex BPV 1a, p. 4, line 31- 35, p. 18 line 33 to p. 19 line 15) is directly and clearly revealed. 149. Moreover, feature 1.4.3 corresponds to the structure of claim 3 as granted, which in turn corresponds structurally to claim 3 as filed in the divisional application (Annex BPV 1a) and claims 23 and 30 as filed in the parent application (Annex BPV 1b). 150. There is no need to decide whether the subject-matter of the granted subclaims 5, 8 and 14, which correspond to subclaims 4, 7 and 9 of the version defended by auxiliary request 12, have independent inadmissible extensions, as the defendants assert with reference to the granted version. There is generally no need for legal protection for the isolated elimination of dependent sub-claims by means of a nullity (counter)action without elimination of the independent claim to which they are related back. The subject matter of the patent in suit is not extended by these sub-claims as such. At most, they can have a concrete effect on the interpretation in the context of determining the scope of protection of an independent claim in a specific individual case, which must then be explained. In the present case, nothing has been presented in this regard and nothing else is apparent. Novelty and inventive step for the subject-matter according to auxiliary request 12 151. Since the subject-matter of granted claim 1 is novel and inventive, this also applies to its subject-matter in the version according to auxiliary request 12. Expression and scope of the partial revocation 152. Accordingly, the patent in suit, in so far as its subject-matter extends beyond the subject- matter of auxiliary request 12, is excluded with effect for the UPC Contracting Member States Austria (AT), Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), the Netherlands (IT), the United Kingdom (DE) and the Netherlands (IT).2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 89 (NL), Portugal (PT) and Sweden (SE), for which it was in force during the relevant period until it lapsed due to the expiry of the maximum term of protection. 153. Insofar as the defendants, when repeating their request in their reply to the revocation counterclaim, no longer mention the UPC contracting member states concerned in deviation from their request in the grounds for the revocation counterclaim, this is, in the absence of deviating indications, merely to be understood as an abbreviated reference to the request from the revocation counterclaim, but not as an extension to any other UPCA contracting member states in which the patent in suit may have been in force during the relevant period. This applies all the more as the defendants have not objected to this understanding despite being requested to do so (cf. order of 23 April 2025). 154. Although the patent in suit has now expired due to the passage of time, its partial revocation must be pronounced. This expresses that the subject matter of the patent in suit is restricted ex tunc for the period up to its expiry. D. literal patent infringement 155. The method of streaming videos when retrieving the challenged embodiments does not make use of the teaching of the patent in suit in accordance with the literal meaning. This applies both with regard to the streaming services of the brazzers type and the pornhub type. In each case, at least the realisation of features 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 from the point of view of a claim-compliant set of one or more servers and the realisation of feature 1.2 from the point of view of the claim-compliant bit rate. 156. The fact that the streaming services which the plaintiffs assign to defendant 1, as well as the streaming services mygf (assigned to defendant 5), bangbros and bangprovbros (each assigned to defendants 1 and 6 as joint operators) correspond to the brazzers embodiment in the characteristics and functionalities relevant to the question of the realisation of all claims of the patent in suit, as the defendants state in their duplicate in the infringement proceedings, is no longer in dispute between the parties, at the latest following the duplicate. The same applies with regard to the defendants' statements there that the streaming services, which the plaintiffs attribute to defendant 3, also correspond to the pornhub embodiment.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 90 Whether the streaming service pornmd of the third defendant does not have its own media player and is currently no longer operated by the third defendant can be left open. CHARACTERISTICS 1.1., 1.2, 1.3 AND 1.4 - CODED ON THE SET OF ONE OR MORE SERVERS 157. It can be assumed that the videos or their copies on the original servers are not encoded as multiple files, but that [...]. The plaintiffs, who have the burden of presentation and proof in this respect, have not been able to demonstrate otherwise. According to the state of affairs and dispute reached in the oral hearing, there is already no evidence whatsoever for the required coding as several files on the original servers. On the contrary: the description of the "selectPlaylist" function (statement of grounds, p. 65 f.) in the brazzers media player, with which the suitable next candidate playlist is to be determined from the available video copies with different linked bit rates, even points in the other direction, without this being decisive. As far as the challenged embodiments [...] are concerned, [...] does not justify being kept ready for retrieval at any time as in a data cabinet. 158. As stated, a sophisticated set of servers must include at least one server that can deliver the pre-configured files at any time. CDNs are not such a server because they only store the files that have already been requested by a previous user temporarily, albeit sometimes for a longer period of time, and only keep them available for this period of time, but not at any time for their renewed request. CDN servers are therefore not available at all times for the duration for which a video is to be made available for streaming by the operator of the streaming service. This would not change even if all files required for playback were (randomly) available on CDN service servers at the time a video is retrieved. 159. The plaintiffs' applications for an order to provide information pursuant to R. 191 VerfO against the CDN operators Cloudflare, Edgio and Reflected Networks must not be granted. The requested information as to whether the video files on their servers are divided into several files or segments and how these files or segments are encoded is not required under2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 91 The above is irrelevant to the legal dispute. The same applies to the other items of information requested, which relate to relevant contractual relationships with the defendants, the videos concerned and the locations of the servers. FEATURE 1.2 - BIT RATE 160. Irrespective of this, the copies of the videos are not each encoded with a constant bit rate. This is not in dispute between the parties. [...]. 161. As explained, however, the patent claim presupposes coding at a constant bit rate, so that a coded bit rate is assigned to the files constituting a copy. Accordingly, it is necessary that the files constituting a copy can be addressed via the bit rate of the copy and that the request for a file with the appropriate bit rate according to feature group 1.4 can be controlled via this bit rate. 162. Even if encoding with a variable bit rate were to be regarded as appropriate, it is not apparent that in the challenged embodiments of the braz- zers or pornhub type, the individual files could be addressed via their bit rate in such a way that continuous playback is possible using the copy with the highest quality currently regarded as maintainable within the meaning of point 1.4.2. E. EQUIVALENT PATENT INFRINGEMENT 163. The method of streaming videos when retrieving them from the challenged embodiments does not make equivalent use of the teaching of the patent in suit. This applies both with regard to the streaming services of the Brazzers type and the pornhub type. I. APPLICABLE LAW 164. The Local Division Mannheim has already decided to which acts of infringement national substantive law of the UPC contracting member states or substantive law of the UPCA is applicable (see decisions of 11 March 2025, UPC CFI 159/2024, UPC CFI 162/2024 and of 2 April 2025, UPC CFI 365/2025).2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 92 165. There is much to suggest that the UPC must apply the doctrine of equivalence of the respective Contracting Member State to such acts, to which the substantive national law of the UPC Contracting Member States is therefore applicable. It is true that the equivalent patent infringement concerns the substantive scope of protection of a European patent and therefore arises directly from Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with Art. 2 of the Protocol on its interpretation. The fact that there are differences in this respect in the doctrines of equivalence of the contracting member states of the UPCA is probably largely due to the fact that there is no overriding judicial authority that could standardise the different nuances in the UPCA contracting member states. The respective national legal practice in the application of Art. 69 UPCA and the Interpretative Protocol should be regarded as part of the respective national substantive judge-made law and is the result of the development of the law, which is the responsibility of the national courts in the respective contracting member states. However, the UPCA does not give the UPC a mandate to standardise the law of its contracting member states for acts subject to their national substantive law, including judge-made law. Accordingly, the UPC should have to apply the doctrine of equivalence of the respective member state to acts governed by the substantive national law of the UPC contracting member states in the same way as a purely national court of that member state would apply it. It is true that the judicial development of law is by nature not subject to the strict prohibition of retroactivity that applies to legal acts. However, this does not alter the fact that there is likely to be a lack of sufficient, necessary indications that the UPCA contracting member states wish to entrust the UPC with the standardisation of their national case law with regard to acts that are subject to their national substantive law, even if their national courts would not be bound by such standardisation in their area of jurisdiction. 166. There is also much to suggest that the UPC will have to develop its own doctrine of equivalence for acts that are subject to the substantive law of the UPCA, possibly with recourse to the traditions of the UPC member states. As discussed, equivalent patent infringement concerns the substantive scope of protection of a European patent, which is defined in accordance with Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with Art. 2 of the Protocol thereto. Art. 2 of the Protocol on its interpretation. Insofar as the legal practice of the UPC contracting member states on equivalent patent infringement is to be regarded as substantive national law within the meaning of Art. 24(1)(e) UPCA, it is therefore likely to be2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 93 nevertheless not apply because the UPC member states have entrusted the UPC with the application of the UPCA and thus at the same time with the harmonisation and development of the law in connection with acts which are subject to the substantive law of the UPCA. It is in line with this that the UPC also applies its own principles of interpretation in the case of literal patent infringement, which also concerns the determination of the substantive scope of protection under Art. 69 EPC, and not the principles of interpretation as they apply in the case law practice of the UPCA member state whose national part of the European bundle patent is concerned (however, the Local Chamber in The Hague, decision on the merits of 22 November 2024, UPC Pat.11.2024, UPC CFI 239/2023, para. 88, which applies the principles developed in Dutch case law without further justification, but with the agreement of the parties). Without such a uniform determination of the substantive scope of protection of a European bundle patent across all national parts of the contracting member states, the elimination of the fragmentation, which is considered to be detrimental to economic development, aimed at with the establishment of the UPC would remain incomplete in a decisive point. This applies equally to the determination of the material scope of protection with a view to literal and equivalent protection. 167. Ultimately, however, the above does not require a final decision. Irrespective of which doctrine of equivalence applies to the acts at issue here, all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC member states rule out equivalent patent infringement if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not fulfil essentially the same function in order to achieve essentially the same effect. If the same function is not taken as a basis, at least essentially the same effect is taken as a basis (cf. for most UPC member states the Year Book 2023 / I of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI); also Brussels Local Chamber, Beslissing ten gronde of 17 January 2025, para. 98). As far as can be seen, the main differences only concern the weight and importance to be attached to the patent claim and the description in determining the scope of protection in the case of an infringement to be examined by modified means.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 94 168. The parties were made aware of the probable relevance of the effects of the features that may not be realised in accordance with the wording of the patent and the question of whether these effects are still sufficiently achieved by the replacement means, as well as the relevance of the function of these features in this context (see order of 23 April 2025, p. 10). In particular, you have not explained that different standards apply in this respect to acts of use that are subject to the substantive law of the UPC Member States relevant here. II. NO USE WITH MODIFIED BUT EQUIVALENT MEANS 169. The substitute means are not equivalent means because they do not essentially fulfil the same function and also do not achieve essentially the same effect as the substituted means. It is therefore not necessary to decide whether the substitute means named by the plaintiffs are actually realised by the contested embodiments. FEATURE 1.2 - EXCHANGE MEANS "QUALITY" INSTEAD OF BIT RATE 170. When encoding the copies of the videos in different quality (so-called exchange means A) instead of different bit rates, as provided for in feature 1.2, it is not possible to request the file for the next section of the video to be requested via the quality of its copy. Rather, in a video with a certain resolution, a section encoded with a large number of bits can be followed by a section that requires fewer bits and could be transmitted in a higher resolution with the available bandwidth, and vice versa. In order to utilise the available bandwidth in such a way that the one copy of the highest quality considered to be maintainable is played, the file must therefore be addressed via its specific bit rate. This may make it possible to achieve the patented effect of efficiently utilising the bandwidth by means of further measures. However, the function and effect associated with feature 1.2 in this context in accordance with the patent, namely being able to address and select the file via its affiliation to a specific copy, is not achieved. Instead of simply reaching into the compartments of the data cabinet, which are labelled with the quality levels of the individual copy, the contents of the compartment must be examined and it must be determined in which specific bit rate the files to be accessed via the2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 95 The data is encoded in such a way that it shows the section to be requested across different copies when it is played back, in order to find the file with the appropriate bit rate that efficiently and sustainably utilises the transmission bandwidth likely to be available. FEATURE 1.2 - EXCHANGE MEANS [...] INSTEAD OF ENCODED ON THE SET OF ONE OR MORE SERVERS 171. With the replacement means that [...] (so-called replacement means B), instead of each copy of the video being encoded as multiple files on the set of one or more servers, the patented function and effect of the replaced feature are not achieved either. It is true that the latency is also improved with the exchange means B, if one [...]. However, as discussed, the patented function and effect associated with feature 1.2 in this respect is to improve latency without [...] being present. F. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES 172. Accordingly, the infringement action must be dismissed for lack of patent infringement. In response to the action for revocation and the application for amendment of the patent, the patent in suit must be dismissed as stated, with the further claims of the action for revocation and the application for amendment of the patent being rejected. G. COSTS 173. The decision on costs for both the infringement action and the revocation action is based on Art. 69 (1) UPCA, R. 118.5 RP. 174. In the case in dispute, it is necessary and appropriate for the plaintiffs to bear the court costs of the infringement action and the defendants to bear the costs of the action for annulment and for the parties to bear their own extrajudicial costs. This distribution of costs essentially corresponds to the economic extent of the mutual loss. The restrictions to the scope of protection of the patent caused by the partial revocation are not economically significant, particularly with regard to the allegation of infringement. In addition, it must be taken into account to the detriment of the defendant that its objections to patentability and practicability were unsuccessful and that only one of its at least 6 main objections to inadmissible extensions was successful. It is true that the revocation counterclaim is naturally only directed against the plaintiff.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 96 1 as the patent proprietor. However, Plaintiff 2 also has an economic interest in the at least partial maintenance of the patent in suit. Ultimately, however, this is irrelevant, as the plaintiffs are also to be regarded as an economic unit with regard to an action for revocation, at least on the basis of the agreement between them (Annex K 1a). H. VALUE IN DISPUTE 175. After hearing the parties, the amount in dispute for the entire proceedings is set at EUR 20,000,000 (EUR 10,000,000 each for the infringement and revocation counterclaims). In view of the short remaining term that the now expired action package had when the action for revocation was filed, a value in dispute that corresponds to the value in dispute for infringement without a surcharge is sufficient and appropriate for the action for revocation. DECISION A. The action for infringement is dismissed. B. The European patent EP 2 479 680 is partially maintained with effect for the territory of Austria (AT), Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Italy (IT), the Netherlands (NL), Portugal (PT) and Sweden (SE), insofar as its subject-matter does not extend beyond the following version, and is revoked in all other respects: 1. A method for presenting rate-adaptive streams, the method comprising: streaming by a media player (114) operating on an end user station (104) a video from a set of one or more servers (116), wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video is encoded at a respective different bit rate and each copy is encoded as multiple files on the set of servers, wherein each of the multiple files independently encapsulates a different portion of the video for playback, wherein the multiple files across the different copies yields the same portions of the video on playback, each of said files having a time index indicating the position of the content in that file in relation to the beginning of the video such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index in relation to the beginning of the video, and wherein the streaming comprises:2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 97 requesting by the media player (114) a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over one or more Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes, wherein each file is individually requested by one or more respective HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections; automatically requesting by the media player (114) from the set of servers (116) over the one or more TCP connections subsequent portions of the video by requesting for each such portion one of the files from one of the copies dependent upon successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback quality to a higher or lower quality one of the different copies, wherein each file is individually requested by one or more respective HTTP requests over the one or more TCP connections, said automatically requesting including, regularly generating (706) a performance factor according to responses from file requests indicative of the current ability to sustain the streaming of the video using the files from different ones of the copies, wherein the performance factor relates to the performance of the network; and making the successive determinations (710,712) to shift the playback quality based on the performance factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the files of the highest quality one of the copies determined sustainably at that time, wherein said making the successive determinations to shift comprises: upshifting to a higher quality one of the different copies when the performance factor is greater than a threshold; and determining if the higher quality playback can be sustained according to a combination of factors; and presenting the video by playing back with the media player on the end user station the requested files in order of ascending playback time. 2. A method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said requesting the plurality of sequential ones of the files includes requesting over a plurality of TCP connections. 3. A method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said making the successive determinations to shift comprises downshifting to a lower quality one of the different copies when the performance factor is less than a second threshold. 4. A method as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising: receiving user input to enable one of fast-forward, skip randomly, and rewind functionality; and requesting files of the video at a specified time index that is not the next sequential time in the current playback. 5. A method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said requesting the plurality of sequential one of the files includes requesting the files from a low quality one of the different copies to enable2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 98 instant playback of the video, and wherein said automatically requesting includes upshifting to a higher quality one of the different copies. 6. A method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said requesting the plurality of sequential ones of the files includes requesting the plurality of sequential ones of the files over different ones of a plurality of TCP connections. 7. A method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said presenting comprises sequentially arranging the requested files from the different copies in the order of ascending playback time for playback with the media player on the end user station. 8. A method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said automatically requesting includes requesting sub-parts of the files over different ones of a plurality of TCP connections, and wherein said presenting includes reassembling the files from the received sub-parts. 9. A method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein: said generating of the performance factor comprises: monitoring time intervals between successive receive times for each of the requested files; calculating a current performance ratio across a current window of the time intervals; and calculating a current average of the performance ratio to obtain a current performance factor; said making further comprises: comparing the current performance factor with a set of one or more trigger thresholds; and determining whether to upshift or downshift to a higher or lower quality one of the different copies based on said comparing. (Version of the claims according to auxiliary request 12) C. The plaintiffs shall bear the court costs of the action for infringement and the defendants shall bear the court costs of the action for annulment. In all other respects, the parties shall bear their own costs. D. The amount in dispute for the entire proceedings is set at EUR 20,000,000.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 99 Issued in Mannheim on 6 June 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Prof Dr Tochtermann Legally qualified judge Böttcher Legally qualified judge Dr Schober Technically qualified judge Dr Kretschmann For the Deputy Registrar: Kranz, Clerk LK Mannheim Information on the appointment: An appeal against this decision may be lodged with the Court of Appeal within two months of notification of the decision by any party whose petitions were unsuccessful in whole or in part (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(a), 224.1(a) RP). Information on enforcement (Art. 82 UPCA, Art. Art. 37(2) EPGS, R. 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 RP): The decision has no enforceable content.2025-06-06 LD Mannheim UPC CFI 471-2023 ACT 594191-2023 ORD 598607-2023 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com

Key Holdings

• Equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means, meaning modified means do not fulfill essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same effect.
• There is generally no need for legal protection for the isolated elimination of dependent sub-claims by a nullity (counter)action without eliminating the independent claim to which they are related back.
• The appropriate number of auxiliary requests pursuant to R. 30.1 (c) RP depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including the number of attacks on the patent in suit.

Tags

• Auxiliary Requests
• Doctrine of Equivalence
• Infringement
• Revocation

Related Rules

• Art. 5 – Liability
• Art. 4 – Legal status
• Art. 4 – Legal status

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_850/2024 – ZTE v Samsung
• UPC_CFI_2045/2025 – Amazon v InterDigital
• UPC_CFI_132/2024_July09_OralPrep – Total v Texas Instruments
• UPC_CFI_340/2023 – Rematec v Europe Forestry
• UPC_CFI_134/2025;UPC_CFI_660/2024 – Centripetal v Palo Alto