🇪🇺 UPC

UPC_CFI_1536/2025

Court

The Hague Local Division

Type of action

infringement

Patent

EP3079153

AUDIO DECODING WITH SELECTIVE POST FILTERING

Language

Claimant / applicant

Dolby International AB

Defendant / respondent

Vectis IP Ltd.
CPYou B.V.
Acer Italy SRL
Acer Computer GmbH
Acer Denmark A S
Acer Finland Oy
Acer Computer France
CPYou B.V. / Acer
Acer Computer B.V Benelux
Acer Sweden AB

Track this case

Get an email when a new order or decision is published in UPC_CFI_1536/2025.

Decisions and documents (6)

2026-08-18procedural
Claimant:
Dolby International AB
Defendants:
Acer Computer B.V (Benelux); Acer Computer France; Acer Computer GmbH; Acer Denmark A/S; Acer Finland Oy; Acer Italy s.r.l.; Acer Sweden AB; CPYou B.V.
1. Review of an order to accept a counterclaim for rate-setting against an intervener (Pool administrator) denied. 2. R. 315.4 RoP entails that an intervener is to be treated as a party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This means as a principle that a counterclaim (for rate-setting) may be directed to such intervening party. The more so since Vectis intervened on the side of claimant, Dolby. According to the principle of “equal treatment” (CoA 27 November 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025 (Strabag), m.n. 16), a counterclaim directed at the party the intervener supports may also be directed at the intervener. 3. The Court may also rely on R. 305 RoP. It makes further sense to include Vectis as a proper party (on the side of Dolby), since it already intervened voluntarily and unopposed and at an early stage of the proceedings, rendering it possible to file a (counter)claim against it. KEYWORDS: panel review; intervention; counterclaim against intervener; addition of a party
2026-05-01procedural
Claimant:
Dolby International AB
Defendants:
Acer Computer B.V (Benelux); Acer Computer France; Acer Computer GmbH; Acer Denmark A/S; Acer Finland Oy; Acer Italy s.r.l.; Acer Sweden AB; CPYou B.V.
1. Review of an order to accept a counterclaim for rate-setting against an intervener (Pool administrator) denied. 2. R. 315.4 RoP entails that an intervener is to be treated as a party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This means as a principle that a counterclaim (for rate-setting) may be directed to such intervening party. The more so since Vectis intervened on the side of claimant, Dolby. According to the principle of “equal treatment” (CoA 27 November 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025 (Strabag), m.n. 16), a counterclaim directed at the party the intervener supports may also be directed at the intervener. 3. The Court may also rely on R. 305 RoP. It makes further sense to include Vectis as a proper party (on the side of Dolby), since it already intervened voluntarily and unopposed and at an early stage of the proceedings, rendering it possible to file a (counter)claim against it. KEYWORDS: panel review; intervention; counterclaim against intervener; addition of a party
2026-05-01procedural
Claimant:
Dolby International AB
Defendants:
Acer Computer B.V (Benelux); Acer Computer France; Acer Computer GmbH; Acer Denmark A/S; Acer Finland Oy; Acer Italy s.r.l.; Acer Sweden AB; CPYou B.V.
Infringement Action. Document: 20260501 Dolby v Acer Licences extension intervention[36] REDACTED.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183751
2026-05-01procedural
Claimant:
Dolby International AB
Defendants:
Acer Computer B.V (Benelux); Acer Computer France; Acer Computer GmbH; Acer Denmark A/S; Acer Finland Oy; Acer Italy s.r.l.; Acer Sweden AB; CPYou B.V.
Infringement Action. Document: 20260504 procedural order correcting error.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183752
2026-04-30procedural
Claimant:
Dolby International AB
Defendants:
Acer Computer B.V (Benelux); Acer Computer France; Acer Computer GmbH; Acer Denmark A/S; Acer Finland Oy; Acer Italy s.r.l.; Acer Sweden AB; CPYou B.V.
Infringement Action. Document: 20260430 Dolby v Acer after CMH order REDACTED-1.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183758
2026-04-02preliminary injunction
Claimant:
Dolby International AB
Defendant:
Acer Computer B.V (Benelux); Acer Computer France; Acer Computer GmbH; Acer Denmark A/S; Acer Finland Oy; Acer Italy s.r.l.; Acer Sweden AB; CPYou B.V.
Infringement Action. Document: 20260402 Dolby v Acer after CMH order preliminary REDACTED-1.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183757

Weekly digest

A weekly email summarising new published decisions across European patent courts.