In a series of setbacks for U.S. satellite TV and wireless communications provider Dish, the company has lost multiple battles in its international patent dispute with streaming service provider Aylo. On June 6, 2025, the Unified Patent Court (UPC)’s Mannheim Local Division dismissed Dish’s infringement complaint (Case No. UPC_CFI_471/2023). The court found that even under the doctrine of equivalents, Aylo’s actions did not constitute patent infringement.

The court also examined Aylo’s counterclaim for patent invalidation. It granted a limiting amendment to the patent based on the addition of subject matter, ultimately upholding the validity of the patent only within the scope of one of Dish’s multiple auxiliary requests.

The dispute centers on two European patents related to adaptive bitrate video streaming: EP 680 and EP 3 822 805 (titled “Apparatus, system and method for adaptive bitrate switching or streaming content,” hereinafter referred to as EP 805). EP 805, in particular, has suffered repeated blows. In May 2025, the UPC’s Central Division revoked the patent’s effect in Germany due to the addition of subject matter (Case No. UPC_CFI_198/2024). In the same month, the European Patent Office’s Opposition Division revoked the patent across all designated contracting states. Additionally, the Munich Regional Court ruled that Aylo did not infringe the patent (Case No. 21 O 15905/23).

The Mannheim UPC court clarified several key legal principles in its decision:

1. Temporal Scope: Alleged acts of infringement committed before the UPC system came into force on June 1, 2023, are subject to national laws. Acts occurring thereafter fall under the gradually developing UPC case law on equivalency.

2. No Retroactive Harmonization: The UPC has no authority to retroactively unify enforcement of pre-June 1, 2023, actions.

3. Scope of Invalidity Claims: In a validity challenge, if the main claim is upheld, interested parties cannot request the invalidation of dependent claims in isolation, since their scope is inherently tied to the main claim.

4. Flexibility in Auxiliary Requests: The court permitted the submission of a large number of auxiliary requests due to the substantial number of invalidity arguments raised by the defendant and the limited number of claim elements requiring analysis—highlighting the court’s flexible approach.

It remains unclear whether Dish will appeal the rulings of the Mannheim UPC or the Munich court.