EPO revokes DivX streaming patent after UPC injunction against Netflix

European Patent Office reaches opposite conclusion on patent validity as Netflix appeals UPC ruling covering 18 member states

The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked a DivX patent covering progressive playback of streamed media, creating a significant development in a parallel dispute in which the Unified Patent Court (UPC) upheld the same patent and found Netflix liable for indirect infringement.

The decision concerns European patent EP 4 213 033, a unitary patent relating to the progressive playback of media sequences stored on remote servers. The EPO’s Opposition Division revoked the patent in opposition proceedings, according to a report published by JUVE Patent on October 20.

The decision contrasts with a September 15 judgment from the UPC’s Munich Local Division, which rejected Netflix’s counterclaim challenging the patent’s validity and found that Netflix’s streaming software indirectly infringed its claims.

Netflix has appealed the UPC judgment. The EPO’s revocation introduces further uncertainty into the dispute, although the procedural consequences depend on the status of any appeal against the EPO decision and the pending UPC proceedings.

Two proceedings, opposing conclusions

In the UPC proceedings, DivX alleged that Netflix’s streaming software infringed claim 1 of EP 4 213 033. Netflix challenged the patent’s validity, arguing that it should be revoked.

The Munich Local Division rejected Netflix’s counterclaim, finding the patent novel and inventive over the prior art considered by the court. It concluded that the skilled person would not have been motivated to combine the cited documents to arrive at the claimed invention.

The court also rejected Netflix’s arguments that the patent’s subject matter extended beyond the original application and that other grounds justified revocation. The EPO’s Opposition Division subsequently reached a different outcome, revoking the patent in opposition proceedings. The EPO had issued a preliminary opinion in July 2026, before the UPC judgment, indicating that the patent’s validity was already under scrutiny in the parallel administrative proceedings.

The divergent outcomes illustrate how separate proceedings can produce different conclusions on patent validity. The UPC assessed Netflix’s invalidity counterclaim in the context of the infringement action, while the EPO considered the opposition under the European Patent Convention.

The EPO’s decision does not erase the fact that the UPC issued an infringement judgment and injunction. Equally, the UPC’s earlier decision does not prevent the EPO from reaching a different conclusion in opposition proceedings.

How the patent relates to streaming technology

EP 4 213 033 covers a method for progressively playing back a media sequence stored as a file on a remote server. The claimed method involves obtaining an index of the media file, identifying relevant byte ranges, queuing requests for the required data, and buffering the information received. It also addresses how the client responds when a user changes the playback position, including determining which portions of the file are needed for the new position.

DivX argued that Netflix’s streaming software, including its Cadmium player, was suitable for carrying out the patented method. The UPC agreed that the relevant software supported the claimed method and found indirect infringement under Article 26 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.

The ruling concerned five Netflix entities, including Netflix Inc., Netflix International B.V. and subsidiaries operating in Germany, France and Italy.

Injunction covers 18 UPC member states

The September 15 judgment ordered the Netflix entities to refrain from supplying or using the relevant software for the patented method in 18 UPC member states.

The court also ordered the provision of information and accounts and established liability for damages arising from infringing acts dating from May 7, 2025, when the patent was granted. The judgment did not determine the final amount of damages. The court declined to make enforcement conditional on DivX providing security, rejecting Netflix’s request on that point.

Netflix subsequently appealed the judgment. The appeal was filed on October 2, 2026, and remained pending in the latest docket information retrieved. The EPO’s revocation now raises a further question: what effect will the decision have on the enforcement of the UPC judgment while the respective proceedings continue?

What happens next?

The procedural status of the patent is now central to the dispute. DivX can challenge the EPO’s revocation before the EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal. The filing and status of any such appeal should be confirmed before publication.

Under Article 106(1) of the European Patent Convention, an appeal against an EPO decision generally has suspensive effect. The consequences for the patent therefore depend on whether an appeal is filed and its procedural status.

The UPC appeal is a separate matter. Netflix is challenging the infringement judgment, and the Court of Appeal will have to consider the issues raised in that appeal. The effect of the EPO proceedings on enforcement should not be assumed without examining the relevant orders and procedural developments.

For patent owners and technology companies, the case highlights the uncertainty that can arise when validity and infringement are considered in parallel proceedings. An injunction can have substantial commercial consequences, while a separate challenge to the patent may reach a different conclusion on whether the rights should remain in force.

The dispute also underlines the importance of monitoring opposition proceedings alongside infringement litigation and of assessing how developments in one forum may affect enforcement strategy in another.

With the EPO having revoked DivX’s patent and Netflix’s UPC appeal still pending, the ultimate outcome remains unresolved.

← Back to News