One patent, two opposite results within a month. DivX's European patent with unitary effect EP4213033 (a video distribution system with progressive playback) won an injunction against Netflix at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 15 September covering 18 countries; on 13 October, after oral proceedings, the European Patent Office (EPO) opposition division announced that the patent is revoked.
## UPC: counterclaim dismissed, injunction in 18 states
In its decision of 15 September, the UPC Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_465/2025 and UPC_CFI_1121/2025) dismissed Netflix's counterclaim for revocation and found five Netflix companies liable for indirect infringement of claim 1.
They must not use, or supply or offer to others, software for carrying out the method in 18 UPC states, including Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, and must provide information on their acts since grant on 7 May 2025. The decision is enforceable without security, and either side may appeal within two months of service.
EPO: revoked after oral proceedings
The EPO Register shows that Netflix International B.V. filed an opposition on 9 February 2026. The opposition division held oral proceedings on 12 and 13 October, and the result notice of 13 October ticks two boxes: the patent is revoked under Article 101(2) EPC because at least one ground for opposition prejudices its maintenance, and under Article 101(3)(b) EPC because, even as amended, it does not meet the requirements of the EPC; in other words, the patent cannot be maintained either as granted or as amended.
Neither result is final
The EPO notice is not the final decision. The reasoned written decision has not yet issued, and the Register still lists the patent as granted; once the decision is notified the patentee can appeal to the Boards of Appeal, and under Article 106(1) EPC an appeal has suspensive effect. The UPC decision can likewise be appealed. The opposition division's revocation alone does not mean the UPC injunction has been lifted.
J&C notes that when an EPO opposition and UPC litigation run in parallel, the two tracks can move at different speeds and reach opposite results. Patentees should assess the opposition risk and fallback amendments before suing at the UPC; defendants can use opposition alongside a revocation counterclaim, and should track service of the written decision, appeal deadlines and any stay or enforcement applications rather than reading the injunction's status from one result alone.
Source: register.epo.org | register.epo.org | www.unifiedpatentcourt.org
