Context: Yesterday’s Nokia v. Amazon ruling by the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Dusseldorf Regional Court) (February 7, 2025 ip fray article) is arguably the most important patent injunction to have come down on a streaming service to date. Our reporting and commentary wsre picked up by German financial publication Wirtschaftswoche and in turn by Europe’s highest-circulation newspaper (a German tabloid named Bild) as well as by Reuters.
What’s new: As the Reuters article notes, Amazon says its German customers won’t lose access to Prime Video. But in the meantime we have obtained from the Dusseldorf Regional Court the remedies part of the judgment (the written reasons should become available at a later stage), and without a doubt Amazon told the court that Nokia’s enforcement of the injunction would cause substantial damage. As a result, the court made enforcement during the appeal subject to the provision of collateral to the tune of $670 million. The remedies relate to both the Prime Video service and a list of Amazon devices (different Fire TV Cubes, Fire TV Sticks, Fire TV and Echo Show products).
Direct impact: The patent (EP2271048, “Method for provisioning a multimedia service”) recognizes that Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) services were already known in the prior art, but covers a feature called casting, which in this context means that users can cast Prime Video content to their TV, provided that they have a Google Chromecast, Android TV, Fire TV or Echo Show device (Amazon makes Fire TV and Echo Show). By disabling that functionality in the Prime Video service, Amazon will take away from users the most convenient way to watch Prime Video content on a large screen. Also, it is hard to see how Amazon could make the enjoined products non-infringing without massively reducing the value of all those Fire TV products.
Wider ramifications: At this stage, a settlement would appear the logical next step. Any attempt to use the UK judiciary to game the system could backfire badly.
Let’s look at
- the patent claim-in-suit underlying the injunction,
- Amazon Prime Video’s casting feature, and
- the different remedial orders and the security requirement for the enforcement of each.
Claim
The patent-in-suit has one independent method claim and one independent system claim. Either independent claim has three dependent claims.
The Dusseldorf judgment relates to claim 1, the independent system claim:
Method for provisioning a multimedia service to a multimedia rendering device (RD) by a multi media application server (IPTV-AS), said multimedia application server (IPTV-AS), being coupled to said rendering device (RD) over a communication network (CN-1), whereby said method further comprises the step of:
a. determining at least one additional multimedia service associated with said multimedia service provisioned by said multimedia application server (IPTV-AS), to said rendering device (RD); and
b. selecting an additional multimedia service of said at least one additional multimedia service by a communications device (CD, CD1, CD2) associated with said multimedia service provisioned to said rendering device (RD), said communications device (CD, CD1, CD2) being associated with said multimedia service by means of registration at said multimedia application server (IPTV-AS); and
c. provisioning, said additional multimedia service of said at least one additional multimedia service selected by said communications device associated with said multimedia service provisioned to said rendering device (RD), to said respective communications device.
Casting Content
About a year ago, Amazon posted a 74-second video to YouTube to explain how casting works. It takes certain steps on a mobile device (smartphone or tablet) and on a TV device.
On a customer support page, Amazon explains how to cast Prime Video content to a Chromecast or Android TV, a Fire TV or an Echo Show 15. In each of those scenarios, the mobile device and the TV device must be connected to the same WiFi network.
Other devices will support casting only if a Prime Video app is available for a given device, such as an Apple TV.
Remedies
A spokeswoman for the Dusseldorf Regional Court provided us with the remedies part of the judgment, and upon a second request also with the required security amounts.
| Remedy | Required Security |
| I.1 injunction against (a) Amazon Prime Video (including Amazon Freevee with “Cast” functionality) and (b) against cast-capable hardware products: Fire TV Cube 3rd Generation (2022), Fire TV Cube 2nd Generation (2019), Fire TV Stick 4K Max 1st Generation (2021), Fire TV Stick 3rd Generation (2020), Fire TV Stick Lite 1st Generation (2020), Fire TV Stick 4K 1st Generation (2018), Echo Show 15 (2021), Fire Max 11 13th Generation (2023), Fire HD 8 12th Generation (2022), Fire HD 10 11th Generation (2021), Fire HD 10 9th Generation (2019), Fire 7 12th Generation (2022), Fire TV 2-Series (2023), Fire TV 4-Series (2023) and Fire TV Omni QLED Series (2022) | €572.75 million (US$594 million) |
| I.2 & I.3 accounting for damages in the period since January 1, 2023 | €74 million (US$77 million) |
| II. declaration of entitlement to damages | N/A |
| III. cost and fee awards (Amazon bears 5/6) | 110% of any fee award collected (so as to have a cushion for interest) |
The judgment does not distinguish between security required for enforcement against the Prime Video service and against the various hardware products. That is so because the German approach to injunctions that they are practically indivisible: either the patentee wants the other party to cease all infringement or none at all.
While the required collateral is substantial, there is no doubt that Nokia will enforce. If the amount had been in the many billions, enforcement at this stage might not have been a practical option and Nokia would have had to wait until it prevails on appeal, at which point no collateral would be required.
The court would not have imposed a security requirement on the order of $600 million if Amazon had not asked for this amount or, more likely, a ubstantially greater amount. And the court would not have arrived at a number of such proportions if it had not concluded, based on the parties’ representations, that this injunction was going to be impactful.
The appeals court (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, or Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court) has the authority to adjust the security amount at a party’s request. It could also stay enforcement, but that rarely happens in German patent litigation.