ETRI and the Industry-Cooperation Arms of Three Korean Universities Sue Disney in Delaware on Five HEVC Patents, Accusing Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN Streaming.

The parties and the patents

The case is Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v. The Walt Disney Co., No. 1:26-cv-01290 (D. Del.). The complaint describes ETRI as a government research institution founded in 1976 in Daejeon, South Korea. The other plaintiffs are the University-Industry Cooperation Group of Kyung Hee University and the Kwangwoon University Industry-Academic Collaboration Foundation, both in Seoul, South Korea, and the Industry-University Cooperation Foundation of Korea Aerospace University, in Goyang, South Korea; the complaint refers to them by their universities' names. The defendants are The Walt Disney Company, Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney DTC LLC, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., BAMTech, LLC, Hulu, LLC, and ESPN, LLC.

The asserted patents, with the owners the complaint identifies, are U.S. Patents 11,595,643 (ETRI and Kyung Hee University, issued February 28, 2023), 10,021,416 (ETRI, issued July 10, 2018), 10,194,168 (ETRI and Korea Aerospace University, issued January 29, 2019), 10,742,996 (ETRI, Kyung Hee University, and Kwangwoon University, issued August 11, 2020), and 10,003,820 (ETRI, issued June 19, 2018).

What the exemplary claims cover

Claim 2 of the '643 patent covers a method for encoding a video signal that derives a block's intra prediction mode, determines a scan type based on that mode, derives residual coefficients based on the scan type, determines the transform type to be DCT or DST, and performs an inverse transform on the residual coefficients; for a 4x4 luma block, the inverse transform uses DST in the horizontal and vertical directions for all intra prediction direction modes and the planar mode.

Claim 1 of the '416 patent covers generating a reconstructed block by determining a block's intra prediction mode and, when it is the DC mode, generating a prediction block in which one or more prediction pixels in the leftmost column and top row are filtered with a DC-mode filter using adjacent reconstructed reference pixels, with the filter shape, filter tap, and filter coefficients fixed for a plurality of block sizes, and then generating the reconstructed block based on the prediction block and a reconstructed residual block. Claim 3 of the '820 patent covers similar DC-mode filtering and specifies that the top-left corner pixel uses a 3-tap filter weighting the DC value at 2/4 and the upper and left reference pixels at 1/4 each.

Claim 4 of the '168 patent covers encoding with a candidate prediction motion vector list built from spatial and temporal candidates, in which the temporal candidate is treated as unavailable when two spatial candidates are both available and different from each other. Claim 1 of the '996 patent covers an image decoding method that obtains intra prediction mode information, determines a decoding order among the sub-blocks of a block based on the intra prediction mode, and decodes the sub-blocks in that order, where the block's width equals its height and a sub-block's width equals its height.

The lawsuit

The complaint alleges that Disney's streaming services use H.265/HEVC to encode and decode video, including for transcoding, and that in doing so Disney practices the asserted patents. It does not itself allege that the asserted claims are essential to the standard; in Count VI it alleges, on information and belief, that Disney contends claims of the asserted patents are essential to ITU standards. It says the plaintiffs offer licenses through the Access Advance VDP pool. It alleges, on information and belief, that Access Advance emailed Disney about the pool on December 17, 2024, provided a pool overview and a review copy of a license agreement with terms and pricing on February 10 and 11, 2025, and provided the VDP patent list identifying the asserted patents on November 7, 2025; it also alleges that a confidentiality agreement was executed in February 2025 and that Access Advance sent Disney an updated patent list including the asserted patents on September 16, 2026. It alleges that Disney did not accept the pool offer or seek a bilateral license. The complaint pleads knowledge of each patent from at least November 7, 2025 and willful infringement.

The complaint states that the plaintiffs are prepared to license on RAND terms under the ITU Common Patent Policy. Count VI seeks a declaration that the plaintiffs "have negotiated in good faith toward a license with Disney for their essential patent claims and complied with any obligations they have under the ITU IPR Policy" and their licensing declarations, and the prayer asks the court to declare that, for claims subject to a RAND obligation, the plaintiffs negotiated in good faith and satisfied those obligations. The prayer also asks for damages going back six years, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, an accounting, interest, and fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. It does not expressly request an injunction.

What to watch next

Watch for Disney's response, including any RAND-based defenses or counterclaims answering Count VI, and for any inter partes review petitions on the five patents. The case can end at any time by settlement or dismissal.