Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Detailed Summary
This appeal arose from proceedings before the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_936/2025) concerning a dispute between Amazon entities (Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., and Amazon Technologies, Inc.) and InterDigital entities (InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, and InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS).
On 19 November 2025, Amazon filed an application under Rule 115 RoP seeking access to the audio recording of an oral hearing held on 14 November 2025. Amazon requested permission to take notes of the audio recording with the assistance of a professional transcriber, and sought access at the premises of the Local Division in Düsseldorf. InterDigital joined Amazon's request for access to the audio recording but deferred to the Court's discretion on the use of a professional transcriber.
By Order of 27 November 2025, the judge-rapporteur granted Amazon's request to listen to the audio recording at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf under the established confidentiality regime, but rejected the request to produce a complete transcript with the help of a stenographer. The judge-rapporteur reasoned that R. 115 RoP does not foresee the production of full transcripts, especially for use outside UPC proceedings, and expressed concerns about potential misuse, including distribution in foreign jurisdictions or for advertisement purposes during 'beauty contests' among law firms. The judge-rapporteur also noted that private transcripts could draw an incomplete or false picture of the exchange between the UPC and the parties.
Amazon filed a request for review under R. 333 RoP on 11 December 2025. InterDigital took no position and deferred to the Court's judgment. By the impugned Order of 16 January 2026, the Panel rejected the application for review and granted leave to appeal. The Panel added that the interest of the Court in maintaining an open atmosphere of exchange with the parties outweighed the parties' interest in creating a private verbatim protocol, and that private non-authoritative transcripts could impair the search for truth in court proceedings.
Amazon lodged its appeal on 30 January 2026. Amazon argued that the impugned Order was based on an incorrect interpretation of R. 115 RoP, introduced limitations not contained in the text or drafting history of the Rule, and relied on speculative concerns that could be addressed by proportionate conditions rather than blanket refusal. Amazon emphasized the mandatory language ('shall') in R. 115 RoP and the absence of a requirement for a reasoned request.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß and judges Peter Blok and Emmanuel Gougé, allowed the appeal. The Court held that the production of a private transcript of an audio recording of a court hearing is admissible under R. 115 RoP. When producing such a transcript, a party may request the support of an assistant or support staff, such as a stenographer, working in the presence and under the supervision of the party and/or its representative.
The Court further clarified the permissible uses of private transcripts. They may be used in ongoing UPC proceedings, including appeals and subsequent proceedings such as cost decisions, damages, or enforcement, as well as in parallel UPC proceedings. They may also be used for internal preparation by parties and their representatives. When used in court proceedings outside the UPC that are related to UPC proceedings, specific conditions must be met: the transcript must expressly and clearly state that it is a private transcript prepared by a party (not a Court document), that only the audio recording provides proof of what was said, whether it is a complete transcription, and that statements made by the Court during the oral hearing are provisional with the Court's final opinion set out only in decisions and orders. The party and its representative must also comply with any confidentiality orders under R. 262A or R. 262 RoP and with data protection requirements under Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the impugned Order be set aside, that the audio recording be made available to Amazon at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf, that Amazon be allowed to take notes with the help of a professional transcriber working under Amazon's supervision, and that Amazon comply with the confidentiality orders issued by the Local Division Mannheim.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA vs InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.