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
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KGvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA against European Patent EP 3 876 690, owned by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG, before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant requested a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of its appeal against the rejection of a Preliminary Objection and pending accelerated opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that the request was a delay tactic. The Court set new dates for the interim conference (19 July 2024) and oral hearing (25 September 2024).
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.vsRoche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a revocation action filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The claimants sought full revocation of the patent on grounds of added matter, lack of novelty over WO 2007/077255 A2 (Glejboel), and lack of inventive step starting from US 2002/0120236 (Diaz) or Glejboel combined with Diaz and/or US 6,516,950 (Robertson). The defendant raised a preliminary objection under Rules 19(1)(b) and 48 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court held that breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction is not justified by public interest, though it may give rise to contractual liability.
Valeo ElectrificationvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Hand Held Products, Inc.vsScandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
Mala Technologies Ltd.vsNokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
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.