Amazon v InterDigital (UPC_COA_12/2026)
Decision date:
30 March 2026
Osborne Clarke summary
- This order is part of the ongoing standard essential patent (SEP) licensing dispute between the parties. For more information about the dispute and previous decisions, see our Insight here.
- Amazon had filed an application pursuant to Rule 115 RoP to request access to the audio recording of the first instance oral hearing at the premises of the Düsseldorf LD. In the application, Amazon specified that they should be permitted to take notes of the audio recording with the assistance of a professional transcriber. InterDigital deferred to the court on the question of whether a professional transcriber should be permitted.
- By an order of 27 November 2025, the judge-rapporteur granted the request to listen to the audio recording, however, the request to produce a complete transcript with the help of a stenographer was rejected.
- Amazon filed a request for review pursuant to Rule 333 RoP. The panel rejected the application but granted permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal granted Amazon’s appeal.
- The Court of Appeal stated that:
- Rule 115 RoP does not prohibit the parties and their representatives from producing a private transcript of the recording they listened to.
- Rule 115 RoP contains a restriction that the audio recording of the oral hearing shall not be made available for the public or third parties. However, those entitled to access the audio recording are permitted to bring an assistant or support staff, such as a secretary or professional stenographer. The assistant or support staff may produce a private transcript of the audio recording in the presence and under the supervision of the party and/or its representative.
- The Court of Appeal confirmed that it is “not responsible for the transcripts produced by the parties and their representatives. If a private transcript is e.g. incomplete or even false, contains errors, takes specific phrases out of context, or if the private transcript violates the personal rights of persons involved in the proceedings, only the party and its representative is responsible.”
- It also confirmed that using private transcripts in ongoing or parallel proceedings before the UPC is acceptable. The private transcripts may be used for internal preparation by the parties and their representative, as well as in UPC proceedings, for example, by submission as an appendix or evidence of what was said at the oral hearing.
- Moreover, the Court of Appeal confirmed that using the private transcript of an oral hearing in court proceedings between the parties outside of the UPC is also permissible, provided that conditions are met: “[w]hen using a private transcript, it must expressly and clearly state that it is a transcript prepared privately by a party, and not a Court document or one authorised by the Court, and that ultimately (only) the audio recording provides proof of what was said in the oral hearing. It must also be expressly and clearly stated whether it is a complete transcription. Furthermore, it must be expressly and clearly stated that statements made by the Court during an oral hearing are provisional and that the Court’s final opinion is set out only in decisions and orders. These statements serve to avert the risk of misunderstandings arising in court proceedings outside the UPC regarding the value and significance of a private transcript.”
- If private transcripts are used in court proceedings outside of the UPC, the party and its representative must comply with any confidentiality order under Rule 262A or 262 RoP, as well as the protection of personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.