NovaCloud Licensing v Amazon.com (CFI, 30 September 2026)
| Date | 30 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1547/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0001547/2025 |
| Parties | NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc. |
| Language | English |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 4 October 2026
Our analysis
Facts and procedure
NovaCloud Licensing LLC brought an infringement action on 12 November 2025 before the Munich Local Division on European patent 4,024,777 against Amazon.com, Amazon Web Services, Amazon Web Services EMEA and AWS European Sovereign Cloud. The claimant withdrew the action on 16 September 2026. The defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation on 25 September 2026. Both sides consented and agreed that each party would bear its own costs.
Question
On what conditions does the Court allow a joint withdrawal of an infringement action and of the counterclaim for revocation, and how does it then rule on costs.
Decision
The Court permits both withdrawals, declares the proceedings closed, orders the decision to be entered on the register, leaves each party to bear its own costs and sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 2 million and that of the counterclaim at EUR 3 million, EUR 5 million in total.
Key points for practice
- Withdrawal requires the other side’s consent. The Court then simply records it.
- The parties’ agreement on costs is followed, each bearing its own, which displaces the loser-pays rule.
- The value of the dispute is still fixed after withdrawal, since it caps recoverable costs.
- A counterclaim for revocation is withdrawn separately from the main action, under the same consent requirements.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 265.1 for the withdrawal, Rule 265.2(c) for costs
Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the full text of the decision, consulted on 4 October 2026. It does not replace reading the decision itself.
Going further
Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).
Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).