Amazon.com v InterDigital VC Holdings (CoA, 30 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 30 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_12/2026), the Court of Appeal sets aside the orders of the Mannheim Local Division of 27 November 2025 and 16 January 2026 and allows Amazon to take notes of the audio recording of a hearing with the help of a professional transcriber of its choosing, on the Court’s premises, in its presence and under its supervision, and subject to the confidentiality orders.

The order matters on two counts: Rule 115 RoP does not prohibit a private transcript of the recording, and such a transcript may be used, on conditions, including outside UPC proceedings. For practitioners, the recording can thus serve as a documented basis for preparing written submissions.

Facts and procedure

A hearing took place on 14 November 2025 in case UPC_CFI_936/2025, brought by InterDigital against five Amazon companies. On 19 November 2025 Amazon applied under Rule 115 RoP for access to the audio recording, with note-taking by a stenographer. InterDigital joined the request for access. On 27 November 2025 the judge-rapporteur allowed listening on the Court’s premises but refused any full transcript. On review under Rule 333 RoP, the Local Division upheld that order on 16 January 2026, citing in particular the risk of use outside the UPC, the confidentiality orders, the CJEU model and personality rights, while granting leave to appeal. InterDigital took no position on appeal, and the parties agreed to a decision on the written submissions.

The applicable law

Rule 115 RoP provides for the hearing to be recorded and for the recording to be made available to the parties. It was modelled on Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. The Court of Appeal reads it in the light of Art. 45 UPCA (public proceedings), Rules 262 and 262A RoP on confidentiality, and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on personal data.

Question

May a party prepare, with an assistant’s help, a private transcript of the audio recording of the hearing, and use it outside the UPC?

Decision

The Court or the Registry must make the recording available and has no discretion. Access means listening on the Court’s premises, with no copy or secondary recording (paragraphs 26 to 28). Rule 115 RoP imposes no duty to provide a transcript, but does not prohibit one either (paragraphs 29 and 30): the recording remains the authoritative record and a private transcript is not a Court document (paragraphs 31 and 32). The Drafting Committee’s statement confirms that parties may take notes or arrange a transcript, and the CJEU model does not call for a restrictive reading (paragraphs 33 to 36). An assistant or stenographer may transcribe in the party’s presence and under its supervision, confidentiality duties applying (paragraphs 37 to 39), neither any other provision nor personality rights stand in the way (paragraphs 40 to 44). The transcript may be used before the UPC and, outside it, provided it states that it is private, that only the recording is evidence, whether it is complete, and that statements by the Court were provisional, subject to confidentiality and the GDPR (paragraphs 49 to 52).

Key points for practice

• The right of access to the recording is unconditional, but it is exercised by listening on site, without a copy.
• A private transcript is permitted, including with a stenographer appointed by the party, but it is not a Court document.
• Practical point: any transcript meant to circulate outside the UPC must carry the statements required by the Court of Appeal and be cleared of passages covered by a confidentiality order.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 10, 115, 262, 262A and 333

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 85

Case law cited

InterDigital v Amazon, Mannheim Local Division, 27 November 2025, InterDigital v Amazon, Mannheim Local Division, 16 January 2026

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.