Opens in a new tab

Amazon Europe Core v Nokia Technologies (CoA, 20 January 2025)

Date20 January 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_3182/2025
PartiesAmazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon EU S.à r.l.

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_835/2024), the Court of Appeal ruled on the confidentiality application filed by Amazon Europe Core, Amazon EU and Amazon.com with their appeal against an order of the Munich Local Division of 16 December 2024, which had refused to order Nokia Technologies to produce unredacted versions of documents (EP 2 661 892). The order defines the circle of persons bound by confidentiality and who may be subject to a penalty payment.

Question

Which information in the statement of appeal may be protected under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262.2 RoP, and to whom do the confidentiality obligation and the penalty payment apply?

Decision

The designated information (licence negotiations, the defendant’s business model, the claimant’s licensees) is confidential and excluded from inspection of the file by third parties, Amazon having given concrete reasons (paragraph 5). The confidentiality obligation is imposed on the parties and their representatives, provisionally so that Nokia can comment in its response under Rule 225.1 RoP, and survives the proceedings (paragraphs 6 and 8). A penalty payment under Art. 82(4) UPCA may be imposed only on the parties, not on their representatives, although a party’s liability for its representatives’ breaches is not excluded. The Court of its own motion set a ceiling of EUR 250,000 per breach (paragraph 7). Extension to other persons was refused, court staff already being bound by confidentiality under their Staff Regulations (paragraph 9). The requests on excluding the public from the hearing and redacting the decision are reserved (paragraph 10).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 58 and 82(4)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 220.1, 225.1, 262.2 and 262A
Other provisions
Staff Regulations of the Unified Patent Court, Art. 5.3

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.


Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les informations sur les négociations de licence, le modèle économique et les licenciés sont confidentielles. L'obligation vise provisoirement les parties et leurs représentants, l'astreinte, plafonnée à 250 000 EUR par infraction, ne frappant que les parties.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 661 892
Motion prediction in video coding
recorded proprietor: Nokia Technologies Oy
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Nokia Technologies v Acer (CFI, 22 June 2026) · Seoul Viosys v Photon Wave (CFI, 27 July 2025) · Acer Computer v Nokia Technologies (CFI, ORD_21985/2025, 30 June 2025) · Acer Computer v Nokia Technologies (CFI, ORD_22022/2025, 30 June 2025) · Bardehle Pagenberg v Nokia Technologies (CFI, ORD_26783/2025, 30 June · Bardehle Pagenberg v Nokia Technologies (CFI, ORD_26760/2025, 30 June · Amazon Europe Core v Nokia Technologies (CoA, 22 April 2025) · Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l. v Nokia Technologies (CoA, 24 March 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.