Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l. v Nokia Technologies (CoA, 24 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 24 March 2025, the Court of Appeal refuses Amazon leave to file, five days before the oral hearing, a further written statement commenting on Nokia’s statement of response. The appeal concerns the Munich Local Division’s refusal to order production of licence agreements, in proceedings where Amazon meets Nokia’s infringement action (EP 2 661 892) with a compulsory licence defence based on competition law. The order confirms that the written appeal procedure is in principle limited to two pleadings and that a late request runs up against equality of arms and procedural efficiency.

Question

May an appellant be allowed, after the written procedure has closed and shortly before the hearing, to file a statement commenting on the respondent’s statement of response, in particular on an expert opinion dated 28 January 2025?

Decision

The application is dismissed. The written procedure before the Court of Appeal consists of the statement of grounds and the statement of response. A further exchange is provided for only where there is a cross-appeal or, before closure, on a reasoned request under Rule 36 applied mutatis mutandis (paragraphs 10 to 14). Legal argument belongs at the oral hearing, and a further statement would give Amazon two written submissions against Nokia’s one (paragraph 19). Even accepting that the appeal deadline was short and that the expert opinion responded to Nokia’s statement (paragraph 21), Amazon gave no explanation for waiting several weeks after closure. Postponing the hearing is ruled out on efficiency grounds and given the parallel proceedings before the Düsseldorf Local Division (paragraphs 22 to 25).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a request to file a further written pleading on appeal should be made before the written procedure closes and must explain its timing, otherwise new arguments are for the oral hearing (paragraphs 14, 19 and 23).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 41(3) and 42(2)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble (paragraphs 4 and 5), Rules 9, 36, 220.1(c), 224.2(b), 233.3, 235, 237, 238 and 332

Case law cited

Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 1 November 2024

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.