Amazon Web Services v Nixu FL IP Protection (CoA, 21 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 23 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 21 October 2026 (UPC_CoA_181/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal, Emmanuel Gougé, denied the request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP lodged by Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL, AWS European Sovereign Cloud GmbH and Amazon Data Services Italy S.r.l. against the order of the Milan Local Division of 9 October 2026 which, in the infringement action brought by Nixu FL IP Protection LLC (UPC_CFI_2434/2026), had confirmed 29 October 2026 as the common time limit for the statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation.

Question

Is discretionary review of a case management order available where the Court of First Instance aligned the time limits of several defendants on the first rather than the last date of service?

Decision

The request is admissible but denied (para. 7). Discretionary review requires that the impugned order be manifestly incorrect, raise a fundamental question of law or need review to ensure consistent application of the Rules of Procedure (para. 10, citing CeraCon v Sunstar, Motorola v Ericsson, Microsoft v Suinno and Adobe v Keex). Absent agreement between the parties, the alignment of time limits is a matter for the Court’s discretion, exercised in accordance with proportionality, efficiency and fairness (para. 12). The Milan Local Division duly took into account the joint representation of the four companies, their corporate connection and their own statement that the allegations concern the same patent and substantially the same factual, technical and legal issues (paras 13 and 14). The argument based on Article 15 of the 1965 Hague Service Convention fails, since that provision refers to the procedural law of the court seised, namely Article 41 UPCA and Rules 9.3 and 23 RoP (para. 15). With service dates two and then six working days apart and 29 October 2026 falling within the range Amazon had itself proposed in the alternative, no excess or manifestly incorrect exercise of discretion is shown (para. 15). The new alternative request for a date between 5 and 10 November 2026, made for the first time on appeal, is disregarded under Rule 222.2 RoP (paras 16 and 17). Nixu was not consulted (para. 18).

Key points for practice

• Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP is not an opportunity to reargue a case management decision: a manifest error or a fundamental question of law must be shown (paras 10 and 11).
• Defendants of the same group, jointly represented and facing the same allegations, can hardly obtain a common time limit running from the last service, particularly where the date set falls within their own alternative request (paras 13 to 15).
• An alternative request made for the first time before the Court of Appeal may be disregarded under Rule 222.2 RoP (para. 17).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 23, 220.3, 222.2 and 333 RoP

UPC Agreement

Article 41 UPCA

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 2 September 2025, CeraCon v Sunstar (UPC_CoA_807/2025), 6 September 2024, Motorola v Ericsson (UPC_CoA_489/2024), 23 December 2024, Microsoft v Suinno (UPC_CoA_826/2024), 10 July 2026, Adobe v Keex (UPC_CoA_95/2026)

Related decisions

• Nixu FL IP Protection v Amazon Web Services, 9 October 2026, order of the Milan Local Division for which discretionary review is refused.
• Nixu FL IP Protection v Amazon Web Services, 4 September 2026, judge-rapporteur’s order setting the common time limit of 29 October 2026.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 23 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.