InterDigital VC v Amazon.com (CFI, 27 November 2025)

Date	27 November 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Request Rop115
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_936/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_936/2025
Parties	InterDigital VC Holdings et al., v. Amazon.com, Inc. et. al.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

22 December 2025 : InterDigital VC v Amazon.com (CFI, 22 December 2025) UPC_CFI_936/2025

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

In an order of 27 November 2025, made in provisional measures proceedings brought by InterDigital against Amazon, the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division allowed the defendants’ representatives to listen to the recording of the hearing of 14 November 2025 at the Düsseldorf Local Division’s premises, under the confidentiality regime of the case. A complete transcript by a professional transcriber was refused. The order reads Rule 115 strictly.

Question

Does Rule 115 allow a party, beyond access to the audio recording of the hearing, to obtain a complete transcript made with a professional?

Decision

Access was granted at the Düsseldorf registry, the registry being a single institution of the UPC (ground I). A complete transcript was refused: Rule 115 does not provide for one, restricts recording to audio to prevent promotional use and follows the CJEU model, where recordings may be heard only on site (grounds II.2, II.3 and II.6). A private transcript, unofficial and unverifiable, would escape the court’s control and undermine the confidentiality regime both parties had sought (grounds II.4 and II.7). Foreign procedural practice does not guide interpretation (ground II.8) and no concrete need was shown (ground II.9). Leave to appeal can only be sought after an application for panel review under Rule 333 (ground II.10).

Key points for practice

Listening to a hearing recording may be arranged at a division other than the one that held the hearing.
Practical point: parties should arrange adequate note-taking at the hearing, as a complete transcript is not available under Rule 115.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 115, 206 and 333
Case law cited: No UPC decision cited.

Related decisions

InterDigital VC v Amazon.com, 22 December 2025, later order in the same provisional measures proceedings.

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

InterDigital VC v Amazon.com (CFI, 2025-12-22), 22 December 2025

Going further

Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

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

UPC_CFI_936/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantInterDigital VC Holdings et alFollow this party
defendantAmazon.com, Inc. et. alFollow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

27 November 2025 InterDigital VC v Amazon.com (CFI, 27 November 2025) Request Rop115 · UPC_CFI_936/2025
22 December 2025 InterDigital VC v Amazon.com (CFI, 22 December 2025) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_936/2025
La division confirme l'interdiction faite à Amazon de solliciter une licence provisoire ou toute mesure équivalente devant la High Court, qualifiée d'injonction anti-suit contraire à l'ordre public de l'Union, et relève les astreintes à 50 millions d'euros et 500 000 euros par jour.
30 March 2026 Amazon.com v InterDigital VC Holdings (CoA, 30 March 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
Les ordonnances de la division locale de Mannheim sont infirmées : Amazon peut prendre des notes de l'enregistrement de l'audience avec un sténographe professionnel, dans les locaux de la Cour et sous réserve des ordonnances de confidentialité.
2 June 2026 Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, UPC_CoA_312/2025, 2 June 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel maintient le brevet sous forme limitée mais rejette l'action en contrefaçon : possession personnelle antérieure de Kodak Graphic en Allemagne, absence d'acte imputable aux défenderesses au Royaume-Uni.
13 July 2026 Fujifilm v Kodak (CoA, UPC_CoA_474/2025, 13 July 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel infirme la décision allemande : le brevet limité est valable et contrefait, sans possession antérieure de Kodak, avec injonction, rappel et provision de 300 000 euros, la contrefaçon britannique n'est pas établie.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Request Rop115
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les défenderesses peuvent écouter l'enregistrement de l'audience au greffe de Düsseldorf sous régime de confidentialité. La transcription intégrale et l'autorisation d'appel immédiate sont refusées.
Appeal: An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

InterDigital VC v Amazon.com (CFI, 22 December 2025) cited in this record
Amazon.com v InterDigital VC Holdings (CoA, 30 March 2026) cites this decision

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.

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.