Nixu FL IP Protection v Amazon Web Services (CFI, 9 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 9 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_2434/2026), published on 22 October 2026, the panel of the Milan Local Division dismissed the application by Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL, AWS European Sovereign Cloud GmbH and Amazon Data Services Italy S.r.l. for review under Rule 333 RoP of the judge-rapporteur’s order of 4 September 2026, made in the infringement action brought against them by Nixu FL IP Protection LLC, and confirmed 29 October 2026 as the common time limit for lodging the statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation.

Question

Should the common time limit for the defence of several defendants belonging to the same group, served between 29 July and 11 August 2026, run from the last service rather than the first?

Decision

The action was filed on 6 July 2026 and served on Amazon Data Services Italy S.r.l. on 29 July 2026, on Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL and AWS European Sovereign Cloud GmbH on 3 August 2026 and on Amazon Web Services, Inc. on 11 August 2026. On 4 September 2026 the judge-rapporteur set a common time limit of 29 October 2026, taking the first service as the reference date. The defendants asked the panel to set 11 November 2026 or, in the alternative, an intermediate date. The panel held that, under Rules 9 and 334 RoP, setting a common date lies within the Court’s discretion, guided by proportionality, efficiency and fairness, and questioned whether the defendants had a legitimate interest in review, leaving that point open since the application failed on the merits in any event. It found that service had been duly effected on the dates indicated, that the argument based on Article 15 of the Hague Service Convention was neither entirely clear nor relevant, and that aligning the time limits had no bearing on the validity of service. The defendants’ membership of the same group, their single representative and the identity of the patent and issues made coordination easier. The time limit of 29 October 2026 was confirmed and the application for review dismissed.

Key points for practice

• Common time limit: where service is staggered, setting a common time limit is a matter for the Court’s discretion (Rules 9 and 334 RoP), the choice lying between the first and the last date of service in light of proportionality, efficiency and fairness.
• Corporate group: the defendants’ membership of the same group, their joint representation and the identity of the patent justify taking the first service as the reference date.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 333 and 334 RoP

Hague Service Convention of 15 November 1965

Article 15 (relied on by the defendants)

Related decisions

• Nixu FL IP Protection v Amazon Web Services, 4 September 2026, judge-rapporteur’s order setting the common time limit of 29 October 2026, review of which was refused.
• Amazon Web Services v Nixu FL IP Protection, 21 October 2026, order of the standing judge of the Court of Appeal denying discretionary review of the present order.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 22 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.