UPC_CFI_2434/2026 – Nixu v Amazon

Expert Commentary

Consolidated defence dates Facts 1. The four defendants are sued by Nixu. The Statements of Claim are served on 29 July, 3 August and 11 August 2026. 2. The defendants request to file their consolidated defence on 11 November 2026 or alternatively a common date between 29 October 2026 and 11 November 2026. 3. The claimant did not agree and therefore no agreement could be reached on a common date. The JR All defendants belong to the same corporate group which means that they all knew about the Statement of Claim on 29 July 2026. So it is efficient and proportionate to set the date for the defence on 29 October 2026. Comment 1. At first glance, the JR’s decision to setting a three months term from the first service date for all defendants may be reasonable if the defence for all group companies is the same. But what if the defence is rather different, for instance because the infringing acts are different, which implies more work for the defendants than the work for one defendant? 2. Ideally, the parties would agree on a date, but the JR’s decision may make this more difficult, particularly in cases were all defendants belong to the same group. In such cases, the claimant will have no incentive to compromise. 3. The decision may also result in defendants no longer requesting consolidation, because if they do not request it, they can at least preserve the latter days for additions or different defences, especially for a particular defendant. That would be inefficient and counterproductive (also for the Court). 4. Therefore, what seems a rather logical and understandable decision may have undesired consequences.

Full Decision Text

Milan Local Division UPC CFI no. 2434/2026 Order Issued on 4.9.2026 **CLAIMANT** NIXU FL IP PROTECTION LLC 16690 Collins Avenue, Suite 1001, Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160 USA represented by Emanuela Bianco, at Saglietti Bianco, corso Vittorio Emanuele II n. 83, 10128 Turin, Italy Raimondo Galli, at Studio Galli Avvocati, via Pietro Calvi n. 5, 20129 Milan, Italy Bernhard Thum, at Thum & Partner, Ismaninger Straße 57, 81675 Munich, Germany **DEFENDANTS** 1) AMAZON WEB SERVICE, INC. 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WA, 98109-5210, United States; 2) AMAZON WEB SERVICES EMEA SARL 38 Avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxembourg, Luxembourg 3) AWS EUROPEAN SOVEREIGN CLOUD GMBH Behlertstraße 3 A, Haus B 2, 14467 Potsdam, Germany, 4) AMAZON DATA SERVICES ITALY S.R.L. viale Monte Grappa n. 3/5, 20124 Milan, Italy represented by Klaus Haft, at Hoyng Rokh Monegier Düsseldorf, Steinstraße 20, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany **DECIDING JUDGE** Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti **LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS** English **SUBJECT OF THE ORDER** Application for alignment of deadlines R. 9, 271 and 334 RoP **SUMMARY OF THE FACTS** On 31 August 2026, the defendants lodged an application for the alignment of deadlines, requesting the Court to: - set the deadline for the statement of defence and for any counterclaim for revocation uniformly for all defendants as 11 November 2026; - in the alternative, to set the deadline for the statement of defence and for any counterclaim for revocation uniformly for all defendants to a common date between 29 October 2026 and 11 November 2026, as the Court considers appropriate. In support of their application, the defendants submitted that the statement of claim had been served on them on different dates, namely: - on 29 July 2026 for defendant 4; - on 3 August 2026 for defendants 2 and 3; - on 11 August 2026 for defendant 1. They further submitted that it is in their common interest to file a coordinated defence, and that the required coordination would be impaired and unnecessarily complicated by the application of three different procedural timelines, each linked to the respective date of service referred to above. According to the defendants, the requested alignment of deadlines would entail a postponement of only 13 days and would therefore remain limited and objectively reasonable. They also submitted that the longer period required for service on the US defendant was due solely to the claimant's nine-day delay in paying the fee necessary to effect service in the United States. On 2 September 2026, the claimant lodged its response to the defendants' application. The claimant agreed that the defendants' subsequent deadlines should be aligned. However, the claimant disputed that any alignment should necessarily be based on the date on which service was effected last, and expressly accepted 29 October 2026 as the common date. In the present case, all defendants belong to the same corporate group, are represented jointly by the same legal representative, and face the same allegations of infringement concerning the same patent. The claimant further submitted that the extension sought by the defendants would have an adverse impact on the claimant, since it would shift subsequent deadlines so as to include the entire Christmas holiday period. The claimant therefore requested the Court to align the deadlines for all defendants to 29 October 2026; in the alternative, should the Court align the defendants' deadlines to 11 November 2026 or to a date between 29 October 2026 and 11 November 2026, to extend the claimant's deadline for filing its reply to the statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation by a corresponding period, i.e. two weeks, or by such other period as the Court considers appropriate, in order to preserve equality of arms and avoid prejudice to the claimant's right of defence. **GROUNDS OF THE ORDER** Under R. 9.3 and 334(a) RoP, on a reasoned request by a party, the judge-rapporteur may extend - even retrospectively - or shorten any time limit set by the Rules of Procedure. The parties agree that it is necessary to align the deadlines in the written procedure, for reasons of efficient case management. The Court considers that a uniform timeline for all defendants avoids unnecessary repetition, cross-references and, more generally, an unreasonable complication of the further conduct of the proceedings. However, the parties have not agreed on a specific date. The Court notes that the defendants belong to the same corporate group. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, once service had been effected on the first of the defendant companies, the other defendants also had knowledge of the statement of claim (see UPC CFI no. 191/2025, LD The Hague, order of 16 April 2025). Accordingly, the judge-rapporteur considers it consistent with the principles of efficiency, equity, fairness and proportionality to align the time limits under R. 23 RoP for all defendants by taking 29 July 2026 as the common starting date. **ORDER** It is ordered that, for all defendants, the period for filing the statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation shall run from 29 July 2026. Accordingly, the statements of defence and any counterclaims for revocation shall be filed by 29 October 2026. Milan, 4 September 2026. Pierluigi Perrotti Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

Key Holdings

• A Judicial Rapporteur (JR) can set a consolidated defence date for defendants belonging to the same corporate group, based on the earliest service date for efficiency and proportionality.
• This approach, while aiming for efficiency, may complicate matters if individual defences within the group differ significantly.
• Such decisions could disincentivize defendants from requesting consolidation, potentially leading to less efficient proceedings.
• Claimants may have reduced incentive to compromise on defence dates when dealing with consolidated group defendants.

Tags

• Procedural
• Defence
• Consolidation
• Case Management