UPC_CoA_835/2024 – Amazon v Nokia
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Settlement Background 1. Nokia sued Amazon in first instance. 2. Amazon wanted to obtain several documents and information without redacted parts. The Local Division in Munich refused. 3. Amazon appealed. Nokia replied, and on 26 March 2025, an oral argument took place. 4. On 9 April 2025, the Local Division accepted Nokia's withdrawal of the main case. 5. On 4 April 2025, Amazon informed the Court of Appeal that the parties had settled and that they assumed that the case in the Court of Appeal would also end with the Local Division's decision that the main case had ended. The Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal refuses the Appeal on the basis of R. 360 RoP. Comment 1. R. 360 RoP states that if an action has become devoid of purpose, the Court may dispose of the action by order at any time. 2. The Court of Appeal understandably decides that 'Court' in R. 360 RoP also means the Court of Appeal. 3. I understand this decision to mean that the Local Division's decision that the main case had ended did not automatically mean that the appeal regarding R. 190 RoP ('Order to produce evidence') had ended. 4. So, if the parties would have preferred no decision in this case, the appellant should have lodged an R. 265 RoP request (which Amazon did offer to do!). 5. I still think (as I have said several times before) that a simple letter from both parties to the Registry stating that they have settled the case and want it to be ended (in this case, mentioning both the main proceedings and the appeal) should be sufficient. The Registry informs the Court(s) and mentions the termination of the cases in the Register.
Full Decision Text
Reference numbers: UPC_CoA_835/2024 APL_67638/2024 App_16448/2025 Procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a disposal of the main action pursuant to R. 360 RoP issued on 22 April 2025 A PPELLANTS (D EFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF F IRST INSTANCE ) 1. Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., (Société à responsabilité limitée), 38 avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxembourg Appellant 1) 2. Amazon EU S.à r.l., (Société à responsabilité limitée), 38 avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxembourg Appellant 2) 3. Amazon.com, Inc., 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle Washington 98109-5210, United States of America Appellant 3) (hereinafter jointly: “Amazon”) represented by: Dr. Steffen Steininger and Dr. Benjamin Schröer, Attorneys-at-Law, Hogan Lovells International LLP A PPELLANTS (CLAIMANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF F IRST INSTANCE ) Nokia Technologies Oy, Karakaari 7, 02610 Espoo, Finland (hereinafter "Nokia"), represented by: Tim Smentkowski, Attorney-at-Law, Arnold Ruess Rechtsanwälte Part mbB P ATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 661 892 P ANEL AND D ECIDING J UDGES: This decision was issued by Panel 1a with the participation of: Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal, Peter Blok, legally qualified judge, Emmanuel Gougé, judge-rapporteur and legally qualified judge LANGUAGE OF P ROCEEDINGS: German IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF F IRST INSTANCE □ Order of the Munich Local Division of 16 December 2024 □ Reference numbers: UPC_CFI_399/2023 ACT_584119/2023 App_44089/2024 ORD_55998/2024 S UMMARY OF F ACTS 1. On 16 December 2024, the Munich Local Division of the Court of First Instance, in the context of a patent infringement proceeding (ACT_584119/2023 UPC_CFI_399/2023), rejected Amazon's request under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP for the disclosure of an unredacted version of certain documents and information held by Nokia (impugned order, ORD_55998/2024). 2. By written submission dated 30 December 2024, Amazon filed an appeal against the impugned order under R. 220.1 RoP and set out the grounds in support thereof. 3. Nokia filed its Statement of response on 11 February 2025, following a procedural order which granted a deadline extension following a corresponding agreement between the Parties. 4. The oral hearing was held on 26 March 2025. 5. On 9 April 2025, at Nokia's request and with Amazon's consent, the Munich Local Division of the Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of the action on the merits pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP and declared the proceedings closed (ORD_16128/2025). 6. In a statement dated 4 April 2025, Amazon informed the Court of Appeal that the Parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and that no applications for costs would be filed. Amazon assumed that the present appeal was ipso jure settled with the expected admission of the withdrawal of the action by the Court of First Instance. However, in case the Court of Appeal considers it necessary to withdraw the appeal, Amazon requests that the withdrawal of the appeal be allowed. Nokia submitted its comments in submissions filed on 15 April 2025. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 7. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal by applying R. 360 RoP accordingly. 8. Pursuant to R. 360 RoP, the Court may at any time, on the application of a party or of its own motion, after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, dispose of the action by way of order if it finds that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it. 9. R. 360 RoP applies not only if the action itself has become devoid of purpose, but also if the appeal has become devoid of purpose. If the Appellant no longer has a legal interest in lodging the appeal, there is no longer any reason to decide on it. As a result, the appeal has become devoid of purpose within the meaning of R. 360 RoP (order of the Court of Appeal of 9 January 2025, EOFlow Co., Ltd v. Insulet Corporation, UPC_CoA_584/2024, APL_54646/2024). 10. In the present case, the appeal against the order of the Munich Local Division of 16 December 2024 on a request to produce evidence pursuant to Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP has become devoid of purpose after the withdrawal of the infringement action was permitted and the infringement proceedings were declared closed. 11. It follows that there is no longer any need to decide on the application under R. 265 RoP and that the appeal must be disposed pursuant to R. 360 RoP. ORDER The appeal APL_67638/2024 UPC_CoA_835/2024 is dismissed. This Order was issued on 22 April 2025.
Key Holdings
- Appeal dismissed as devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) following settlement.
- Withdrawal of main case did not automatically end appeal on procedural order.
- R. 360 applies to Court of Appeal.
Tags
- Appeal
- Case Management
- Devoid of Purpose
- Settlement