UPC CoA 835/2024, APL 67638/2024 – Nokia Technologies Oy v Amazon

Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as devoid of purpose following the withdrawal of the main action and out-of-court settlement.
Sector
Electronics/SEP
Decision Type
Procedural Order (Appeal)

Expert Commentary

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

  • An appeal can be dismissed under R. 360 RoP if it has become devoid of purpose.
  • R. 360 RoP applies to appeals when the appellant no longer has a legal interest in pursuing the appeal.
  • The withdrawal of the main infringement action renders an appeal against a procedural order (e.g., for evidence disclosure) in that action devoid of purpose.
  • An out-of-court settlement leading to the withdrawal of the main action can result in the disposal of a related appeal.

Tags

  • Appeal
  • Devoid of Purpose
  • Disposal of action
  • Infringement
  • Withdrawal

Related Cases