In a recent procedural order issued on 24 March 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Amazon’s request to file an additional written submission shortly before the scheduled oral hearing. The underlying appeal stems from proceedings before the Local Division Munich, where Nokia Technologies Oy had asserted infringement of EP 2 661 892 against Amazon. Amazon invoked, inter alia, a FRAND defence and had sought the disclosure of various licence agreements to substantiate this defence.
Following an order by the Local Division of 16 December 2024, rejecting Amazon’s request for disclosure of further licence agreements and royalty reports, Amazon filed an appeal. In preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 26 March 2025, Amazon requested leave to submit an additional written statement to respond to Nokia’s appeal response and to address recent developments.
The Court of Appeal, composed of President Klaus Grabinski and legally qualified judges Peter Blok and Emmanuel Gougé, dismissed Amazon’s request. It held that the procedural framework under the RoP governing appeal proceedings does not provide for further written submissions beyond the appeal brief and the response thereto, unless the Court orders otherwise under specific conditions.
The Court referred to R. 224 and R. 235 RoP, which limit the written submissions in appeal proceedings to one brief per party, and to R. 233.3 RoP, which excludes the introduction of new appeal grounds after expiry of the appeal deadline. The Court further noted that an exchange of additional submissions may only be permitted in the exceptional circumstances set out in R. 36 RoP, which apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings.
Amazon argued that it needed to address a licence agreement disclosed by Nokia only shortly before expiry of the deadline for the appeal brief, as well as an expert opinion obtained after its appeal filing. The Court acknowledged these circumstances but considered Amazon’s request belated. It noted that Amazon had failed to explain why it had waited until five days before the oral hearing to seek leave to file the additional submission, despite having the relevant documents weeks earlier.
The Court further emphasised that granting Amazon’s request would have compromised procedural fairness and the principle of equality of arms (Art. 42(2) UPCA), as it would have enabled Amazon to file two written submissions while Nokia had only one opportunity to reply. Given the imminent oral hearing and the need to avoid unnecessary delays, the Court rejected the request in the interest of procedural efficiency.
The CoA made clear that further written submissions beyond the appeal brief and response will only be permitted in exceptional cases and must be requested in a timely manner. Procedural fairness and efficiency, as enshrined in Art. 41(3) and 42(2) UPCA, remain key principles guiding the Court’s approach.
