UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 12/2026

Jan 30, 2026·EP2449782: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SIGNALING INTRA PREDICTION FOR LARGE BLOCKS FOR VIDEO ENCODERS AND DECODERS

Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Telecommunications
Language
English
First decided
Mar 30, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-03-30
    Appeal decisionAppeal RoP220.2

    The Court of Appeal set aside the Court of First Instance orders that had refused Amazon permission to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing audio recording. The Court held that R. 115 RoP does not prohibit parties or their representatives from producing a private transcript of the audio recording, and that assistants or support staff (such as stenographers) may assist in producing such a transcript under supervision. The Court granted Amazon access to the oral hearing recording at the Local Division Düsseldorf and allowed the use of a professional transcriber, subject to confidentiality obligations.

    Legal issues:Interpretation of R. 115 RoP regarding access to oral hearing audio recordingsWhether parties may produce private transcripts of audio recordings of oral hearingsWhether assistants or support staff may assist in producing private transcripts under party/representative supervisionPermissible uses of private transcripts in UPC and non-UPC proceedingsConditions for using private transcripts in foreign court proceedings related to UPC proceedings
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-03-30Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-03-30Not public
Final Order2026-03-30Public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-03-30Not public
Receipt2026-03-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-02Not public
Submission Respondent2026-03-02Not public
Receipt2026-02-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-26Not public
Submission Appellant2026-02-26Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-02-23Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-02-23Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-23Not public
Order2026-02-23Public
Receipt2026-02-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-19Not public
Statement of Response2026-02-19Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-02-04Not public
Receipt2026-02-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-04Not public
Statement of claim2026-02-04Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-02-03Not public
Receipt2026-01-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-30Not public
Fee2026-01-30Not public
Proof of payment2026-01-30Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-01-30Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • R. 115 RoP does not prohibit parties or their representatives from producing a private transcript of the audio recording; the silence of the provision on private transcripts means they are permitted

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 115 RoP

  • The Drafting Committee's statement expressly confirmed that parties are free to take notes or arrange for a private transcript to be made

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 115 RoP drafting history (Exhibit HRM 14)

  • An assistant or support staff such as a stenographer may produce a private transcript in the presence and under the supervision of the party or its representative

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 115 RoP

  • Concerns about misuse of private transcripts can be addressed by proportionate conditions rather than a blanket prohibition

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 115 RoP; R. 262A RoP; R. 262 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Production of a private transcript is not permissible because it could be used outside UPC proceedings to misrepresent Court proceedings, risk personal rights violations, and undermine the open atmosphere of judicial exchange

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 115 RoP

  • Private transcripts would be without use as they have no probative value and could impair the search for truth in court proceedings

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 115 RoP

  • The prohibition on private transcripts is consistent with the CJEU model under Art. 85 RoP CJEU on which R. 115 RoP was modelled

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 85 RoP CJEU; R. 115 RoP