UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Language
English
First decided
Mar 30, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Ulrike VoßLocked
Judge Peter BlokLocked
Judge Emmanuel GougéLocked

At the UPC: Amazon Group (22 cases)·InterDigital Group (34 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CFI 242/2026·UPC CoA 936/2025·UPC CFI 1376/2025·UPC CFI 1350/2025·UPC CFI 936/2025

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 159/2026·UPC CoA 161/2026·UPC CFI 445/2025·UPC CFI 87/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-03-30
    Appeal RoP220.2Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Interpretation of R. 115 RoP regarding access to oral hearing audio recordings
    • Whether parties may produce private transcripts of audio recordings of oral hearings
    • Whether assistants or support staff may assist in producing private transcripts under party/representative supervision
    • Permissible uses of private transcripts in UPC and non-UPC proceedings
    • Conditions for using private transcripts in foreign court proceedings related to UPC proceedings
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-03-30Not public
Decision2026-03-30Not public
Final Order2026-03-30Public
Oral procedure closed2026-03-30Not 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
Oral procedure opened2026-02-23Not public
Written procedure closed2026-02-23Not public
Order2026-02-23Not public
Order2026-02-23Public
Receipt2026-02-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-19Not public
Statement of Response2026-02-19Not public
Publication2026-02-04Not 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