1 Key takeaways
No "manifestly" erroneous decision if point of contention is a complex issue requiring in-depth-analysis
The Appellant argues that the impunged order of the LD Mannheim is based on the evidently incorrect assumption that a decision by the UK Court on a request for a court determined license by the Appellant would be equal to an anti-suit relief with respect to patent rights in jurisdictions outside the UK. The standing judge holds that this is a complex issue which needs an in-depth-analysis of the orders of the High Court of England and Wales and the respective understanding of the Mannheim LD which does not justify considering the impunged order to be manifestly erroneous.
No risk of irreversible harm although initiation of penalty proceedings is imminent
Suspensive effect of an appeal may be granted if there are exceptional circumstances that justify an exception to the principle laid down in Art. 74 (1) UPCA (established case law of the UPC Court of Appeal). The Appellant has not established that irreversible harm is imminent and not ordering suspensive effect would render the appeal-at-hand devoid of purpose. The Appellant's assertion that the statement of the LD Mannheim imposes the risk on the Appellant that the LD Mannheim may initiate penalty proceedings of its own motion under R. 354.4 RoP as early as today or any day going forward does not justify the order of suspensive effect. During such penalty proceedings under R. 354.4 RoP, the LD Mannheim would have to hear both parties including the Appellant which could bring forward its arguments against issuing such an order. The Appellant would also have the option to file an appeal against an order to their detriment including a request for suspensive effet.
2 Division
Court of Appeal, Standing Judge
3 UPC number
UPC-COA-0000936/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect
5 Parties
Amzon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amzon Europe Core S.a.r.l., Amazon EU S.a.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc. (all five Applicants and Appellants); InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS (all four Respondents)
6 Patent(s)
EP 2 449 782
7 Body of legislation / Rules
Rules 223.4, 354.4 RoP, Art. 74(1) UPCA
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
