UPC allows Amazon to create private transcripts based on court’s recordings of hearings

Context:

• The dispute arises in the broader Amazon v. InterDigital litigation, which has already expanded into parallel proceedings across the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and UK courts in a FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing) context.
• In parallel, Amazon challenged a separate procedural ruling of the Mannheim LD dated January 2026, which permitted access to the audio recording of the hearing under Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) but categorically refused the creation of a verbatim transcript (February 5, 2026 ip fray article). The LD adopted a restrictive interpretation of Rule 115, reasoning that private transcripts could be misused in foreign proceedings, lack evidentiary value, and could undermine the court’s ability to engage in an open exchange with the parties.

What’s new:

• The CoA has overturned the order by the Mannheim LD and clarified that parties are permitted to prepare private transcripts of oral hearings based on audio recordings made available under Rule 115 RoP, but with certain restrictions (March 30, 2026 UPC order (PDF)). It held that the rule mandates access to recordings but does not prohibit transcription, and no such restriction can be inferred from its wording or purpose. The court further confirmed that parties may use assistants, including professional stenographers, provided they operate under supervision. At the same time, it drew a clear boundary: while parties may listen and transcribe, they may not copy, store, or otherwise reproduce the audio recording itself.
• Crucially, the court addressed the downstream use of transcripts. Private transcripts may be used internally, in UPC proceedings, and in related foreign proceedings, subject to safeguards. These include clear disclosure that the transcript is private and non-authoritative, confirmation of completeness, and clarification that judicial remarks during hearings are provisional.
• InterDigital did not oppose or support Amazon’s appeal. It took no position.

Direct impact: The decision removes the Mannheim LD’s blanket prohibition and establishes a procedural baseline; parties now have a recognized right to convert audio recordings into written transcripts for their own use. This will materially improve litigation management in complex disputes, particularly where multiple jurisdictions are involved, and coordination across legal teams is essential. Amazon, in practical terms, obtains what it initially sought: access to the recording combined with the ability to produce a usable transcript with professional assistance.

Wider ramifications: At a broader level, the decision closes in part the gap between the UPC and other jurisdictions that make official transcripts available. By allowing transcripts to be used in foreign proceedings, subject to safeguards, the court acknowledges the reality of parallel litigation, particularly in SEP and FRAND disputes.