In Re: Request from Germany, 1:23-cv-01395

Nokia Technologies Oy and Alcatel Lucent SAS ("Nokia") filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the District of Delaware seeking discovery from Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") for use in German patent litigation.
Nokia is involved in a pending patent infringement lawsuit in Germany against Amazon concerning video coding and content delivery network (CDN) patents (the "Decoding/CDN Action").
Nokia also seeks discovery for two planned patent infringement actions in Germany (the "Encoding Actions") which have not yet been filed.
The discovery sought includes nonpublic technical information about Amazon’s content delivery network (CloudFront) and HEVC video encoding by Amazon products.
Amazon opposed Nokia’s application, arguing the discovery request did not satisfy § 1782 requirements and was an improper "fishing expedition."
The court analyzed both the statutory requirements of § 1782 and the discretionary factors set out by the Supreme Court in Intel and ultimately denied Nokia’s application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery is "for use" in foreign proceedings	Nokia argued discovery is needed for German litigation, including planned cases	Amazon asserted Nokia failed to show relevance for the foreign cases	Court: Discovery for Encoding Actions not "for use"; CDNs met standard but discretionary factors weigh against granting
Whether the court should grant discovery under its discretion (Intel factors)	Nokia claimed discovery is necessary; foreign courts are receptive	Amazon argued Nokia is a party to the litigation and German procedure applies	Court: Multiple Intel factors (participation, burden, circumvention) weighed against granting discovery
Whether the request circumvents foreign procedures	Nokia contended German discovery rules are restrictive, necessitating U.S. aid	Amazon said Nokia hadn't even tried discovery in Germany	Court: Slight circumvention found but not "surreptitious"; weighed slightly against granting
Whether the request is unduly burdensome or intrusive	Nokia asserted the requests were narrowly tailored	Amazon argued requests (e.g., source code) were highly sensitive and burdensome	Court: Found requests unduly intrusive/burdensome, especially regarding source code

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (sets out statutory and discretionary factors for § 1782 applications)
Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999) (party opposing 1782 discovery bears burden to show offense to foreign jurisdiction)