In brief
- The dispute between InterDigital and Amazon over digital streaming patents and FRAND licence terms has led to significant rulings in both the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and English Patents Court.
- The UPC and Munich Regional Court granted InterDigital an "anti-interim-licence" injunction, preventing Amazon from seeking an interim licence in the English courts.
- In response, the English Patents Court (Meade J) granted Amazon an "anti-anti-suit injunction" to stop InterDigital from blocking Amazon’s pursuit of final FRAND relief in the UK.
- The English court’s order is temporary, designed to protect its jurisdiction while minimising conflict with the UPC and German courts.
- These developments highlight the complex, tactical nature of global FRAND litigation and may influence future European patent disputes.
Recent weeks have seen a flurry of activity before both the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and national courts in the UK and Germany in a dispute between InterDigital and Amazon relating to digital streaming patents and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licence terms. For ease of reference, this article uses the term 'FRAND', although the standards in this case technically refer to 'RAND' (reasonable and non-discriminatory); there is no practical difference between the two.
At the end of September, the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC (alongside the German Munich Regional Court) granted InterDigital, on a without notice basis, the first "anti-interim-licence" injunction. This prompted subsequent developments before the English Patents Court, with the judge (Mr Justice Meade) expressing significant concerns about the arguments used by InterDigital to secure the injunction, before going on, in a later hearing (also on a without notice basis), to grant Amazon anti-anti-suit relief against InterDigital.
On the surface, these developments might appear as a jurisdictional clash between the English and UPC courts. However, the response from the English Patents Court has been pointedly framed, not as a challenge to the foreign courts themselves, but as a direct reaction to the litigation conduct of InterDigital.
These developments underscore the strategic manoeuvring that characterises the current landscape of global FRAND litigation and have the potential to fundamentally reshape European patent litigation.
Background
In recent times, implementers have developed a strategic use of interim licences in FRAND disputes before the English courts, seeking to secure an interim licence to shield themselves from infringement actions in other jurisdictions, including the UPC, while FRAND terms are litigated in the UK. By obtaining an interim licence from the English courts, an implementer can argue in other jurisdictions that it is a lawful user of the patent, thereby seeking to prevent the foreign court from granting an injunction.
In the 2024 English Court of Appeal case of Panasonic v. Xiaomi, the court held that a willing licensor would agree to an interim licence pending the determination by the Patents Court of the FRAND terms of the final licence. The English courts have subsequently expanded this practice, including to cases where the SEP holder had not consented to UK jurisdiction for a global FRAND determination.
In this specific dispute, Amazon is seeking in the English courts a global FRAND licence as part of its final relief, and it has also made an application for an interim licence. InterDigital has challenged the English court's jurisdiction to grant such an interim licence. Mr Justice Meade, with the consent of the parties, had scheduled a hearing for both of these applications for 30 January 2026.
UPC and Munich Regional Court: anti-interim-licence injunction
Notwithstanding the agreed timetable in the English proceedings, InterDigital sought parallel orders from the UPC and the Munich Regional Court on a without notice basis, seeking to prohibit Amazon from making an application to the English courts for an interim licence. This urgent, ex parte application was supported by evidence suggesting there was real urgency because the English court might act swiftly to grant an interim licence.
The Mannheim Local Division granted an anti-interim-licence injunction against Amazon. It held that a compulsory interim licence fundamentally undermines a patent holder's enforcement rights. By removing the threat of an injunction - a key leverage point in negotiations - the grant of an interim licence would significantly weaken a patent proprietor's position. The Munich Regional Court also granted the anti-interim-licence injunction, aligning with the UPC's reasoning.
Critically, the UPC characterised the English courts' approach to granting interim licences as a "de facto prohibition on litigation" that coerces patent holders into abandoning legal rights elsewhere. It further justified the ruling by describing the injunction as "exclusively defensive" and "intended to shield the proceedings before the UPC".
The Patents Court initial response
In a swift response to the UPC's ruling, Mr Justice Meade convened a case management conference in the Patents Court proceedings to address the impact of the anti-interim-licence injunction. In particular, in his judgment of 9 October, Meade J expressed concerns about the arguments InterDigital had presented in obtaining the injunction, highlighting certain "inconsistent positions". In particular, InterDigital's evidence at the UPC had created a sense of urgency by suggesting that a UK interim licence ruling for Amazon could come down "soon", but before the Patents Court, it had characterised the proceedings as not being urgent. Meade J described the position InterDigital put to the UPC and German courts as "wildly unlikely to the point of inconceivable". Further, the risk of Amazon seeking its own pre-emptive injunction in the UK without notice was overstated before the UPC.
While acknowledging that it was for foreign courts, including the UPC, to decide on matters before them, Meade J emphasised the need to ensure English proceedings are accurately represented abroad.
Meade J was clearly wary about making any order that might undermine the UPC and German orders. He sought clarification from the parties about the scope of the foreign orders, a step designed to ensure the English proceedings could continue without inadvertently breaching them. He questioned, for example, whether Amazon was only prohibited from seeking an interim licence, or if the orders extended to prohibit it from seeking a final FRAND licence. InterDigital agreed before Meade J that the foreign orders did not prevent Amazon from seeking a final FRAND licence but apparently changed its mind in evidence subsequently given to the court (as explained below), triggering a response from Amazon.
Amazon's further response
The dispute has now escalated further with Amazon seeking "anti-anti-suit" relief against InterDigital, on a without notice basis, before the Patents Court. On 20 October, Meade J granted Amazon an "anti-anti-suit injunction", preventing InterDigital from taking any steps in any court to stop Amazon from pursuing the final FRAND relief it is seeking in the UK. The practical effect of the order is to prevent InterDigital from taking any additional defensive measures such as making an application, to the UPC and/or the Munich court, to restrain Amazon from carrying on its claim in the English proceedings to the substantive, final FRAND relief.
Amazon's application for an anti-anti-suit injunction was put on two bases, both of which Meade J found to be at least seriously arguable. First, that the order was justified as necessary to protect the English court's jurisdiction. Meade J accepted that it was reasonably arguable that the UPC and Munich injunctions would undermine "the heart of the UK proceedings" (i.e. the determination of the final FRAND licence), particularly where there are currently no proceedings anywhere else where those matters could be determined, and where no other court has been suggested as available or more appropriate than the English courts.
Secondly, the order was justified on the basis that it would restrain InterDigital's "vexatious or oppressive" conduct. Meade J was particularly struck by what he considered to be InterDigital's "extremely tactical and constantly changing position" as to whether final FRAND relief may or may not be restrained by the UPC and Munich injunctions. He noted that InterDigital had accepted at the previous hearing that seeking final FRAND relief was not blocked by the injunctions, but evidence subsequently filed by InterDigital suggested it might seek to argue in German and UPC proceedings that such relief should be blocked.
Critically, Meade J's order is limited in duration until the return date for the hearing (set for a window of 28-30 October 2025) at which point the court will consider whether the order should be continued. This short timeframe is designed to minimise interference with the UPC and Munich court proceedings whilst protecting the English court's jurisdiction in the immediate term.
Notably, Meade J's judgment essentially mirrors the "exclusively defensive" reasoning that underpinned the UPC's decision to grant its anti-interim-licence injunction. He framed his order as protecting the English court's jurisdiction and preventing interference with the UK proceedings. Meade J emphasised that the order should not be understood as hostile to the UPC or Munich court, or retaliatory, stating that the application was "very firmly directed at InterDigital and its possible conduct".
What happens next?
According to Meade J's recent judgment, Amazon has now sought a review of the UPC's ex parte injunction (and has said it will do the same in relation to the Munich Regional Court's decision), with a further UPC hearing taking place on 14 November.
In the English proceedings, the return date for the hearing of Amazon's application for an anti-anti-suit injunction is set for the window of 28-30 October 2025, at which point the court will consider whether the order should be continued. That hearing will also address Amazon's application for an expedited FRAND trial.