InterDigital VC v Amazon.com (CFI, 22 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 22 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_936/2025), the Mannheim Local Division, on review, confirmed its ex parte order of 30 September 2025 prohibiting the Amazon companies from seeking an interim licence over InterDigital’s portfolio before the UK High Court, or any measure equivalent to an anti-suit injunction that would block infringement actions before the UPC. The panel characterised the UK interim licence as an anti-suit injunction aimed at enforcement of the patents abroad, held it contrary to EU and UPC public policy, and raised the penalties to up to EUR 50 million plus EUR 500,000 per day. The order forms part of the jurisdictional conflict over the setting of FRAND rates and is directly relevant to portfolio holders and implementers alike.

Facts and procedure

The order of 30 September 2025, issued in German, was served on 2 October 2025, Amazon applied for review on 14 October 2025 and the language of proceedings was changed to English. On 20 October 2025 the High Court granted an ex parte anti-anti-suit type order, which it upheld with modifications on 2 December 2025. InterDigital brought two infringement actions on 7 November 2025 (EP2548372 and EP3240285), and the review hearing took place on 14 November 2025, the parties agreeing to await the outcome of the UK proceedings (paragraphs 1 to 33).

The applicable law

The review falls under Rules 212.3 and 197.3, the original measure having been ordered under Rule 206. The panel relied on EU public policy, which includes the Charter (Articles 17(2) and 47) and Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (paragraphs 53 and 54), on Articles 1 and 20 UPCA, and set the penalties under Rule 354 and the Court of Appeal’s Kodak v Fujifilm order (paragraphs 40 and 84).

Question

May an application for an interim licence before a court of a non-EU State, intended to neutralise infringement actions before the UPC, be prohibited on an interim basis, and should the original order stand after the subsequent UK decisions?

Decision

The order was confirmed and the review application rejected. The UK interim licence targets enforcement of the patents abroad, including before the UPC, and is an anti-suit injunction. Obtaining it to rely on as a defence in other jurisdictions is abusive procedural conduct (paragraphs 35, 42 and 43). The UK proceedings need no such protection, and imposing the mechanism outside the UK undermines the patentee’s fundamental rights and access to an EU court (paragraphs 44 and 45). The panel also noted that the licence would cover non-essential patents without justification (paragraphs 47 and 48) and that an interim rate set halfway between offers does not fit the Huawei v ZTE framework (paragraphs 49 and 61). Such a licence would be contrary to public policy and unenforceable in UPC Member States (paragraph 66). The label of a measure is irrelevant, only its effect counts (paragraph 70): Amazon may pursue final rate-setting in the UK provided its effects stay there (paragraph 71), which the modified UK order does not ensure (paragraphs 72 to 76). Urgency lies in the speed of ex parte UK orders (paragraph 83). The penalties were raised in light of the sums in dispute and a portfolio of over 150 patents (paragraphs 85 and 86), and a copy goes to the European Commission under Regulation No 1/2003.

Key points for practice

• The Mannheim Local Division treats an application for a UK interim licence as an anti-suit injunction and holds it contrary to EU public policy.
• The prohibition extends to equivalent measures, whatever their label, including final rate-setting if its effects reach beyond UK territory.
• Penalties are fixed in the order itself and calibrated to the economic stakes, with a reservation to increase them if foreign sanctions follow (paragraph 87).
• Practical point: an implementer considering an interim licence application in London while UPC proceedings are pending or announced faces a swift prohibition backed by heavy penalties.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 1, 20, 32, 73(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.2, 197.3, 206, 212.3, 220.1(c), 224.1(a) and 354

Other provisions

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17(2) and 47, TFEU, Arts 101 and 102, Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Arts 6 and 15(2)

Case law cited

Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm, 22 November 2024, Huawei v Netgear, Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_9/2023)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.