Over the past year, UK courts have issued a series of rulings requiring standard essential patent (SEP) owners to offer interim licenses in fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) cases, also holding that a SEP owner will be deemed unwilling if it refuses to do so. This has prompted jurisdictional pushback in other SEP venues: In late September, Germany's Munich I Regional Court and the Mannheim Local Division (Mannheim LD) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued the first-ever anti-interim-license injunctions (AILIs) barring the pursuit of such relief in a UK case filed by Amazon against InterDigital, Inc. Now, the UK High Court has fired back. After issuing a case management order that criticized InterDigital for taking contradictory positions on the urgency posed by the UK proceedings in order to win those AILIs, the court has issued an order enjoining the patent owner from preventing Amazon from pursuing its remaining claim for a final FRAND determination.
This jurisdictional back-and-forth began to brew in earnest this past summer: After the UK Court of Appeal issued the first-ever interim license decisions in late 2024 and early 2025, the Munich I Regional Court issued guidance in July in which it argued that the UK approach threatened the jurisdiction of other European courts—and warned that injunctions could result if parties seek interim licenses.
That warning came to pass in the final days of the third quarter, when the same Munich court issued the first-ever AILI in response to a request from InterDigital, barring Amazon from seeking an interim license or a declaration that InterDigital had breached its FRAND obligations by declining to grant one. The court held that the request for an interim license from the UK court would constitute an "infringement of the property-like legal position of the patent holder[]" by preventing InterDigital from "fully and successfully" litigating its patents in German courts. This same reasoning "applies equally" to the implementer's request for a declaration on InterDigital's resulting FRAND compliance, the court found—explaining that as a result, the patent owner would be "effectively faced with the choice of whether to accept a restriction of their rights under German patents or UK patents".
Soon after, the Mannheim LD issued a similar, parallel AILI, in the process detailing its own rejection of the UK approach. The Mannheim LD found that the true purpose of the UK's interim license rulings was to "deter the SEP proprietor from initiating or continuing any other parallel pending litigation that also concerns SEPs, at least to some extent". Additionally, the Mannheim LD dismissed arguments from the UK Court of Appeal that this approach was not "jurisdictional imperialism", but instead served to prevent duplicative litigation and ease the corresponding burden on foreign courts. The Mannheim LD found that this view was "not tenable" and argued that "judicial intervention" should not prevent parties from choosing where they wish to file—and thus from choosing "which costs they wish to incur in conducting litigation".
Both orders were issued on an ex parte basis (i.e., with no participation from Amazon). However, as later recounted by the UK High Court, the Munich court initially informed counsel for InterDigital "that it might not be willing to grant the order sought ex parte". Counsel argued that there was sufficient urgency due in part to the "perceived risk of countermeasures"—i.e., the risk of an "ex parte application for an anti-anti-anti-suit injunction by Amazon if alerted to InterDigital's application"—and explained that in light of that risk, InterDigital would prefer to withdraw its motion rather than proceed inter partes (i.e., with Amazon's participation). (According to a filing from InterDigital cited by the UK High Court, "this happens sometimes and is common practice".) The German court ultimately granted the motion ex parte after some deliberation. In contrast, the UPC made its anti-interim-license rulings "entirely on the papers".
High Court Criticizes InterDigital for Taking Contradictory Positions
The UK High Court touched on the resulting jurisdictional tension in the aforementioned case management order, which issued on October 9. In that decision, Justice Richard Meade acknowledged the differences between the High Court, the Mannheim LD, and the Mannheim I Regional Court with regard to the propriety of the UK decisions justifying interim licenses, as well as "whether and to what extent [FRAND] obligations are purely a matter of competition law". Justice Meade observed that such "genuinely-held differences" would "no doubt be explored" and discussed through subsequent appellate decisions in the relevant jurisdictions, and potentially through a reference of this dispute to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
That said, Justice Meade argued that while it was not the role of the UK High Court to "construe, interpret or enforce" the German and UPC orders, it was useful to determine what conduct was barred by them insomuch as it impacted the UK proceedings. Here, the court explained that the parties agreed that the "orders do bite on Amazon's conduct of any interim licence declarations or other similar relief, but do not bite on what might be called the substantive or long-term decisions about final RAND terms for the future" (emphasis in original).
Notably, Justice Meade also criticized InterDigital for taking inconsistent positions on urgency—specifically, for arguing in the UK litigation that there was no urgency for "these proceedings" or a related "jurisdictional challenge", as a result "successfully getting a relatively slow path to a hearing of that challenge"; while arguing that there was "extreme urgency" in the UPC and Germany, on which basis it won the aforementioned ex parte relief against Amazon.
In particular, Justice Meade objected to statements by InterDigital's counsel in the other proceedings that characterized a UK interim license ruling as imminent. Justice Meade stated that he did "not believe that there was any real possibility that the UK court would schedule a hearing on the . . . application [for an interim license] 'very soon'". Rather, based on prior interim license proceedings (those in "Panasonic v Xiaomi, continuing through Lenovo v Ericsson, Nokia v Amazon, ZTE v Samsung, and the various recent cases involving Nokia brought by Acer, Hisense and Asus") in which such a determination took months, Justice Meade determined that it was "wildly unlikely almost to the point of inconceivable that the High Court in that sort of case would announce its decision on the interim licence immediately after the hearing" as suggested by InterDigital. Justice Meade emphasized that his "criticisms are directed at InterDigital as a litigant and not the courts", acknowledging that the UPC and Munich "courts can only act on the basis of the evidence and arguments that the parties put before them".
Justice Meade additionally addressed InterDigital's assertion, in the other cases, that the "UK court might grant an anti-anti-anti-suit injunction" (AAASI), a position that he described as "fractionally more nuanced": While he agreed that the court would "in principle" have jurisdiction to grant such an AAASI, Justice Meade remarked that it would be "really very difficult for Amazon to deploy it". He also warned of the dangers of further escalating the UK's jurisdictional battle with other courts:
[A]ll anti-suit injunctions (particularly those not based on contract under a jurisdiction clause), have to be approached with care, and . . . the more "antis" there are in front of the "suit", if I can put it that crude way - the greater the degree of retaliatory escalation - the more caution has to be exercised.
Nor did Justice Meade find it likely that a UK court would issue such an order on an ex parte basis in the manner described by InterDigital.
Justice Meade then turned to Amazon's application seeking to expedite the main FRAND proceedings (i.e., those through which the court would reach its final FRAND determination). Per the court, Amazon argued "that since they have been deprived of the ability to protect their interim position by an interim declaration, their business is at risk until final RAND is determined". Here, Justice Meade declined to decide whether to expedite without a hearing—holding that it would not cause undue prejudice to hold that hearing "in the last week or so of October".
The court also declined to immediately decide a jurisdictional challenge from InterDigital in which it argued that the UK court would no longer be the proper forum based on InterDigital's new undertaking that "in some situations and for some period it will not allege infringement of its Codec SEPs against Amazon for its UK-designated Codec SEPs", opting to address that issue at the aforementioned hearing.
High Court Issues Interim Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction
On October 16, Amazon then filed a motion seeking an interim anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) that the High Court granted on October 20, doing so on an ex parte basis. The resulting eight-page order bars InterDigital, including through its "directors, officers, partners, employees or agents", from taking any action that would "restrain, prevent or prohibit" Amazon from pursuing the final relief sought in its UK complaint or forcing it to withdraw its claims for that relief; bars InterDigital from doing the same with Amazon's AASI motion and its motion to continue the resulting order; and bars InterDigital from doing the same with respect to Amazon's motion to expedite the final FRAND proceedings. Punishments for violation of the order include a finding of contempt as well as a "fine, imprisonment, confiscation of assets or other punishment under the law".
Justice Meade issued an explanatory judgment that same day. The judgment in part details Amazon's rationale behind seeking an AASI: that while Amazon acknowledges that the AILIs prevent it from seeking an interim license, InterDigital suggests in recently served documents that it considers Amazon's request for an expedited final FRAND determination to be an attempt to interfere with the proceedings in Germany and before the UPC, because Amazon intends to pursue a license defense in those venues if it prevails in the UK. As a result, per the court, Amazon is concerned that InterDigital will file, in the Mannheim LD, Munich I Regional Court, or some other venue, an ex parte "application to restrain Amazon from carrying on its claim to the substantive, final RAND relief" (emphasis added) that remains at issue in this case.
Justice Meade then underscored the need for caution in considering such an AASI given the importance of comity and his "respect for the process of the German national court and the UPC", reiterating similar points from his October 9 order "with additional force". As such, he emphasized again (similar to the October 9 order) that this judgment should not "be understood as hostile to the UPC or the Munich court, or retaliatory"—but rather as "very firmly directed at InterDigital and its possible conduct".
After noting that this decision is only meant to "hold the ring until an inter partes hearing can be held", Justice Meade proceeded to find that both of Amazon's asserted bases for jurisdiction were at least "arguable". First, he agreed that an AASI was arguably necessary to protect the UK court's jurisdiction, as no other venue apart from the UK had been suggested as available or appropriate to make a final FRAND determination, to decide whether Amazon is contractually entitled to such relief, and to rule on whether "specific performance" is available. Second, Justice Meade found that the AASI was arguably justified on the basis that the foreign proceedings would be "vexatious and oppressive", citing in large part the "extremely tactical and constantly changing position of InterDigital about whether final relief is or is not within the proper scope of these proceedings or may be restrained by the ASIs". Given those changing positions, Justice Meade questioned whether the statements pointed to by Amazon, as indicating InterDigital's potential intent to enjoin it from pursuing final FRAND relief, reflect "a further change of heart, or the revealing of an intention held all along". Justice Meade found both bases for jurisdiction were appropriate for granting the requested AASI, "separately or cumulatively".
Finally, the judgment explains the reasons that Justice Meade issued his judgment ex parte: After stating that he did so based on the possibility that "InterDigital might seek urgent countermeasures", he clarified that this referred to the court's aforementioned "provisional criticisms of InterDigital's behaviour". As a result, Justice Meade found that there is a "very real likelihood . . . that InterDigital would seek urgent ex parte relief in another court if given notice of this hearing". While underscoring that these "criticisms" were indeed "provisional", Justice Meade nonetheless emphasized that he "still ha[s] considerable reservations about the way InterDigital proceeded, including the speed with which it did so, and the materials that it used to support those applications".
Stakeholders will undoubtedly watch closely for further developments stemming from the upcoming hearing before the High Court. Meanwhile, it also appears that the UPC will soon revisit its AASI order, as the UK court's October 20 judgment reveals that on October 14, the Mannheim LD issued a directions order that set a hearing for November 14 in response to Amazon's request for review of that court's ex parte AILI. Per the High Court, the UPC order includes "various requests for the parties to provide further information, in particular, in relation to the final RAND relief sought in these UK proceedings and the specific performance sought". (Justice Meade also flagged a passage from the UPC order that encouraged the parties to reach a resolution, stating that he "can only echo how welcome such an agreement would be in preference to these difficult, resource-consuming and sensitive (A)ASI fights".) Finally, Justice Meade stated that he understands such a request for review in the German action is "likely" but has not yet been filed.
For more on the prior rulings in this case, see “German Court and UPC Issue First-Ever Anti-Interim-License Injunctions in SEP Dispute” (October 2025). Further coverage of notable FRAND developments from Q3 2025 can also be found in RPX's third-quarter review.
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.
