English court maintains anti-anti-suit relief and dismisses InterDigital's jurisdiction challenge

In dismissing the jurisdiction challenge, the court confirmed that England is an appropriate forum for the dispute. Mr Justice Meade underlined the importance of judicial de-escalation and clarified the scope of the AASI to promote comity.

For both standard essential patents (SEP) holders and implementers, these decisions underline the critical importance of forum and timing in any litigation strategy.

Inter partes AASI return hearing

On 2 December, Mr Justice Meade handed down his judgment continuing the interim AASI in a modified form. InterDigital had applied to set aside or, in the alternative, vary the AASI, arguing that it had no present intention to seek an anti-suit injunction (ASI) against final RAND relief and the AASI was an offence against comity.

Mr Justice Meade decided that multiple factors supported a strong likelihood that, without an AASI, InterDigital may seek to block the English Court granting final RAND relief by seeking further anti‑suit relief abroad: 

• InterDigital had already obtained ex parte ASIs in Germany and in the UPC directed at the English proceedings.
• InterDigital's position on whether those ASIs restrained final RAND relief was unclear.
• InterDigital had served no evidence about its intentions, whether from its employees or from its solicitors.
• InterDigital's litigation stance and evidence suggested an intention to argue that even pursuit of final relief would “circumvent” foreign orders, particularly if the English proceedings were expedited.

Mr Justice Meade confirmed that the AASI would not preclude InterDigital from bringing or continuing substantive patent infringement proceedings (and any usual remedies) in the UPC, Germany or elsewhere. InterDigital also remains free to commence its own overlapping rate‑setting proceedings in other fora and to challenge the relevance of any English court determined licence abroad.

Comity

The court emphasised that the AASI was calibrated to protect the English court’s jurisdiction to determine a contractual RAND dispute that had been properly brought before it, while avoiding interference with foreign patent enforcement or rate-setting proceedings. It simply restrains attempts to prevent the English court from adjudicating Amazon’s claim to final RAND relief.

Mr Justice Meade reiterated that the global scope of a RAND licence determined in England does not make the order itself extra‑territorial in effect; foreign courts remain free to decide what, if any, effect such a licence has in their jurisdictions, including whether to recognise or enforce it.

De-escalation

Mr Justice Meade stressed that ASIs and AASIs are exceptional remedies, justified only to protect the court's jurisdiction or to restrain vexatious conduct. He expressed a clear preference for judicial de-escalation and the use of calibrated, non‑coercive measures, such as neutral interim mechanisms involving security and a true‑up. He expressed his hope that de-escalation would be a cooperative effort internationally.

InterDigital's jurisdiction challenge

On 19 December 2025, Mr Justice Meade handed down his judgment holding that England is the appropriate forum to determine Amazon’s claims, which include a declaration of the terms of a global RAND licence for InterDigital’s video portfolio, an order for specific performance, and a related UK competition law claim. The court found that service of the claim was valid and permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was properly granted.

Following the current binding authority from the Court of Appeal, the court held that Amazon’s claims are properly characterised as relating to UK patents and the contractual RAND obligation affecting those rights, even though any resulting RAND licence may be global in scope.

The court rejected InterDigital's arguments that England was not an appropriate forum (and its related application for a forum non conveniens stay of any claims for which permission to serve out was not required). While the facts (including InterDigital’s offered undertakings) made Switzerland and Delaware “available” fora, they were not clearly or distinctly more appropriate. Several factors weighed in favour of England: 

• Amazon’s pleaded UK competition claims, with their factual focus on UK markets and effects;
• the English court’s ability to deliver a timely, authoritative and public determination; and
• the need to apply UK competition law directly. 

The judge accepted that in RAND valuation disputes there may be no natural forum; but even on that premise, InterDigital had not shown an alternative forum that was clearly more appropriate.

The court rejected also InterDigital’s attempt to frame the dispute as one best suited to international arbitration. Mr Justice Meade explained that arbitration is a consensual process and cannot be used to compel a party into a different forum. He viewed InterDigital's bespoke two-phase arbitral proposal as overly complex, likely to cause delay, and less authoritative than a public court judgment. The principle of open justice also weighed heavily against arbitration, since it would not involve public hearings and transparent reasoning.

The court also found that InterDigital's undertaking not to enforce its UK patents did not remove the court's jurisdiction. Mr Justice Meade reasoned that the undertaking was not equivalent to the licence Amazon was seeking, as it was of limited duration and did not provide the same certainty or commercial coverage.

On the question of whether any court would set global rates, the judge noted that no forum could guarantee such an outcome, particularly if the RAND commitment under Swiss law was ultimately found only to be an obligation to negotiate in good faith. This uncertainty did not differentiate the proposed alternative fora from England or undermine England’s appropriateness as a forum, given the other connecting factors.

Finally, a case management stay was refused. There was no arbitration on foot, instituting one would take time, and Amazon’s desire for a timely, public adjudication by the court was reasonable.

Osborne Clarke comment

These two decisions underscore the English court's approach to protecting its jurisdiction in global (fair), reasonable and non-discriminatory ((F)RAND) disputes, highlighting the inevitable frictions between judicial sovereignty, international contractual arrangements, and comity. The decisions also highlight that undertakings not to enforce UK patents are not a jurisdictional panacea, at least for disputes concerning ITU-T (International Telecommunication Union – Telecommunication) standards. Unless an undertaking delivers the certainty and scope of a licence, it will not displace the English court’s jurisdiction or the utility of declaratory relief (and, potentially, an order for specific performance).

A key theme emerging from recent English court decisions is the weight given to open justice. The court's emphasis on the need for a public, reasoned, and timely determination can be a powerful counter to arguments for arbitration, particularly where novel issues concerning global standards and (F)RAND methodology are at stake. This provides a clear signal on the limits of using arbitration offers as a tool to challenge the English court's jurisdiction.

That said, the English court has also made clear that its determination of RAND terms will not per se restrain foreign infringement suits or purport to bind foreign courts. This is a pragmatic approach to the comity issue in a landscape with no contractually designated forum for setting global terms. However, it perpetuates the risk of conflicting (F)RAND determinations, potentially leaving parties having to accept the first enforceable judgment.

It is worth noting that amid the ongoing international litigation, these decisions from Mr Justice Meade seek to strike a balance between preserving the English court’s ability to determine contractual rights and respecting the proceedings of foreign courts. Going forward, international courts will need to continue developing mechanisms for de-escalation, such as ringfencing the core contractual dispute while permitting patent enforcement to continue elsewhere. In the absence of an internationally agreed dispute resolution system for (F)RAND disputes, issues of comity and judicial tension are set to remain a central feature of SEP litigation.

Key developments to watch will be the UPC's final ASI decision following this ruling, how other national courts (particularly in Germany and China) treat English court determined licences (interim and final) when raised as a defence, and whether the principles of de-escalation and judicial communication highlighted by the English court are reciprocated internationally.