The InterDigital and Amazon SEP saga heats up with latest Unified Patent Court judgments

Hot on the heels of the English court's pre-Christmas decisions, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has issued a trio of judgments and orders in the ongoing standard essential patent (SEP) dispute between InterDigital and Amazon.

In a review decision on 22 December 2025, the Mannheim Local Division (LD) confirmed its earlier order restraining Amazon from seeking interim licence relief in England and clarified that this protection extends to any measure with a de facto restraining effect. Then, on 29 December 2025, the UPC Court of Appeal refused Amazon's application for suspensive effect of that order. Finally, the UPC also formally notified the European Commission of the Mannheim LD orders, anchoring the measures in an EU competition law context.

Against a backdrop of the English court calling for de-escalation of these comity issues, the decisions of the Mannheim LD appear to prompt more questions than they answer. The next steps internationally will be important for SEP holders and implementers to decide on their strategies for ongoing or contemplated litigation. 

Broad anti-suit protection confirmed

The Mannheim LD confirmed its 30 September 2025 order, enjoining Amazon from initiating or pursuing anti‑suit injunctions or any “equivalent judicial or administrative measure” that would prevent InterDigital from enforcing its patent rights before the UPC.

The court emphasised that this prohibition extends to any measure, regardless of its label, that has the effect of restraining enforcement, including applications for interim licence declarations in England and even a final (fair) reasonable and non-discriminatory ((F)RAND) rate-setting measure which, once granted, would prevent a patentee from arguing its case and enforcing its patent rights before the UPC. This appears to go further than the parties' own understanding of the scope of the Manheim LD's order as presented to the English court.

The Mannheim LD held that an English interim licence, when used as a defence in other jurisdictions, would be abusive and inappropriate in its view for several reasons:

• the concept of an interim licence is not necessary to protect English proceedings;
• its aim is to deprive patentees of their right of access to justice and pursuing their fundamental (intellectual) property rights before an EU court; and
• its objective is to provide a contractual defence to infringement actions in other jurisdictions.

The Mannheim LD also viewed the royalty from an interim licence as of little use commercially to the patentee, as its provisional nature prevents it from being confidently reinvested. The Mannheim LD also viewed UK-style interim-licence declarations as incompatible with EU public policy and competition law, particularly the Court of Justice of the EU's decision in Huawei v ZTE and the fundamental right to property and effective judicial protection of the same. On urgency and enforcement, the Mannheim LD maintained that the risk of imminent interference justified the interim measures. Following UPC Court of Appeal guidance, it incorporated a detailed penalty warning: up to €50 million per breach and up to €500,000 per day for continued non-compliance, reserving the right to revisit penalties in enforcement proceedings.

Interplay with English proceedings

The Mannheim LD engaged directly with the English court’s anti‑anti‑suit injunction and its stated preference for de-escalation. While acknowledging that the English courts remain free to attach consequences within the UK for non-compliance with their orders, the Mannheim LD held that ambiguity remained regarding the downstream effects of the English court’s prospective final relief. Given this ambiguity, the Mannheim LD held it was necessary to maintain its order to forestall any de facto restraint on UPC enforcement. On that basis, continued protection by the UPC was deemed necessary.

The Mannheim LD stated that while the UK final relief would be based on in-depth scrutiny, its effects would only be acceptable insofar as they are limited to the territory of the UK. The court's view was that no negative consequences should arise for patentees if they choose not to accept the UK outcome and instead enforce their European patents within UPC member states.

Suspensive effect refused

Amazon applied to the UPC Court of Appeal seeking suspensive effect of the Mannheim LD’s 22 December review order (limited to the aspects allegedly affecting the “final relief” sought in England). The standing judge of the UPC Court of Appeal rejected the application.

The court reiterated that appeals do not usually have suspensive effect under article 74(1) UPC Agreement and it would only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as a manifestly erroneous decision or enforcement rendering the appeal devoid of purpose.

The Court of Appeal held Amazon had not shown manifest error; the interaction between the English measures and the Mannheim LD’s order raised complex issues unsuitable for a summary suspensive ruling. Nor had Amazon established irreversible harm requiring urgent suspension, especially given the availability of adversarial processes and appellate remedies concerning any penalty proceedings. 

Osborne Clarke comment

These three developments consolidate the UPC’s position that interim-licence declarations issued by foreign courts are incompatible with EU public policy as interpreted by the UPC, especially where they are intended to deter SEP enforcement beyond the issuing court's territory.

The UPC's approach is grounded in EU competition law and the protection of fundamental rights. This contrasts with the English court's focus on enforcing the patentee's contractual commitment and the recent English judgments calling for judicial de-escalation and cooperation. It arguably also shows a misunderstanding of how English interim declaratory relief operates (specifically, no party has been compelled to enter into an interim licence; it is merely a declaration as to what the terms of one would be).

These judgments of the UPC raise more questions than they answer. They also highlight a fundamental conflict: the UPC is focused on protecting its jurisdiction and patent rights under an EU law framework, while the English court's approach is based on enforcement of a global contractual obligation (in this case to offer a RAND licence to third parties). The Mannheim LD's reasoning that even final English relief could have an impermissible de facto anti-suit effect is a significant escalation of this conflict. Its point that interim royalties are commercially of little use has, to an extent, been addressed in other English cases where an element of the interim payment to the SEP holder has been treated as non-refundable, but the difference in underlying rationale remains. 

Further, it remains difficult to see how the above substantial and strongly worded jurisdictional complaints raised by the UPC can be said to be in any way compatible with the jurisdiction to consider infringement and validity of foreign (to the UPC) patent rights established in BSH v Electrolux.

Going forward, these decisions underscore the critical importance of forum selection. Parties seeking relief from the English courts may need to consider drafting orders with explicit carve-outs that preserve the parties' rights to enforce patents before the UPC, although the effectiveness of such carve-outs remains to be seen. A definitive statement from the UPC on how, if at all, UK declarations could be relied on there would provide clarity.

The next key development will be the substantive appeal of the Mannheim LD's decision. Its outcome, and the subsequent treatment of English court-determined licences by the UPC and other European courts when raised as a defence, will be watched closely by both SEP holders and implementers. Further, it remains to be seen how the English court will proceed should it grant final RAND relief that is not respected by one of the parties, particularly should specific performance be available as a remedy to enforce the relevant intellectual property rights policy.

These judgments demonstrate that the English court's calls for judicial de-escalation and communication have not, at this stage, been reciprocated by the UPC. This signals that cross-jurisdictional friction is set to remain a central feature of global SEP litigation for the foreseeable future.