InterDigital v Amazon SEP saga: back and forth between UPC and English court continues as compliance remains in dispute

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has issued a series of further orders, and the English court has issued a judgment   in response, in the intensifying standard essential patent (SEP) and reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing dispute between InterDigital and Amazon. 

Growing jurisdictional tensions 

These decisions represent the latest chapter in the growing jurisdictional tensions between the English courts and the UPC. These began when the UPC granted an anti-interim-licence injunction (AILI). In response, the English court granted and maintained anti-anti-suit relief to protect the English claim for final RAND relief. The UPC confirmed the broad anti-suit protection of its order, and in particular compelled Amazon to limit its English damages claims, overriding the wishes of both parties.

In an order of 11 February 2026, the Mannheim Local Division (LD) explicitly clarified that its anti-suit protection extends to damages claims that Amazon might pursue following a final RAND determination by the English court insofar as the claims relied on the pursuit of patent infringement proceedings in other jurisdictions. Following Amazon's attempt to withdraw those damages claims with a reservation of rights, the Mannheim LD issued a further order on 25 February 2026 requiring Amazon to take a "clear, unambiguous and unrestricted position".

The Mannheim LD ordered both parties to report on settlement negotiations, signalling a preference for party-driven de-escalation, while maintaining its firm jurisdictional stance. However, subsequent events demonstrated that the UPC's own requirements effectively prevented the parties from finalising any such agreement.

Final RAND relief claim

By way of its English claim, Amazon sought, among other things, the following "final RAND relief":

• a declaration as to the RAND terms for a licence from InterDigital (that is, a RAND determination);
• an order compelling InterDigital to offer those terms (that is, specific performance); and
• damages should it fail to offer those terms.

The relief sought by Amazon relates to alleged contractual entitlements under the rules of the ITU-T (the relevant standard-setting organisation). The damages claimed related to an alleged potential breach of InterDigital's contract with the ITU-T (for any failure to offer the English court-determined licence), of which Amazon claims to be a third-party beneficiary. 

English court hearing 4 February 2026: damages on the table   

Mr Justice Meade explored whether Amazon could claim damages if InterDigital failed to offer RAND terms after a final determination, including damages arising from InterDigital successfully bringing infringement proceedings in the UPC and "kicking [Amazon] off the market in the UPC [territories]".

He confirmed that this would be a claim for breach of contract. Crucially, InterDigital's counsel confirmed to the English court that InterDigital does not object to Amazon seeking such relief and it does not maintain that the UPC order bites on any potential damages claim.

By the end of the English hearing, two key matters appeared to be clarified: i) Amazon would not be seeking an anti-suit injunction following final judgment, and ii) InterDigital would not stop Amazon from seeking damages.

Mannheim LD order 11 February 2026: UPC clarifies scope of its order

The Mannheim LD stated that the scope of its initial order, as later confirmed on review, has not changed over time. It added that the English judge was "wrong" when considering whether there was a possible alteration of the scope of the UPC order.

The Mannheim LD stated that its anti-suit measures prevent Amazon from pursuing any relief, whether penalties for contempt of court or damages, as these measures would, in effect, hinder InterDigital from seeking justice before the UPC. The court characterised this as "against comity and therefore unacceptable".

It emphasised that damages for breach of contract would have an "equally deterrent effect as any coercive measure being imposed". This would also be the case if InterDigital were found to be in contempt of court for the same reason.

De-escalation mandate and settlement  talks  

Despite its firm stance on the extent of its order, the UPC welcomed the parties' endeavours to reach a mutual agreement to settle the dispute. They were ordered to report to the UPC on the result of their negotiations by 25 February 2026.

However, when Amazon communicated its withdrawal of the relevant damages claims on 25 February 2026, it accompanied this with a reservation of its rights. The Mannheim LD issued a further order on the same day, warning that Amazon's language stating it "does not presently seek damages" may itself amount to a breach of the UPC order (if Amazon intended to reserve the right to sue InterDigital for damages in the UK proceedings on the basis that the continuation of UPC infringement proceedings constituted a breach of the English court-determined licence).

The court ordered Amazon to "take a clear, unambiguous and unrestricted position on this point in the scheduled hearing" and stated that "any agreement between the parties aimed at de-escalation will have to take this aspect into account".

The English hearing transcript confirms that Mr Justice Meade again strongly encouraged judicial communication and de-escalation. However, the UPC maintained its position and moved the focus onto the parties to seek settlement between themselves.

As would become clear at the 27 February 2026 UPC hearing and in the English court's 5 March 2026 judgment, the UPC's requirements effectively prevented the parties from finalising a mutually acceptable agreement.

UPC hearing 27 February 2026: Amazon's declaration 

The UPC ruled that Amazon was in breach of its order, although it did not elaborate on what the breach was. InterDigital did not argue for this conclusion and, notably, it maintained before the English court that it did not agree with the UPC's finding of a breach.

To avoid the imposition of penalties, Amazon was required to make a declaration to the UPC, stating that it would not claim or pursue damages in the UK proceedings where the event causing the damage was the continuation of UPC infringement proceedings or the enforcement of any UPC decision or order.

Amazon undertook to make corresponding declarations before the English court. These obligations were stated to remain in force for as long as the Mannheim LD's order of 30 September 2025 was not revoked or amended by the UPC Court of Appeal.

The English court's judgment 5 March 2026

At the hearing, Amazon repeated the declaration before Mr Justice Meade. In a detailed judgment, Mr Justice Meade acceded to Amazon's declaration but expressed "very considerable reservations".

He characterised the declaration as "a purely performative statement of Amazon's intention" that is "not a declaration required by me, or a declaration made by me, and is not an undertaking to me that InterDigital or anyone else can enforce".

He noted that the Mannheim LD's requirement had come despite the fact that InterDigital had repeatedly told the English court that Amazon was not in breach of the UPC order and that it did not object to final RAND proceedings taking place in England. He also observed that the parties had been "very close to agreeing" a mutual de-escalation, but the Mannheim LD had "effectively prevented the parties progressing their discussions any further, even though they would like to".

Mr Justice Meade used his judgment to make extensive observations on judicial communication in SEP/FRAND cases, as well as on the issue of comity. He identified significant problems with the current system of communication via judgments and orders, noting the long turnaround times and the risk of a miscommunication.

He highlighted that the Mannheim LD had overlooked passages in his earlier judgment that directly answered questions that the Mannheim LD regarded as important, and reiterated his concern that the Mannheim LD had continued to use transcripts of argument from his court to infer his legal reasoning, contrary to his earlier guidance that such transcripts are not reliable for that purpose. He called for a "structured and transparent way of communicating directly between courts".

On comity, Mr Justice Meade made five specific observations:

• The UPC anti-suit injunction (ASI) had permanently blocked an arguable contractual claim to an interim licence, rather than directing it to a more appropriate forum.
• The balance between deterrence and permanent deprivation of rights ought to be part of a comity analysis.
• The extension of the ASI to final RAND relief could not be justified by any deterrent effect on InterDigital, since InterDigital itself did not object to Amazon pursuing final relief.
• Final RAND relief is a claim to substantive, permanent legal rights, unlike interim relief (which is procedural in nature).
• Blocking part of another court's proceedings is inherently disruptive and the Mannheim LD should have considered the effect of its order on the management of the English proceedings.

Mr Justice Meade also "respectfully but profoundly" questioned the Mannheim LD's decision to prevent the parties from finalising a mutual agreement to withdraw anti-suit relief. He noted that in other recent FRAND cases, sophisticated parties had successfully simplified complex multi-jurisdictional disputes by agreement, and questioned why the Mannheim LD would compel InterDigital to maintain an ASI that it was prepared to release.

The list of issues for the English court's September RAND trial will not include Amazon's claim for damages insofar as it relates to UPC territories. 

UPC order 9 March 2026: compliance in question

Despite Amazon's declaration, the Mannheim LD issued a further order questioning whether Amazon had, in fact, met its obligations to the court. The UPC noted that, according to the documents produced, Amazon had "only repeated verbatim the declaration it made to this Court before the UK High Court in translation without putting the declaration into legally binding effect in the UK proceedings by way of a respective request, withdrawal of relief or other application".

It highlighted Mr Justice Meade's own characterisation of the declaration as a "purely performative statement" that is not enforceable, and questioned how this could be reconciled with Amazon's obligations.

The Mannheim LD also noted that a revised UK order of 9 March 2026 contained a new paragraph limiting the issues for the RAND trial so as to exclude Amazon's damages claim to the extent the event causing the damage is the continuation of UPC infringement proceedings. 

However, it questioned whether this order was based on Amazon's own procedural request or the judge's own motion, whether the "liberty to apply" provision meant the order could be altered, and how it could be reconciled with the judge's characterisation of the declaration as non-enforceable. The UPC ordered Amazon to clarify these points by 18 March 2026.

The Mannheim LD also expressed concern about Mr Justice Meade's characterisation of the UPC having notified the EU competition authorities as "an escalation", describing this characterisation in turn as "a further step of escalation of the inter-jurisdictional conflict".

Osborne Clarke comment

These developments evidence the depth of the jurisdictional impasse between the UPC and the English court. The UPC has compelled Amazon to limit its damages claims, overriding the expressed wishes of both parties. While the English court has de-escalated, this appears only to have been a pragmatic concession, not an acceptance of the UPC's reasoning.

The UPC's focus on the practical deterrent effect of damages, treating them as functionally equivalent to coercive measures (such as contempt of court), remains fundamentally at odds with the English court's view that they represent potentially legitimate contractual relief. That said, contempt proceedings would require InterDigital to decline to comply with an order of the English court, so arguably are predicated on an assumption that InterDigital would refuse to comply with one. It is also worth noting that the English court has not yet considered whether specific performance of the ITU-T RAND obligation is an available remedy.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of these developments is the UPC's decision to prevent the parties from settling their anti-suit battles on mutually acceptable terms. Both Amazon and InterDigital were, by all accounts, close to agreement. Further, InterDigital has consistently maintained before the English court that it does not consider Amazon to be in breach of the UPC order and that it does not object to final RAND relief being pursued in England.

The UPC's intervention to block this settlement, on the basis that it does not align with the UPC's doctrinal position on international FRAND jurisdiction, raises serious questions about the role of a court in party-driven dispute resolution. 

Mr Justice Meade's five-point comity analysis, particularly his observation that the extension of the ASI to final relief cannot be justified by any deterrent effect on InterDigital, since InterDigital itself does not object, provides a powerful counterpoint to the UPC's position. Even anti-suit injunctions, while a powerful coercive remedy, only target parties. They cannot fetter a court's power to grant remedies in themselves; only a party's ability to seek a remedy. In turn, it is unclear why a court would grant anti-suit relief when this relief was not required by a party.

Mr Justice Meade's call for structured and transparent direct judicial communication is a welcome development. However, the prospects of its adoption remain uncertain. This is particularly so because of the UPC's continued reliance on transcripts from English proceedings to determine what the judge "thinks or concludes", despite the English court's express guidance to the contrary, and the UPC's criticism of the English court for matters such as expedition of proceedings.

The UPC's suggestion that expedition of UK proceedings for final relief could constitute "circumvention of an anti-interim licence injunction" is a particularly concerning escalation, as it implies that a foreign court's case management decisions could themselves be treated as breaches of the UPC's order. Arguably, it also suggests that the UPC's real concern is with the potential for specific performance of the ITU-T contract itself, rather than the facts of this specific case. It is a reminder of the difficulties that arise where jurisdictions have fundamentally different procedural frameworks.

The next key development in this ongoing saga (following Amazon's response on 18 March 2026) will be the hearing of Amazon's substantive appeal before the UPC Court of Appeal, listed for 28 May 2026. Its outcome, and the subsequent treatment of English court-determined licences by the UPC when raised as a defence, will be watched closely by both SEP holders and implementers. In particular, it will be interesting to see how the UPC Court of Appeal rationalises this dispute with the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction and its recent decision in FujiFilm v Kodak.

In the meantime, the English court has reserved the right to reconsider making an order of its own motion against InterDigital if necessary; a possibility that adds a further layer of uncertainty to an already complex jurisdictional landscape.