Amazon.Com, Inc. [& ors] v Interdigital VC Holdings,
Inc. [& ors] – Meade J –[2026] EWHC 499 (Pat)
– 05 March 2026

Mr Justice Meade permitted Amazon to make a declaration limiting
its RAND action in the UK, as ordered by the Mannheim Local
Division of the UPC. The Mannheim LD required Amazon to make the
declaration in the UPC and UK proceedings to prevent it from being
in contempt of the anti-suit injunction the Mannheim LD had
ordered. Meade reluctantly accepted the declaration and provided a
series of useful obiter comments on judicial communication, comity,
and de-escalation between the courts and between parties in
multi-jurisdictional FRAND/RAND cases.

Background

The dispute concerns InterDigital’s allegation that Amazon
infringed its video‑technology patents. Amazon sought an
interim licence and UK determination of RAND terms, which led
InterDigital to obtain anti‑suit injunctions from the Munich
Regional Court and the Mannheim LD of the UPC, as well as to
challenge jurisdiction in the UK. The jurisdictional challenge was
unsuccessful, and the UK Court granted an
anti‑anti‑suit injunction restraining InterDigital from
enforcing the UPC and German injunctions. Following a hearing on 27
February, the UPC ordered Amazon to make a declaration limiting its
final RAND relief in the UK. It concluded that Amazon was in breach
of the anti‑suit injunction it had granted, even though both
parties had agreed before the UK Court that the injunction did not
apply to final UK RAND determination.

Meade J’s key comments

Judicial Communications

The Court criticised the current system where courts learn about
the progression of parallel proceedings only through delayed
judgments and orders or through party‑driven submissions and
summaries of what occurred before another tribunal. Both channels
are unreliable, judgments arrive too slowly, and party accounts
inevitably filter, or may even mischaracterise what was said.
Hearing transcripts are also not authoritative and risk being
misused. A court might mistakenly infer judicial reasoning or
conclusions from hypothetical points explored during a hearing
which appear on the transcript. This system of indirect
communication contributed to the prolonged misunderstanding between
the UK Court and the Mannheim LD over the scope of the UPC
injunction. Cases of this kind would benefit from a system of
direct judicial communication, enabling courts to resolve
uncertainties promptly.

Comity

While the UK Court recognised that different courts can reach
different conclusions without impairing comity, Meade J observed
that the UK and Mannheim LD appeared to be working from different
understandings of what comity required in this case. The UPC
injunction did not redirect Amazon’s interim‑licence
request to another forum but permanently prevented Amazon from
seeking interim relief anywhere. The UPC’s justification was
that interim relief in the UK might deter InterDigital from
bringing infringement proceedings before the UPC but the UK Court
observed that a proper comity analysis requires careful attention
to the distinction between outrightly preventing a litigant from
pursuing an arguable contractual claim and merely deterring a
litigant from filing proceedings elsewhere.

The UK Court was also troubled by the Mannheim LD’s
interpretation of its own injunction as extending to final RAND
relief. This was difficult to reconcile with comity, and the
deterrence rationale underpinning the injunction in relation to a
UK interim licence did not apply as InterDigital had repeatedly
confirmed before the UK Court that it did not object to Amazon
pursuing final RAND relief in the UK. The UK Court further noted
that final relief is substantive in nature and therefore far less
appropriate for anti‑suit restraint than interim relief,
which is more procedural.

The Court considered that anti‑suit injunctions in these
cases inherently pose a comity risk. Even though they are directed
at the litigant rather than the foreign court, their practical
effect is to constrain the conduct of proceedings elsewhere. Here,
the UPC injunction made an already complex,
multi‑jurisdictional dispute more to case manage, as it
forced the UK Court to navigate uncertainty over which parts of its
own proceedings could continue. Courts granting anti‑suit
injunctions should give careful thought to the proceedings they
will influence and ensure the terms of the injunction are made
completely clear, so that the impact on parallel proceedings is
properly understood.

De-escalation

The UK Court was disappointed that the Mannheim LD did not
engage with de‑escalation in this case, as its latest
decision maintained a block on aspects of final RAND relief in the
UK that neither party wanted. This approach did not reduce tension
between the courts and, risked increasing it. The Mannheim LD’s
obiter suggestion that Amazon’s attempts to expedite the UK
RAND trial might amount to a “circumvention” of its
injunction was also troubling, as it raised the possibility that a
future litigant might be penalised simply for seeking expedited
F/RAND relief in the UK.

The UK Court stressed that sophisticated litigants in complex
FRAND disputes should be free to resolve parts of their global
litigation by agreement, including withdrawing anti‑suit
injunction claims. The parties in this case had come very close to
settling their injunction skirmishes on mutually acceptable terms,
but the UPC’s orders halted that process despite the UPC itself
having earlier encouraged agreement. Meade J’s observed that
all courts should support, rather than inhibit, parties’
efforts to reach settlement and should avoid steps that place
unnecessary obstacles in the way of consensual
de‑escalation.

Conclusion

Although much of the judgment is obiter, it underscores the
systemic risks posed by anti‑suit injunctions in parallel SEP
disputes. Particularly where they are unclear in scope or extend to
final relief contrary to the parties’ intentions. The judgment
is a highly unusual intervention by the UK Court and reflects
judicial frustration at the escalating anti-suit conflicts and
signals a preference for de‑escalation both judicial and
party‑led. Meade J has also provided a potential roadmap for
how courts might better manage and coordinate international
SEP/FRAND litigation.

For more info please click here

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.