Amazon.Com, Inc. [& ors] v Interdigital VC Holdings,
\nInc. [& ors] \u2013 Meade J \u2013[2026] EWHC 499 (Pat)
\n\u2013 05 March 2026<\/p>\n
Mr Justice Meade permitted Amazon to make a declaration limiting
\nits RAND action in the UK, as ordered by the Mannheim Local
\nDivision of the UPC. The Mannheim LD required Amazon to make the
\ndeclaration in the UPC and UK proceedings to prevent it from being
\nin contempt of the anti-suit injunction the Mannheim LD had
\nordered. Meade reluctantly accepted the declaration and provided a
\nseries of useful obiter comments on judicial communication, comity,
\nand de-escalation between the courts and between parties in
\nmulti-jurisdictional FRAND\/RAND cases.<\/p>\n
Background<\/p>\n
The dispute concerns InterDigital’s allegation that Amazon
\ninfringed its video\u2011technology patents. Amazon sought an
\ninterim licence and UK determination of RAND terms, which led
\nInterDigital to obtain anti\u2011suit injunctions from the Munich
\nRegional Court and the Mannheim LD of the UPC, as well as to
\nchallenge jurisdiction in the UK. The jurisdictional challenge was
\nunsuccessful, and the UK Court granted an
\nanti\u2011anti\u2011suit injunction restraining InterDigital from
\nenforcing the UPC and German injunctions. Following a hearing on 27
\nFebruary, the UPC ordered Amazon to make a declaration limiting its
\nfinal RAND relief in the UK. It concluded that Amazon was in breach
\nof the anti\u2011suit injunction it had granted, even though both
\nparties had agreed before the UK Court that the injunction did not
\napply to final UK RAND determination.<\/p>\n
Meade J’s key comments<\/p>\n
Judicial Communications<\/p>\n
The Court criticised the current system where courts learn about
\nthe progression of parallel proceedings only through delayed
\njudgments and orders or through party\u2011driven submissions and
\nsummaries of what occurred before another tribunal. Both channels
\nare unreliable, judgments arrive too slowly, and party accounts
\ninevitably filter, or may even mischaracterise what was said.
\nHearing transcripts are also not authoritative and risk being
\nmisused. A court might mistakenly infer judicial reasoning or
\nconclusions from hypothetical points explored during a hearing
\nwhich appear on the transcript. This system of indirect
\ncommunication contributed to the prolonged misunderstanding between
\nthe UK Court and the Mannheim LD over the scope of the UPC
\ninjunction. Cases of this kind would benefit from a system of
\ndirect judicial communication, enabling courts to resolve
\nuncertainties promptly.<\/p>\n
Comity<\/p>\n
While the UK Court recognised that different courts can reach
\ndifferent conclusions without impairing comity, Meade J observed
\nthat the UK and Mannheim LD appeared to be working from different
\nunderstandings of what comity required in this case. The UPC
\ninjunction did not redirect Amazon’s interim\u2011licence
\nrequest to another forum but permanently prevented Amazon from
\nseeking interim relief anywhere. The UPC’s justification was
\nthat interim relief in the UK might deter InterDigital from
\nbringing infringement proceedings before the UPC but the UK Court
\nobserved that a proper comity analysis requires careful attention
\nto the distinction between outrightly preventing a litigant from
\npursuing an arguable contractual claim and merely deterring a
\nlitigant from filing proceedings elsewhere.<\/p>\n
The UK Court was also troubled by the Mannheim LD’s
\ninterpretation of its own injunction as extending to final RAND
\nrelief. This was difficult to reconcile with comity, and the
\ndeterrence rationale underpinning the injunction in relation to a
\nUK interim licence did not apply as InterDigital had repeatedly
\nconfirmed before the UK Court that it did not object to Amazon
\npursuing final RAND relief in the UK. The UK Court further noted
\nthat final relief is substantive in nature and therefore far less
\nappropriate for anti\u2011suit restraint than interim relief,
\nwhich is more procedural.<\/p>\n
The Court considered that anti\u2011suit injunctions in these
\ncases inherently pose a comity risk. Even though they are directed
\nat the litigant rather than the foreign court, their practical
\neffect is to constrain the conduct of proceedings elsewhere. Here,
\nthe UPC injunction made an already complex,
\nmulti\u2011jurisdictional dispute more to case manage, as it
\nforced the UK Court to navigate uncertainty over which parts of its
\nown proceedings could continue. Courts granting anti\u2011suit
\ninjunctions should give careful thought to the proceedings they
\nwill influence and ensure the terms of the injunction are made
\ncompletely clear, so that the impact on parallel proceedings is
\nproperly understood.<\/p>\n
De-escalation<\/p>\n
The UK Court was disappointed that the Mannheim LD did not
\nengage with de\u2011escalation in this case, as its latest
\ndecision maintained a block on aspects of final RAND relief in the
\nUK that neither party wanted. This approach did not reduce tension
\nbetween the courts and, risked increasing it. The Mannheim LD’s
\nobiter suggestion that Amazon’s attempts to expedite the UK
\nRAND trial might amount to a “circumvention” of its
\ninjunction was also troubling, as it raised the possibility that a
\nfuture litigant might be penalised simply for seeking expedited
\nF\/RAND relief in the UK.<\/p>\n
The UK Court stressed that sophisticated litigants in complex
\nFRAND disputes should be free to resolve parts of their global
\nlitigation by agreement, including withdrawing anti\u2011suit
\ninjunction claims. The parties in this case had come very close to
\nsettling their injunction skirmishes on mutually acceptable terms,
\nbut the UPC’s orders halted that process despite the UPC itself
\nhaving earlier encouraged agreement. Meade J’s observed that
\nall courts should support, rather than inhibit, parties’
\nefforts to reach settlement and should avoid steps that place
\nunnecessary obstacles in the way of consensual
\nde\u2011escalation.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
Although much of the judgment is obiter, it underscores the
\nsystemic risks posed by anti\u2011suit injunctions in parallel SEP
\ndisputes. Particularly where they are unclear in scope or extend to
\nfinal relief contrary to the parties’ intentions. The judgment
\nis a highly unusual intervention by the UK Court and reflects
\njudicial frustration at the escalating anti-suit conflicts and
\nsignals a preference for de\u2011escalation both judicial and
\nparty\u2011led. Meade J has also provided a potential roadmap for
\nhow courts might better manage and coordinate international
\nSEP\/FRAND litigation.<\/p>\n