Battle in InterDigital vs Amazon reaches next stage at Court of Appeal

At the centre of the dispute is Amazon’s request for an interim licence at the UK High Court and the UPC’s preliminary measures against it. The situation had escalated over the Christmas period and into the spring, attracting a great deal of attention. By early March, the dispute had developed into a jurisdictional conflict between the UK High Court and the UPC concerning the effect of the UPC’s anti-suit injunction on the UK RAND proceedings.

Today, the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg will hear the appeal against the anti-suit injunction issued by the Mannheim local division last autumn (case ID: UPC-COA-0000936/2025). The first panel of the court will hear the case. But instead of the UPC President Klaus Grabinski, the panel will be presided by Ulrike Voss. The German judge normally leads the third panel of the Court of Appeal. Dutch Peter Blok as judge rapporteur and French Emmanuel Gougé are regular members of the first panel.

In August last year Amazon applied for a declaration of non-infringement in the UK and asked the High Court for a final RAND determination. In September, the UPC local division Mannheim granted InterDigital ex parte provisional measures against Amazon. The court prohibited the US company from seeking an interim licence in the UK, since this would interfere with the UPC’s remit.

No review granted

Amazon then filed an application for review, which the Mannheim division rejected in late December. Amazon appealed that rejection and also filed an application for suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the latter on 29 December 2024.

In today’s hearing, the Court of Appeal will have to deal with the question of whether the anti-suit injunction was lawfully granted. The judges will have to decide if the requirements for granting ex parte relief, such as urgency, risk of irreparable harm and proportionality were met.

Further questions are whether there was a sufficient likelihood of infringement of patent-in-suit EP 2 449 782, on which the preliminary injunction was based, and whether the patent was sufficiently likely to withstand validity challenges in expedited proceedings.

Dispute over jurisdiction

During the course of the dispute, however, the UK High Court did not remain idle either. On 20 October, the UK High Court issued an anti-anti-suit injunction against InterDigital. This prohibited InterDigital from taking legal action in other countries to block the proceedings in the UK. It further led to a dispute between the UK court and the UPC. Here, both sides prohibited the parties from taking action in the other court in order to protect their own jurisdiction.

It was not until March that the situation eased somewhat. The two courts allowed the parties to take conciliatory measures. As the case stands today, Amazon has limited its claims for damages in the UK case. The RAND trial in the UK remains scheduled for September 2026. The UPC local division in Mannheim continues to examine whether Amazon has fully complied with its ASI.

Since March, both courts, the opposing parties and their advisers have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of today’s hearing. Specifically, what the UPC Court of Appeal will decide on the broader dispute regarding the scope of the UPC ASI. Accordingly, the case is not only of significant legal implication. It could also determine the future cooperation between the European patent courts.

No additional confidentiality

In a procedural order dating from last week, the Court of Appeal dismissed Amazon’s request to place certain documents under an additional confidentiality regime. The court held that an existing confidentiality order issued by the Mannheim local division already protect the information.

Litigators from Arnold Ruess represent InterDigital together with patent attorneys from df-mp, while Amazon relies on Hoyng ROKH Monegier.

Find out more about the case and its advisors here and here. Read a comprehensive overview over the dispute here.