InterDigital hit with ex parte AASI from UK High Court in Amazon case
The pan-European dispute between Amazon and InterDigital is increasingly developing into a race between courts. In an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI), the UK High Court has now prohibited the patent holder from taking legal action in other countries to block the proceedings in the UK. This was the court's reaction to the recent decision at the UPC and Regional Court in Munich.
22 October 2025 by Konstanze Richter
Last week, judge Richard Meade sharply criticised InterDigital for its actions at the Mannheim local division and Munich Regional Court. He also announced an additional hearing by the end of October in which he would hear the jurisdictional challenge and the RAND obligations.
Now, surprisingly, he has issued a temporary AASI against the NPE (case ID: HP-2025-000043). The injunction is valid until the next hearing, which is to take place by 30 October 2025.
Richard Meade
With the ex parte AASI, the High Court aims to prevent InterDigital from blocking the British proceedings, which deal primarily with a determination of a RAND licence, with further legal action. As the court saw a potential risk of InterDigital applying for new anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) at short notice and without warning, the proceedings were conducted without hearing the other side. Judge Meade stated that he considered it very likely “that InterDigital would seek urgent ex parte relief in another court if given notice of this hearing”.
However, the AASI does not prevent InterDigital from conducting patent infringement proceedings before any court or enforcing any resulting judgments or measures.
Vexation and oppression
Once again, judge Meade criticised InterDigital’s approach, arguing that it could be construed as vexation and oppression, due to the “extremely tactical and constantly changing position of InterDigital about whether final relief is or is not within the proper scope of these proceedings or may be restrained by the ASIs”.
According to Judge Meade, at the hearing in early October, InterDigital eventually accepted that final RAND relief was not blocked by the ASIs. But, Meade stated, “that followed a good deal of to-ing and fro-ing in which I understood InterDigital first to say that final RAND relief was blocked in a letter and then to say that the letter had been misconstrued”.
At the same time, Meade emphasised his ruling had no effect on the ASIs from the UPC and the German national court: “I make clear at the outset of this judgment that what I am asked to do today does not impact on the ASIs. Amazon has applied or intends to apply for a review of each ASI in the court that granted it, but in the meantime it is respecting them, including in this court. It is not now pursuing any interim licence relief, which is what the ASIs were clearly and explicitly directed against.”
The UPC’s local division Mannheim recently scheduled a hearing for 14 November (case ID: UPC_CFI_936/2025).
Hogan Lovells and Bird & Bird
In the UK Amazon relies on a Hogan Lovells team led by Paul Brown. This time Anton Dudnikov of Essex Court Chambers and Henry Ward of 8 New Square acted as barristers in the hearing. At the UPC, Amazon is working with Klaus Haft of Hoyng ROKH Monegier.
In the UK proceedings, InterDigital retains a team from Bird & Bird, led by Richard Vary, while in the German proceedings as well as at the UPC, litigators from Arnold Ruess and patent attorneys from df-mp represent the NPE.
