InterDigital vs Amazon – A chronology of the escalation

InterDigital is suing for the infringement of ten patents in courts across Germany, the US, Brazil and the UPC. All patents-in-suit relate to video content compression and picture quality improvement through high dynamic range (HDR) technology.

InterDigital claims Amazon infringes these patents with devices such as FireTV and Kindle, as well as through its services such as Prime Video. When negotiations over a licence to InterDigital’s Videocodex portfolio failed, Amazon initiated RAND-rate determination proceedings before the UK High Court in the summer of 2025.

August 2025

Amazon kicks off the dispute by launching an action against InterDigital at the UK High Court on 29 August. Amazon seeks a declaration of non-infringement, alleging InterDigital has abused a dominant position. Amazon also seeks declarations concerning InterDigital’s obligations under the ITU-T FRAND commitment. The claimant asks the court for a final RAND relief.

September 2025

InterDigital obtains two anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) against Amazon. The first comes from the Regional Court Munich, followed by another from the UPC. In its order dated 30 September, the local division Mannheim prevents Amazon from seeking an interim licence in the UK, since this would interfer with the UPC’s remit. Thus the ASI is in fact an anti-interim-licence injunction (AILI). The purpose is to ensure that potential UPC patent infringement proceedings would not be affected by interim licensing determinations made in the UK.

Both the German court and the UPC make their decisions ex parte so defendants cannot pre-empt them with UK applications.

October 2025

Blocked by the ASIs from applying for an interim licence, Amazon requests the UK High Court move forward the hearing on jurisdiction. The court originally planned to hear the case by the end of January 2026. Amazon also applies to expedite the RAND main trial.

In a case management hearing on 9 October, judge Richard Meade declines to deal with the question of expediting the RAND trial. He schedules an additional hearing for the end of October to hear the jurisdictional challenge and the RAND obligations.

On 20 October, the UK High Court issues an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) against InterDigital, prohibiting InterDigital from taking legal action in other countries to block the proceedings in the UK.

InterDigital then applies to set aside or vary the AASI. In a return date hearing on 30 October, the court maintains the injunction.

November 2025

InterDigital initiates several infringement actions against Amazon. The company files cases with the US Federal District Court in Delaware, the Rio de Janeiro State Court, Munich Regional Court and the UPC local division Mannheim. In total, InterDigital claims infringement of ten patents.

December 2025

In a decision dated 2 December, judge Meade upholds his AASI from October. He states there was a real risk that InterDigital might attempt further anti-suit relief and that such steps could undermine the UK court’s jurisdiction over the final RAND determination.

In the parallel jurisdictional challenge brought by InterDigital, the UK High Court confirms its jurisdiction after the hearing on 3rd and 4th December. In a judgment dated 19 December judge Meade points out that the dispute still concerns UK patents, even if the resulting licence may be global and that this approach follows established case law since Unwired Planet vs Huawei.

The final RAND trial in the UK is then scheduled for September 2026.

On 22 December, the Mannheim local division rejects Amazon’s objection to the ex parte order and thus upholds the AILI. The court indicates that its ASI could also include the final RAND relief and that Amazon was possibly already in breach of it. At the same time, the court orders an unusually high penalty of up to €50,000,000 if Amazon does not comply with the order.

On 23 December, Amazon files an appeal against the order together with an application for suspensive effect. The latter is dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 29 December. The appeal against the AILI is now pending at the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg, with the hearing scheduled for 28 May 2026.

On 24 December, the local division Mannheim informs the European Commission of the AILI orders. This is initially a formal step under EU law. However, it is likely to increase the pressure on Amazon and the UK High Court, as the competition authorities in Brussels are now involved.

February 2026

At the beginning of 2026 uncertainty prevails concerning the scope of the Mannheim local division’s ASI issued in September 2025.

At a hearing at the UK High Court on 4 February, InterDigital declares it does not consider Amazon in breach of the UPC’s ASI. Furthermore the company states that it does not object to the UK court determining final RAND relief at the trial scheduled for September 2026. The parties discuss a possible de-escalation agreement, under which all anti-suit measures (both ASIs and AASIs) would be withdrawn. Judge Meade adjourns the hearing to allow the parties to negotiate such a settlement.

After learning about the UK hearing, the Mannheim local division issues an order on 6 February requesting explanations regarding the UK hearing. In another order dating 11 February, the division then states that claims for damages in the UK proceedings could improperly interfere with UPC jurisdiction. The court indicates that any settlement between the parties would have to comply with the UPC’s interpretation of its ASI and the UPC Rules of Procedure.

At a case management conference before the UK High Court on 12 February, the judge attempts to determine the scope of issues for the September RAND trial. However, the UK court finds it cannot finalise the list of issues for trial. According to a summary of the events laid down in a decision by the UK High Court on 5 March, both parties “had clearly been in touching distance of settling the whole (A)ASI battles but now felt unable to do so” because of the UPC local division’s point about its Rules of Procedure.

In response to the UPC’s concerns, Amazon informs both courts on 25 February that it will withdraw its claim for damages under part of the “final relief” requested in the UK proceedings, insofar as the alleged damage would be based on UPC infringement proceedings. Amazon instead decides to challenge the UPC ASI through an appeal within the UPC system, scheduled for 28 May 2026.

In an order from 27 February, the Mannheim local division finds that Amazon is in breach of its ASI. The court requires the company to make a formal declaration before the UK High Court limiting parts of its RAND claims. The UPC warns that failure to comply could lead to contempt sanctions and significant fines.

March 2026

By early March 2026 the dispute has developed into a jurisdictional conflict between the UK High Court and the UPC concerning the effect of the UPC’s ASI on the UK RAND proceedings.

On 5 March, the UK High Court delivers its judgment addressing the situation. The court allows Amazon to repeat before the UK court the declaration it had made before the UPC and orders that the September RAND trial will not include Amazon’s damages claim insofar as it concerns UPC infringement proceedings. However, judge Meade expresses serious reservations about the UPC’s approach and about the procedural conflict between the courts.

The UK judge emphasises that the declaration is not legally enforceable in the UK proceedings and is merely a statement made in order to comply with the UPC’s demand and to de-escalate the conflict.

The local division Mannheim then issues an order on 9 March in which judge rapporteur Peter Tochtermann states that Amazon has only repeated the declaration before the UK High Court, but has not yet implemented it in a legally binding way under UK procedural law. The UPC therefore questions whether Amazon has fully complied with the requirement imposed during the 27 February hearing.

The court orders Amazon to clarify whether the UK order has binding legal effect, whether Amazon has formally withdrawn the damages claim under UK procedural law and how the UK order can be reconciled with the UK judgment, stating that the declaration has no enforceable legal effect.

As the case stands today, Amazon has limited its damages claims in the UK case. The RAND trial in the UK remains scheduled for September 2026. The UPC continues to examine whether Amazon has fully complied with its ASI.

The UPC Court of Appeal will hear the broader dispute about the scope of the UPC ASI in May 2026.