UK Supreme Court hands Tesla landmark win in Avanci 5G pool licence dispute

The UK Supreme Court has allowed Tesla’s appeal in the dispute over the terms of a licence to SEPs on the Avanci 5G platform. In a unanimous judgment delivered by judges Nicholas Hamblen and David Kitchin, the court held that there is a serious issue to be tried regarding Tesla’s claims for declaratory relief against both Avanci and InterDigital, and that the English courts have jurisdiction to rule on them (case ID: UKSC/2025/0058/A).

Landmark decision

The decision marks the first time a court outside China has confirmed jurisdiction to set a FRAND rate for a global patent pool licence. Tesla had complained that Avanci offered its 5G platform licence at a non-negotiable flat rate of $32 per vehicle, which the carmaker considers to far exceed a FRAND rate. Tesla wishes to launch 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK, its fourth-largest market globally, and has undertaken to accept a licence on FRAND terms determined by the court.

The judgment overturns the July 2024 ruling by High Court judge Timothy Fancourt and the March 2025 majority decision of the Court of Appeal, both of which had held that Tesla could not seek a FRAND determination for the entire 5G pool administered by Avanci. Court of Appeal judge Richard Arnold had dissented from the majority view, and the Supreme Court has now largely adopted his reasoning.

The UK High Court will now have to examine on the merits whether the demanded rate of $32 per vehicle is actually FRAND-compliant or whether, as Tesla argues, the rate is significantly too high.

FRAND obligation extends to pools

At the heart of the ruling is the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the FRAND obligation undertaken by SEP owners under the ETSI IPR Policy does not cease to apply when those owners choose to licence their patents jointly through a pool or platform. The court found that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the only FRAND licence available to Tesla in respect of InterDigital’s UK SEPs on the Avanci 5G Platform is a global platform licence at a FRAND rate.

Judges Hamblen and Kitchin noted that commercial practice is central to interpreting the FRAND obligation. Given that the Avanci 5G platform brings together 89 SEP owners licensing 86 brands, amounting to the equivalent of over 7,500 bilateral licences, the court accepted Tesla’s argument that bilateral licensing is not, as a matter of commercial reality, a viable alternative for many implementers. The judges also took into account Avanci’s own public position that its platform rate is FRAND, and evidence that some pool licensors rely on the availability of the platform licence to fulfil their FRAND obligation.

The court rejected the view of the majority of the Court of Appeal that an offer of a pool or platform licence is a purely voluntary commercial offer to which the FRAND obligation does not apply. It also held that considerations of procedural fairness do not require all pool licensors to be joined to the proceedings, as Avanci itself is the essential party in any assessment of the platform terms.

Jurisdictional issues resolved

The Supreme Court also addressed a series of jurisdictional issues that had been the subject of extensive argument. The judges confirmed that the licensing claims against InterDigital, which owns the three challenged UK patents, were properly served under CPR rule 63.14(2), the rule permitting service on a party at the address provided for a registered right at the UK Intellectual Property Office. The court held that Tesla’s claims “relate to” those UK patents because a licence would constitute a defence to any infringement claim.

The judges endorsed the line of case law beginning with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Vestel vs Access Advance, holding that the subject matter of a claim for a FRAND licence of UK SEPs remains the UK patents, even where the only FRAND licence available would be a global licence covering foreign patents. On that basis, the claims against InterDigital also satisfy both Gateway 3 and Gateway 11 of the CPR.

On the question of forum, the court upheld judge Richard Arnold’s conclusion that the Delaware Court of Chancery is not an available alternative forum, as US courts would be unlikely to adjudicate on FRAND terms for foreign patents.

Wider implications

The ruling has significant implications for the licensing of SEPs across a wide range of industries. Written interventions in the appeal were filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the International Centre for Law & Economics, ACT | The App Association, the Fair Standards Alliance and the Motion Picture Association, reflecting the importance of pool and platform licensing beyond the automotive sector. The court noted that pools now account for a very significant proportion of licensing in fields including telecommunications, consumer electronics, streaming services and the Internet of Things.

The Supreme Court also confirmed that Tesla’s submitted case includes, in the alternative, a claim for a bilateral licence from InterDigital covering its global SEP portfolio, contrary to the majority view in the Court of Appeal. The patent validity proceedings concerning three InterDigital UK SEPs remain stayed as a matter of case management.

Tried and tested teams

A team from the London IP boutique Powell Gilbert represented Tesla. Partners Pete Damerell, and Bethan Hopewell led the team and have advised the US car manufacturer throughout the proceedings.

Daniel Alexander and Andrew Lykiardopoulos of 8 New Square led the barrister team. They argued the case, with support from Ligia Osepciu of Monckton Chambers. Although he did not attend the hearing, James Segan of Blackstone Chambers was also involved in the case.

InterDigital continued to rely on Gowling WLG for its solicitor representation, with Alexandra Brodie leading the team. Andrew Maggs, Nick Cunningham, and Felicity Wade-Palmer assisted. Thomas Raphael of Twenty Essex led the barrister team, which included Maxwell Keay of 8 New Square and Sophie Ryan.

Avanci instructed both Osborne Clarke, with partner Arty Rajendra leading the team, and EIP, where Gary Moss and Owen Waugh advised the pool operator. Brian Nicholson KC and Kathryn Pickard KC of 11 South Square appeared as counsel, together with Miruna Bercariu. Moss and Rajendra have previously worked together on SEP cases, such as Unwired Planet vs Huawei, which led to the landmark SEP ruling by the UK Supreme Court in 2019.