“An interim Venice judges’ conference is desperately needed”

Once a year in October, European patent judges meet in Venice for the European Judges’ Forum. The idea behind the so-called Venice conference is for judges to engage in a friendly exchange of ideas behind closed doors. Lawyers and other patent experts are only admitted in exceptional cases. Unlike other conferences, where publicity is high and participants are accordingly cautious, the Venice conference encourages frank discussion.

The next Venice conference is still a long way off. Yet now would be an ideal time for judges to talk in person. At least, that is the conclusion one comes to when looking at the latest orders and decisions from the UK High Court and the UPC. In the streaming licence dispute between InterDigital and Amazon, the two courts are adopting increasingly harsh tones towards each other.

It’s not what you say, but how you say it

In his latest order in the AILI dispute between the two opponents (case ID: UPC_CFI_936/2025), presiding judge of the local division Mannheim, Peter Tochtermann, wrote last week, “The Panel is troubled by the UK judge, in his Judgement, openly criticising the UPC as a European Court for having fulfilled its obligations under EU regulations to inform the EU authorities about the present proceedings.” He addressed this as a further step in the escalation of the interjurisdictional conflict.

This paragraph comes at the end of the order, which deals with the question of whether Amazon had made a binding declaration to the UK High Court a week earlier. The local division had previously demanded this from Amazon, threatening a severe penalty otherwise. Amazon was to declare that it would refrain from claiming damages against the SEP holder in the UK main proceedings, so that the SEP holder would not be prevented from pursuing its UPC claims.

Amazon duly submitted the declaration to the UK High Court on 5 March, and judge Richard Meade allowed Amazon to submit it in a ruling on the same day (case ID: HP-2025-000043). However, this was not legally binding enough for UPC judge Tochtermann. He also felt compelled to respond to his UK colleague’s comments on the topics of “comity” and “de-escalation”.

Clash of judges

In his previous order, Richard Meade wrote: “I genuinely hoped that the UPC LD would respond in kind, but regrettably there is nothing about de-escalation in the 22 December decision which, on the contrary, expands the criticism of the UK view of (F)RAND and interim licences and increases the areas of contention by informing the EU competition authorities.”

Meade also added, “This judgment deals with what I hope will be the conclusion, for the moment at least, of the unfortunate chain of events flowing from InterDigital’s obtaining last autumn in Germany and the UPC of anti-suit relief directed against parts of these proceedings.”

“The desire is to de-escalate, but the opposite is occurring”

This primarily refers to the AILI issued by the Mannheim local division in favour of InterDigital against potential interim licence proceedings at the UK High Court. Meade repeatedly emphasises his respect for his UPC colleagues. Both courts also emphasise their desire to de-escalate the dispute, but the exact opposite is occurring.

Every order is now followed by an immediate reaction from the other court. They issue orders at ever shorter intervals, often leaving the parties and their lawyers only a few days or even hours to respond. The judges’ comments on the behaviour of the other court are often not directly related to the actual reason for the orders. Their tone in particular is increasingly sharp, say observers.

Detached from the actual case

Despite the many stages in the case, as set out in JUVE Patent’s overview, the courts have still not even reached the heart of the dispute: Does Amazon infringe InterDigital’s streaming SEPs (UPC and Munich Regional Court) or what is the value of the RAND licence that Amazon should pay to InterDigital (UK High Court). The parties are still arguing about the consequences of the AILI and AASI from the local division Mannheim and the UK High Court, respectively. Amazon has not yet applied to the UK High Court for an interim licence.

“The case has become detached from the real subject”

There are rumblings that an uneasy feeling has crept in. The case has become detached from what is actually the subject of the dispute. This was neither planned nor foreseen. Both camps are obviously experiencing a loss of control. Counsel dare not say things in one courtroom for fear it could result in sanctions from the other.

The case is also subject to enormous media attention, which seems to be further inflaming tempers.

Working together instead of against each other

These are harbingers of a troubling development. Both the UK court and the UPC are clearly trying to protect their own jurisdiction. That is their right. What has developed from this is an intra-European tussle over competence. The judges involved do not seem entirely comfortable with this either, as it is clear from their reciprocal orders that they would secretly have preferred to avoid this wrangling.

The next major event in the dispute is Amazon’s appeal against the AILI from the local division Mannheim on 28 May in Luxembourg (case ID: UPC-COA-0000936/2025). Those involved hope that the situation will have calmed down considerably by then.

There is also the hope that InterDigital and Amazon will settle after all. However, experts believe this is rather unlikely because too much money is at stake. Even if the current dispute consumes an incredible amount of time and legal fees, a settlement is still a long way off.

“Judges in other countries are probably rubbing their hands with glee”

According to one expert, with the advent of streaming providers there is suddenly a lot of money riding on the audio and video streaming patents. The old mechanisms with which the parties concluded licence agreements in the pre-streaming era no longer work. InterDigital, Nokia, Amazon, Walt Disney, Warner Bros Discovery and others are currently struggling to find new methods.

In the other major SEP jurisdictions of China, Brazil and the US, judges are probably rubbing their hands with glee as they watch the skirmishes unfold among their European colleagues. These are the inevitable consequence of the introduction of the UPC and subsequent shakeup of the European system. But the European judges would be well advised to pull together so as to hold fast in the international competition between courts. But Venice conference or not, it might be worth picking up the phone and talking in person instead of through court orders.

Unique case

But let’s be clear: ultimately, the development in InterDigital vs Amazon is probably just an isolated case. Should similar disputes arise, the parties will have learned from this case. In November, Warner Bros Discovery directly applied for a much broader AASI or anti-AILI against Nokia. This also included orders to protect the UK FRAND-rate-setting procedure. The UK High Court then granted these. There were no tussles like in InterDigital vs Amazon.

However, current events also show that new creative approaches, such as the first-ever AILI applications in Germany filed by InterDigital, must always be carefully considered. After all, in the competition between European courts, it is impossible to predict where such methods will ultimately lead.