UPC Anti–Interim Licence Injunction Prompts English Anti–Anti Suit Response

For the first time, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued an injunction to stop a party from seeking an interim licence elsewhere that could disrupt UPC proceedings. The order, granted to InterDigital against Amazon on an ex parte basis in the context of standard‑essential patent (SEP) litigation, prevents Amazon from asking the English courts for interim licence relief or equivalent measures that might hinder UPC actions. In parallel, the Munich Regional Court granted a corresponding order.

The English High Court responded by granting Amazon a temporary anti‑anti‑suit injunction to protect the English Court's ability to determine final RAND relief. Mr Justice Meade's order is time‑limited and calibrated to protect the English Court's jurisdiction while minimising friction with the UPC and German courts. Together, these moves highlight the tactical, cross‑border dynamics of FRAND/RAND disputes and may influence how future European patent cases unfold.

1. Procedural backdrop and the English proceedings

The UPC orders were made ex parte by the Mannheim Local Division, with similar ex parte orders issued by the Munich Regional Court. For context, Amazon began English proceedings in August 2025 to set RAND rates for digital streaming technology governed by ITU‑T standards. Framed as RAND rather than FRAND, Amazon seeks a declaration that it is entitled to be offered a RAND licence and a declaration of both interim and final RAND terms, with any interim terms adjustable after final decision.

2. Why interim licences matter in England

Implementers in England increasingly use interim‑licence applications to secure temporary permission to use SEP technology while the court determines final terms. The tactic permits them to argue in other courts, including the UPC, that they are lawful users in the interim and therefore should not face injunctions.

In 2024, the English Court of Appeal in Panasonic v Xiaomi held that a willing licensor would agree to an interim licence pending the determination of final FRAND terms. English courts have since applied this approach even where the SEP owner has not consented to a global FRAND determination in England.

3. Why the UPC granted provisional measures

Applying its standard for provisional measures, the Mannheim Local Division found an imminent risk to its proceedings from the possibility of Amazon filing an English interim‑licence application. It treated such relief as functionally equivalent to restricting litigation within the UPC. The UPC considered the matter urgent, noting the English Courts could act quickly, and found no delay by InterDigital in seeking relief. On the balance of interests, it concluded that an interim‑licence declaration would, in practice, channel the RAND dispute into the English forum and frustrate injunctive relief in other jurisdictions, including the UPC.

4. The UPC's competition‑law lens and Huawei v ZTE

A key thread in the UPC's reasoning was EU competition law, in contrast to the English emphasis on contract principles. The court warned that an English interim‑licence declaration could pressure a SEP owner to accept terms at the lower end of the FRAND range (or even outside it) without first testing whether either side's offers are FRAND‑compliant. In the UPC's view, that conflicts with the CJEU's Huawei v ZTE framework and would run counter to EU public policy if imposed without a FRAND assessment. At the same time, the UPC characterised its order as defensive—designed to shield ongoing UPC proceedings—while acknowledging that the English courts remain free to decide how to calculate RAND rates.

5. Scope, penalties, and next steps at the UPC

The UPC issued ex parte anti‑interim‑licence injunctions against Amazon and attached daily financial penalties for non‑compliance. InterDigital was given time to start proceedings on the merits, and Amazon was granted time to seek a review of the orders.

6. The English court's case‑management response

At a subsequent English case management conference, Mr Justice Meade held that the foreign orders prevent Amazon from seeking interim relief but do not bar the English Court from deciding final RAND terms. The Judge also expressed reservations about InterDigital's evidence before the UPC. He noted that it conveyed a sense of urgency he considered "wildly unlikely almost to the point of inconceivable" and he highlighted apparent inconsistencies between InterDigital's urgency positions in England and at the UPC. The Judge has permitted InterDigital to respond on these points.

7. The anti‑anti‑suit injunction to protect final English relief

Later, on 20 October 2025, the English Court heard Amazon's ex parte application for an anti‑anti‑suit injunction against InterDigital. Framed not as a challenge to the UPC or Munich courts, the application sought to prevent interference with the English court's determination of final relief, including final RAND terms. The Court accepted it was reasonably arguable that anti‑suit measures—whether labelled anti‑interim‑licence injunctions or otherwise—could undermine the English Court's jurisdiction over the scope, price, and terms of a final RAND licence. In granting interim relief, the English Court relied on two independent grounds: protecting jurisdiction and restraining vexatious or oppressive conduct. Further, proceeding ex parte was justified given the real risk of urgent counter‑measures if InterDigital were given notice.

8. The wider context and what it means

These decisions spotlight a growing divergence between EU and English approaches to FRAND/RAND disputes. EU courts apply competition‑law principles derived from Huawei v ZTE. English courts take a contract‑centric path and, in appropriate cases, are open to interim licences pending final adjustment after trial.

This contrast sits alongside shifts in jurisdictional doctrine, including the CJEU's BSH v Electrolux decision and the UPC's increasingly expansive cross‑border reach in certain contexts. Against that backdrop, the Mannheim Local Division's focus on protecting UPC infringement proceedings from the practical effects of foreign interim‑licence declarations reflects a broader tension: expansive cross‑border adjudication versus preservation of forum autonomy. Divergent views within jurisdictions—illustrated, for example, in Panasonic v Xiaomi—underscore how unsettled the terrain remains.

9. Practical takeaways for SEP owners and implementers

For both SEP holders and implementers, timing and forum selection are critical, and interim applications must be carefully calibrated. An interim‑licence request in one venue may trigger defensive anti‑suit or anti‑anti‑suit measures in another, reshaping where and how infringement and licensing issues are decided. Courts are likely to act swiftly to safeguard their own proceedings and will closely scrutinise the accuracy and completeness of evidence supporting ex parte relief.

With the English anti‑anti‑suit injunction due for a return hearing in October 2025 and the UPC set for an inter partes review in November 2025, the situation remains fluid. The outcome will influence the interplay between FRAND/RAND undertakings, national patent rights, and competition law across European jurisdictions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.