- within International Law topic(s)
Abstract
Over the past year, interim licenses have become a strategic tool for alleged infringers of standard-essential patents (SEP). An interim license is a court-shaped license that temporarily permits the alleged infringer to lawfully use the standard-essential patent while the litigation proceeds. Such a license may extend beyond just one country, and may accordingly alter parties’ relative leverage during license negotiations. In InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., UPC_CFI_936/2025, Provisional Measures, Unified Patent Court, Mannheim Local Division (Order of Sept. 30, 2025), the Unified Patent Court (UPC) recently granted its first anti-interim-license injunction (AILI), further reshaping this dynamic in multi-jurisdiction cases.
Amazon v. InterDigital
Amazon initiated proceedings in the UK, seeking a license for video coding and decoding telecommunications technology owned by InterDigital, and argued it was entitled to an interim license pending resolution of the proceedings.
While the parties and the UK High Court addressed administrative aspects of the proceedings, InterDigital sought “anti-interim license” injunctions from the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division and the Munich Regional Court I. An anti-interim license prohibits a party from requesting an interim license. In its applications, InterDigital argued there was an urgent need for relief with regard to the UPC and the German territory, claiming that the UK court could—in the near future—issue an interim license that would impact its rights in the respective jurisdictions.
Both the Munich Regional Court I and the UPC granted the injunctions ex parte, i.e. without hearing Amazon. In prohibiting Amazon from asking the UK High Court for an interim license, the Munich Regional Court I reasoned that such a license, if granted, would affect InterDigital’s ability to assert its patent rights in Germany for at least the duration of the interim license. In the judge’s view, a patentee’s ability to enforce its patent locally is central to the patent’s value, and allowing a foreign court to issue an interim license with effect in Germany would unduly interfere with that right. The UPC reached the same conclusion for nearly identical reasons, granting InterDigital an anti-interim license on the basis that an interim license issued by the UK High Court could undermine InterDigital’s ability to enforce its patents within the UPC system. The court characterized its order as defensive in nature, intended to guard InterDigital’s ability to enforce its patent rights in the UPC. The UPC acknowledged that its order could lead to parallel determinations across different jurisdictions but reasoned that this outcome reflects the decisions of the parties. Otherwise, a standard essential patent holder would be forced to submit to UK jurisdiction for global licensing determinations at the expense of abandoning its patent rights in other European courts.
The UK High Court quickly responded to these orders. In a case management hearing, the court offered sharp criticism of InterDigital’s conduct in seeking the anti-interim licenses in Germany and the UPC, suggesting that InterDigital had overstated the urgency and risk of Amazon seeking a preemptive interim license. In addition to criticizing InterDigital, the court granted Amazon an anti-anti-suit injunction, effectively preventing InterDigital from taking any further steps in other courts to restrict the UK’s jurisdiction over the ongoing proceedings.
Strategy and Conclusion
The dispute shows that companies involved in SEP licensing proceedings must continue to think globally and must consider the impact of suits and strategies across borders.
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.
[View Source]
