Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

The Irides Weekly Update is our round-up of patent litigation news highlights from around the world.
 

UK 

High Court rejects InterDigital’s jurisdiction challenge.

On 19 December 2025, Mr Justice Meade handed down his judgment in Amazon v InterDigital concerning InterDigital’s challenge to the English Court’s jurisdiction. This jurisdictional challenge was brought against the backdrop of Amazon’s earlier claim, issued in August 2025, by which Amazon seeks declarations that it is entitled to a RAND licence to certain InterDigital UK Standard Essential Patent's (SEPs) and determination of those terms. The Court rejected all of the grounds raised by InterDigital.

Characterisation of the claims and service in/service out

In line with the UK Court’s established authority, the Court held that (F)RAND claims are properly characterised as claims relating to UK patents (even when the licence sought may be global in scope). The Court confirmed that the (F)RAND obligation operates as a contractual obligation that affects national patent rights, rather than as a free-standing claim for the terms of a global (F)RAND licence. The Court confirmed this characterisation applies irrespective of whether the claim is brought by a patentee or implementer.

InterDigital’s non-enforcement undertakings

The Court held that InterDigital’s undertaking not to enforce any of its UK SEPs did not provide Amazon with the relief it sought – namely a licence on RAND terms – and therefore it was not equivalent to the relief available from the Court. The Court also noted that the complexity of the undertaking created a risk that shortcomings would only be identified later, potentially leaving Amazon worse off than if it had been permitted to pursue its claim to a licence.

InterDigital’s arbitration offer

The Court found InterDigital’s proposal to have the effect of preventing Amazon from continuing its claim in the UK and thereby forcing arbitration on Amazon (who never agreed to arbitrate). The Court emphasised this goes against the principle of arbitration as a consensual process. For these reasons, the Court did not consider Amazon’s refusal to arbitrate as grounds to decline jurisdiction.

Availability of alternative forums (Switzerland and Delaware)

The Court held that InterDigital had failed to discharge its burden of showing that either forum was clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the UK. In assessing forum conveniens, the Court considered a range of factors including applicable law, practicalities for witnesses and documents, timing of relief, expertise and open justice. Amazon also advanced competition law claims alleging abuse of a dominant position through InterDigital’s licensing conduct. The Court recognised that the market in which InterDigital is alleged to be dominant is the UK and that trade is alleged to be affected in the UK. The Court found the competition claims to be a significant factor in deciding that the UK was the most appropriate forum to determine the dispute.
 

US

District Court Judge extends BMW’s Temporary Restraining Order.

Following the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) granted by the US District Court, previously reported here, on 29 December 2025, the Judge extended BMW’s TRO until 13 January 2026 and prohibited Onesta from requesting an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) (or any other analogous claim). The Court found that the status quo should be maintained pending the court’s evaluation of, and ruling on, the Anti-Suit Injunction. The Court also found that there was substantial risk of irreparable harm to BMW as well as to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court in the event of Onesta obtaining and enforcing an AASI in the Munich Regional Court (or elsewhere). A further hearing is scheduled for 13 January 2026.
 

UPC

Local Division maintains Anti-Interim Licence Injunction and clarifies that final RAND relief in the UK could be in breach of the injunction. The Court of Appeal declines to suspend its effect.
[UPC_CFI_936/2025]

By its order dated 22 December 2025 the Mannheim Local Division (LD) continued the Anti-Interim Licence Injunction (AILI) in the InterDigital v Amazon proceedings. The background is that both the German and UPC Courts previously granted injunctive relief on an ex parte basis against Amazon to prevent it from continuing its request in UK proceedings for an interim licence declaration (reported here). This led to an application by Amazon in the UK for an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) to prevent InterDigital from seeking to restrain final relief in the UK proceedings (including a declaration of RAND terms), this AASI was initially granted on an ex parte basis (as reported here). It was subsequently continued by a decision dated 2 December 2025 after hearing both parties, on the basis that there was a high likelihood that InterDigital would seek to expand the injunctive relief in Germany and the UPC to prevent final RAND relief being sought in the UK.

On 26 November 2025, the Munich Regional Court confirmed the AILI it had previously granted (reported here). In the UPC proceedings, Amazon sought to set aside the UPC AILI on the basis that it is legitimately entitled to seek an interim licence declaration (and enforce such a licence) in the UK in accordance with the RAND framework and Swiss law.

In maintaining the injunction, the LD explained that it considered an interim licence is essentially an anti-suit injunction directed to prevent InterDigital from enforcing IP rights in other jurisdictions, including the UPC. Its reasoning was that the aim of an interim licence (whether specific performance is ordered or only merely declaration made that a willing patent owner would enter into one) is to force the patent owner to enter into such an interim licence which then provides the implementer with a contractual defence in other jurisdictions. The UPC considered such measure was "abusive and inappropriate", noting that an interim licence is not needed to protect the UK proceedings and that the UK court is free to impose measures which have effects limited to the UK territory, rather than an interim licence which the UPC considered to be a "far-reaching intrusion into the legal order of a different territory, which violates comity". The Court further noted that it considered an interim licence to be in violation of fundamental property rights, EU antitrust law and in conflict with the TRIPS agreement and as such contrary to the EU order public. It ordered that the EU Commission be provided with a copy of the order maintaining the AILI and previous AILI order.

The UPC went further to consider the position on final relief in the UK. The Court clarified that the AILI order encompasses all measures by a court or a public authority "which directly or indirectly or due to a de facto effect prevent [InterDigital] from pursuing their patent rights before the UPC". As such, while Amazon is free to seek final relief in the UK, it could only do so insofar as the effects of the final relief are "strictly limited to the UK territory and do not attach any negative consequences whatsoever to [InterDigital] for enforcing their patent rights in relation to the UPCA contracting member states". The LD explained that any order which had the effect of coercing the parties to enter into a final RAND licence determined by the UK court would be in breach of the UPC AILI. In this context, the Court noted that the UK AASI, protecting the pursuit of final relief in the UK, may already be in breach of the UPC AILI, depending on the consequences of the final relief when that is ultimately granted. The LD set a penalty of up to €50 million for any non-compliance by Amazon with the order with up to €500,000 per day for continuing non-compliance.

Amazon appealed the order and requested suspensive effect of the order. On 29 December 2025, the UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Amazon’s request for suspensive effect on the basis that Amazon failed to demonstrate the AILI order was "manifestly erroneous" or that it would cause imminent irreversible harm.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal gives guidance on language changes on the grounds of "fairness".
[UPC_COA_903/2025]

In UERAN v Xiaomi the Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the assessment to be taken by the UPC when deciding a request to change the language of proceedings to the language of the patent in suit (English) on grounds of fairness under Art. 49(5) UPCA. The Court emphasised that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account. Relevant factors include the domicile or seat of the parties and the size of the parties relative to each other. The language qualifications of the UPC representatives were less relevant. When balancing the interests of the parties, if all else is equal, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.
 

USA

USPTO announces SEP Working Group.

On 29 December 2025, the USPTO established its Standard Essential Patents (SEP) Working Group (WG), to modernise policy and enforcement regarding patents essential to technical standards. The WG is dedicated to ensuring that all patent holders and innovators are treated fairly and that their rights are protected. It will be comprised of a cross-functional team and intends to use all available USPTO authorities to deliver meaningful policy solutions on SEP related issues. The WG will focus on three core objectives: (1) restoring robust remedies for patent holders, (2) facilitating meaningful participation in standards development and engaging stakeholders, and (3) promoting transparency across the innovation ecosystem.

New episodes: You, Me and the UPC: Case by case

Episode 19: Court of Appeal Upholds First Instance Decision Ruling on Inadmissible Broadening

Episode 20: Paris Central Division Rejects Joinder Application Under r. 340.1 and Maintains Separate Proceedings for Both Infringement and Revocation

View all episodes here