UK Court Reflects on Anti-suits, Comity and Coordination in RAND Litigation

Amazon.Com, Inc. [& ors] v Interdigital VC Holdings, Inc. [& ors] – Meade J –[2026] EWHC 499 (Pat) – 05 March 2026

Mr Justice Meade permitted Amazon to make a declaration limiting its RAND action in the UK, as ordered by the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC.  The Mannheim LD required Amazon to make the declaration in the UPC and UK proceedings to prevent it from being in contempt of the anti-suit injunction the Mannheim LD had ordered.  Meade reluctantly accepted the declaration and provided a series of useful obiter comments on judicial communication, comity, and de-escalation between the courts and between parties in multi-jurisdictional FRAND/RAND cases.

Background

The dispute concerns InterDigital’s allegation that Amazon infringed its video‑technology patents. Amazon sought an interim licence and UK determination of RAND terms, which led InterDigital to obtain anti‑suit injunctions from the Munich Regional Court and the Mannheim LD of the UPC, as well as to challenge jurisdiction in the UK.  The jurisdictional challenge was unsuccessful, and the UK Court granted an anti‑anti‑suit injunction restraining InterDigital from enforcing the UPC and German injunctions.  Following a hearing on 27 February, the UPC ordered Amazon to make a declaration limiting its final RAND relief in the UK.   It concluded that Amazon was in breach of the anti‑suit injunction it had granted, even though both parties had agreed before the UK Court that the injunction did not apply to final UK RAND determination.

Meade J’s key comments

Judicial Communications 

The Court criticised the current system where courts learn about the progression of parallel proceedings only through delayed judgments and orders or through party‑driven submissions and summaries of what occurred before another tribunal.  Both channels are unreliable, judgments arrive too slowly, and party accounts inevitably filter, or may even mischaracterise what was said.  Hearing transcripts are also not authoritative and risk being misused.  A court might mistakenly infer judicial reasoning or conclusions from hypothetical points explored during a hearing which appear on the transcript.  This system of indirect communication contributed to the prolonged misunderstanding between the UK Court and the Mannheim LD over the scope of the UPC injunction.  Cases of this kind would benefit from a system of direct judicial communication, enabling courts to resolve uncertainties promptly.

Comity

While the UK Court recognised that different courts can reach different conclusions without impairing comity, Meade J observed that the UK and Mannheim LD appeared to be working from different understandings of what comity required in this case.  The UPC injunction did not redirect Amazon’s interim‑licence request to another forum but permanently prevented Amazon from seeking interim relief anywhere.  The UPC’s justification was that interim relief in the UK might deter InterDigital from bringing infringement proceedings before the UPC but the UK Court observed that a proper comity analysis requires careful attention to the distinction between outrightly preventing a litigant from pursuing an arguable contractual claim and merely deterring a litigant from filing proceedings elsewhere.

The UK Court was also troubled by the Mannheim LD’s interpretation of its own injunction as extending to final RAND relief.  This was difficult to reconcile with comity, and the deterrence rationale underpinning the injunction in relation to a UK interim licence did not apply as InterDigital had repeatedly confirmed before the UK Court that it did not object to Amazon pursuing final RAND relief in the UK.  The UK Court further noted that final relief is substantive in nature and therefore far less appropriate for anti‑suit restraint than interim relief, which is more procedural.

The Court considered that anti‑suit injunctions in these cases inherently pose a comity risk.  Even though they are directed at the litigant rather than the foreign court, their practical effect is to constrain the conduct of proceedings elsewhere.  Here, the UPC injunction made an already complex, multi‑jurisdictional dispute more to case manage, as it forced the UK Court to navigate uncertainty over which parts of its own proceedings could continue.  Courts granting anti‑suit injunctions should give careful thought to the proceedings they will influence and ensure the terms of the injunction are made completely clear, so that the impact on parallel proceedings is properly understood.

De-escalation

The UK Court was disappointed that the Mannheim LD did not engage with de‑escalation in this case, as its latest decision maintained a block on aspects of final RAND relief in the UK that neither party wanted.  This approach did not reduce tension between the courts and, risked increasing it.  The Mannheim LD’s obiter suggestion that Amazon’s attempts to expedite the UK RAND trial might amount to a “circumvention” of its injunction was also troubling, as it raised the possibility that a future litigant might be penalised simply for seeking expedited F/RAND relief in the UK.

The UK Court stressed that sophisticated litigants in complex FRAND disputes should be free to resolve parts of their global litigation by agreement, including withdrawing anti‑suit injunction claims.  The parties in this case had come very close to settling their injunction skirmishes on mutually acceptable terms, but the UPC’s orders halted that process despite the UPC itself having earlier encouraged agreement.  Meade J’s observed that all courts should support, rather than inhibit, parties’ efforts to reach settlement and should avoid steps that place unnecessary obstacles in the way of consensual de‑escalation.

Conclusion

Although much of the judgment is obiter, it underscores the systemic risks posed by anti‑suit injunctions in parallel SEP disputes.  Particularly where they are unclear in scope or extend to final relief contrary to the parties’ intentions.  The judgment is a highly unusual intervention by the UK Court and reflects judicial frustration at the escalating anti-suit conflicts and signals a preference for de‑escalation both judicial and party‑led. Meade J has also provided a potential roadmap for how courts might better manage and coordinate international SEP/FRAND litigation.

For more info please click here 

This article was prepared by Senior IP Solicitor Kelly Burrowes.