Amazon.Com Inc & Ors v InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc & Ors

In complex RAND proceedings, the English court may case-manage its own proceedings while respecting foreign anti-suit orders and declining to construe or enforce them. The meaning and effect of those orders are matters for the courts that made them.

The court may nevertheless examine a party’s conduct and evidence concerning the English procedure where that conduct is relevant to case management, including the timing of a jurisdiction challenge. Parties must have a fair opportunity to answer concerns raised by the court, particularly where evidence may affect expedition or jurisdiction. Applications for expedition should not ordinarily be decided in a procedural vacuum where the opposing party requires time to respond and the issues may create downstream case-management difficulties.

Amazon commenced complex proceedings concerning digital-streaming patents, essentiality, infringement, abuse of dominance and obligations said to arise under the ITU-T RAND regime. The proceedings also sought declarations concerning interim and final RAND licence terms.

InterDigital obtained ex parte anti-suit orders from the Munich Regional Court and the Unified Patent Court. Those orders restrained aspects of Amazon’s English claims, including interim licence relief. Amazon sought earlier determination of InterDigital’s jurisdiction challenge and expedition of the substantive RAND issues, relying in part on alleged inconsistencies between InterDigital’s positions in England and abroad.

The court considered how to manage the English proceedings without determining the meaning or enforceability of the foreign orders.

1. The court directed a further case-management hearing in a window beginning on 22 October 2025. The hearing would address the timing of the jurisdiction challenge, evidence concerning InterDigital’s conduct and representations in the foreign proceedings, and Amazon’s application to expedite the substantive RAND trial.

2. It was not the court’s function to scrutinise, construe or enforce the German or UPC anti-suit orders. Any dispute about their meaning or effect fell within the jurisdiction of the courts that made them. The court proceeded on the basis that the orders had to be respected.

3. For present case-management purposes, the parties had agreed, and the court accepted, that the orders affected interim licence declarations and similar relief but did not prevent the English proceedings from addressing substantive, final RAND terms. The court did not purport to determine the foreign courts’ jurisdiction or the correctness of their decisions.

4. The conduct of InterDigital remained potentially relevant. The court could consider whether the English procedure had been accurately described to the foreign courts and whether the evidence advanced about the likely speed of English interim relief and possible anti-anti-suit relief was objectively maintainable. Those observations were provisional because InterDigital was entitled to answer them with evidence.

5. The court declined to decide the expedition application immediately. InterDigital required a proper opportunity to respond, and expedition should not be determined in a vacuum where the trial raised substantial issues and an immediate decision might cause procedural difficulties later. The court also allowed time for evidence relevant to the jurisdiction challenge, including a proposed undertaking concerning enforcement of patent rights.