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

Where a foreign court requires a litigant to make a statement in proceedings before an English court, the English court may permit that statement as a practical means of de-escalating jurisdictional conflict. The statement does not thereby become an order, declaration or undertaking of the English court.

In international (F)RAND litigation, comity requires careful consideration of the effect of an anti-suit injunction on the targeted court, the litigant’s substantive rights, the management of the proceedings and the distinction between interim procedural relief and final substantive relief. Direct, transparent judicial communication may reduce misunderstanding. Transcripts of oral argument are not authoritative evidence of a judge’s reasoning or conclusions.

The claim concerned international patent and (F)RAND relief sought by Amazon against InterDigital. InterDigital had obtained anti-suit injunctions from the Munich 1 Regional Court and the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The UK court understood the UPC injunction initially to concern only interim licence relief, but the UPC later stated that it also affected certain final (F)RAND relief and that Amazon might be in breach.

The parties had sought to de-escalate their competing anti-suit proceedings, but the UPC required Amazon to make a declaration limiting its final relief and required the declaration to be made in the UK proceedings. The central issues were whether the English court should permit that statement, whether it should make an order of its own motion against InterDigital, and how comity and judicial communication should operate in parallel international litigation.

1. Disposition. Amazon was permitted to make the declaration required by the UPC Mannheim Local Division, and made it at the hearing. The declaration was a performative statement of Amazon’s intention required by the UPC. It was not a declaration or undertaking of the English court and was not enforceable by InterDigital or any other person.
2. The court had substantial reservations about the UPC’s course. The UPC’s anti-suit injunction had generated uncertainty about the scope of the UK proceedings, hindered settlement and affected the efficient management of the September (F)RAND trial. The court nevertheless concluded that the appropriate course was for the UK court to take no further action, leaving any challenge to the UPC injunction to the UPC appeal process.
3. Comity does not require courts to agree. In assessing an anti-suit injunction, relevant considerations include whether it permanently deprives a party of an arguable substantive claim, the balance between preventing alleged deterrence and causing that deprivation, whether the relief is procedural or substantive, and the disruption caused to the targeted court’s proceedings.
4. Where final (F)RAND relief concerns substantive and permanent rights, its possible international effects raise different comity considerations from interim licence relief. The targeted court should consider whether interference with final relief is justified, particularly where the party obtaining the injunction does not object to the relief being pursued.
5. Judicial communication in rapidly progressing, parallel international litigation should, where possible, be direct, structured and transparent. Reliance on parties to relay communications or explain another court’s proceedings is an imperfect substitute. Transcripts of argument may show what a party said or the position it adopted, but they are not reliable evidence of the judge’s reasoning or decision.
6. Parties in complex (F)RAND litigation may ordinarily settle or withdraw anti-suit claims by agreement. The court could see no general reason for judicial supervision of such a settlement in this dispute. No order was made of the court’s own motion against InterDigital, although the court reserved the right to reconsider that course.
7. The September (F)RAND trial would not include Amazon’s damages claim insofar as it related to UPC territories. No pleading amendment was required or appropriate.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that Amazon had appealed the UPC Mannheim Local Division’s decision of 22 December 2025 within the Unified Patent Court, with the appeal listed for 28 May 2026.