UPC Court of Appeal says interference through UK interim licenses will not be tolerated: Amazon on losing track against InterDigital, but limited scope

Context: For the complex procedural history of the video patent licensing dispute between InterDigital and Amazon, let us refer you to our previous article on the subject (March 25, 2026 ip fray article).

What’s new:

• The Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Court of Appeal (CoA) is hearing Amazon’s appeal today. After a confidential part that lasted approximately one hour, Presiding Judge Ulrike Voss (“Voß”) outlined the CoA’s preliminary assessment. While for purely procedural reasons the existing anti-interim-license injunction (AILI) is viewed as relating exclusively to interim licenses and not final relief, the UPC will not accept any interference by UK (or other foreign) courts with patent holder’s access to justice in the UPC.
• Even so-called declarations will not be condoned if they affect patent rights registered in the UPC’s contracting member states and could have, even if only indirectly, (in other words) a chilling effect on a patent holder’s decision to bring and litigate infringement claims in the UPC or enforce UPC judgments.
• InterDigital would be prepared to resolve the entire dispute through arbitration.
• The decision will come down “as soon as possible”.

Direct impact & wider ramifications:

• If the CoA rules in accordance with the preliminary assessment, Amazon and other parties will no longer be able to leverage UK judicial imperialism against patent enforcement in the UPC.
• The CoA is defending fundamental rights against foreign usurpation.
• The fact that the existing injunction does not relate to “final relief” is of limited value to other parties than Amazon as explained below.
• The most fundamental legal holding is that the UPC defines patent infringement not only as unlawful use, but as furthermore including interference with enforcement.
• As discussed further below, the CoA’s approach to the scope of the existing injunction puts form over substance, while its analysis of the risk of interference with property rights puts substance over form.