The first version of our initial analysis of the preliminary views of the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Court of Appeal (CoA) in Amazon v. InterDigital went live at 10:42 AM CEST. The first assessment was that the CoA’s preliminary views would benefit the UPC and its ecosystem, though we raised the concern that this would require the UPC to adopt the Munich I Regional Court’s pre-emptive anti-anti-anti-antisuit (AAAASI) approach. This is a follow-up to discuss why it is critical for the UPC to interpret anti-interference injuncftions (AIIs) reasonably broadly. Otherwise, judges that have more equitable wiggle room and the power to send people to jail will defeat the UPC every time there is a cross-jurisdictional conflict.
Amazon is the first company in the UPC’s young history to have imposed, with the help of a foreign court, restrictions on the ability of a party to a UPC litigation to fully argue its case even with respect to non-confidential facts.
And it may benefit big-time from it.
Antisuit spats are not for the faint of heart. Parties (and, by extension, the courts whose jurisdiction over particular cases is impacted) can be checkmated, and it must have hurt the judges to see counsel for a UPC claimant being restricted by a foreign gag order.
The jury (or, actually, the appellate panel) is out on whether the UPC is tough enough for this game. After yesterday’s hearing, there is a lot of hope, just like there is in Brazil now (May 13, 2026 ip fray article), but something is still missing. Fortunately, a decision will come down soon, allowing practitioners to devise the appropriate litigation strategies in the UPC and in other jurisdictions.
Let’s think ahead and look at the implications of a narrow interpretation of ex parte AIIs. Spoiler: the €50M penalty threat plays a key role in this context (Section 6).
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
In some jurisdictions, that argument would be categorized as hold-out. A constructive license-seeker wants a deal on FRAND terms and it wants it now, not a precedential or persuasive judgment later. The UPC’s jurisdiction over certain types of cases would suffer collateral damage just so Amazon gets a landmark UK ruling.
Court and counsel
CoA panel: Presiding Judge Ulrike Voss (“Voß”; panel 3), Judge-rapporteur Prof. Peter Blok (panel 1), and Judge Emmanuel Gougé (panel 1).
Counsel for plaintiff-appellee InterDigital: Arnold Ruess’s (ip fray firm profile) Cordula Schumacher, Tim Smentkowski, and Julija Kravtsova; as well as Bird & Bird’s Richard Vary.
Counsel for defendant-appellant Amazon: Hoyng Rokh Monegier’s (ip fray firm profile) Klaus Haft, Dr. Léon Dijkman, Moritz Lohr, and Anouschka Heemskerk.