Context:
- A little over two months ago, Avanci announced that seven Chinese car makers had taken 4G/5G licenses (a total of ten agreements) (March 31, 2026 ip fray article).
- A couple of weeks ago it was easy to deduce from different indicia, the near-simulntaeous combination of which is cannot realistically be coincidental, that Geely’s settlement with Nokia involved an Avanci license (May 21, 2026 ip fray article).
- The only known litigation between companies whose patents could be licensed through Avanci (if not bilaterally) and a Chinese automaker involves Great Wall Motor (GWM) (May 20, 2026 ip fray article).
What’s new: On LinkedIn, Avanci Vehicle president Laurie Fitzgerald just announced that Avanci has, by now, “concluded a total of seventeen license agreements across [its] 4G Vehicle and 5G Vehicle programs with eleven Chinese automakers”. That means an increase by four licensees (Geely plus three unknown ones), thus by more than 50%, and by seven agreements, suggesting that three of the four new licensees have signed up for both 4G and 5G.
Direct impact: Avanci Vehicle undoubtedly has a lot of momentum now. Every such deal will make it easier to convince the next licensee to come on board.
Wider ramifications:
- It becomes increasingly difficult for GWM to justify its refusal to resolve the disputes with certain standard-essential patent (SEP) holders through a readily available Avanci license or, alternatively, bilateral agreements.
- The fact that Avanci’s automotive licensing programs enjoy such tremendous market acceptance (making litigation a rare exception) raises the question of why UK judges should make pool rate determinations (April 28, 2026 ip fray article) when the market has already decided.
By now, Avanci’s licensing program is serving Chinese companies on both sides: there are major Chinese licensors like Huawei and ZTE, but now also 11 Chinese car makers.
In the UK, there are hardly any licensors or licensees. The UK is unimportant when it comes to cellular SEPs. Yet there are judges in the UK who do not accept that market realities may sometimes weigh strongly against their jurisdiction over SEP disputes.
There is a risk that the judges of the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) live in an ivory tower. At the Tesla v. InterDigital & Avanci hearing, Lord Kitchin (one of the forces behind the UK’s ill-conveived Unwired case law) was blissfully unaware of all the problems Unwired has caused and backlash it has drawn. That means he played a key role in creating problems, but never cared to look at what he and his allies had done.
Therefore, the UKSC judges may not even realize that the UPC’s Court of Appeal has already stated clearly, at an oral hearing, that it will push back against judicial imperialism (May 28, 2026 ip fray article) and that a bill is pending in the Brazilian Senate to dissuade litigants from leveraging foreign interference (May 29, 2026 ip fray article).
If none of the five members of that UKSC panel is aware of the global landscape, they may make an utterly unreasonable and irresponsible decision that will only cause problems but not solve any, while successful licensing programs create solutions (and thereby help to avoid litigation) every day.