UPC threatens Amazon with initial €50M ($59M) fine, “severe consequences”, declares all UK interim licenses unenforceable, suggests EU WTO action against UK

Context:

• In late September, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Mannheim Local Division (LD) and the Landgericht München I (Munich I Regional Court) granted research and licensing firm InterDigital the first-ever anti-interim-license injunctions (AILIs) on an ex parte basis (October 3, 2025 ip fray article).
• In response, the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) granted Amazon an ex parte antisuit injunction (ASI) against InterDigital (October 20, 2025 ip fray article), which could have been interpreted in different ways (October 22, 2025 ip fray article), and kept it in force after a hearing that confirmed both courts were following our coverage (October 30, 2025 ip fray article).
• At its own injunction hearing, the UPC’s Mannheim LD expressed reluctance to recognize license agreements foisted upon patent holders by foreign courts (November 14, 2025 ip fray article; a detailed summary was part of our November 16, 2025 UPC Roundup), and expressed concern over what appeared to restrict InterDigital’s freedom to raise arguments in the UPC and might have been directed at UPC judges (November 15, 2025 ip fray article), which Mr Justice Richard Meade of the EWHC denied (November 25, 2025 ip fray article).
• In late November, the Munich I Regional Court also held a preliminary injunction (PI) hearing, and upheld its AILI, too (December 1, 2025 ip fray article).
• In a December 2 judgment published a week later, the EWHC kept the ASI in place once again (December 11, 2025 ip fray article).

What’s new: The UPC’s Mannheim LD entered a final order on December 22, 2025, and on December 24, 2025 (Christmas Eve, which is not an official holiday in Germany, but not a day on which courts commonly work) issued a formal notification to the European Commission’s (EC) Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) and Directorate-General for Trade (DG TRADE). The ex parte AILI (with the court steering clear of endorsing any particular label) has been confirmed, and it now comes with a specific threat of sanctions against Amazon over non-compliance. The UPC deliberately awaited the most recent EHWC judgment before making its decision. It now threatens specific sanctions as to follow the guidance by its Court of Appeal (CoA) in Fujifilm v. Kodak (October 18, 2025 ip fray article).

Direct impact:

• If Amazon continues to seek to undermine InterDigital’s enforcement of intellectual property rights valid in the UPC’s contracting member states, it now faces the risk an initial fine of up to €50 million ($59 million).
• Continued non-compliance after service of the initial sanctions order would be penalized with a per diem fine of up to €500K ($590K).
• The UPC may further increase the fines
  • if Amazon remains out of compliance and, especially,
  • if a foreign court were to impose sanctions on InterDigital.
• Given Amazon’s vast resources, even the fines that are on the table may not be enough to ensure compliance.
• Amazon may in fact be already in breach now just based on the most recent UK order, and the court may act sua sponte. In fact, the court clarifies that it acted of its own volition in notifying the EC so as to shield InterDigital from the consequences the UK court had threatened in case they were to do anything that could lead the UPC to take an initiative.
• The order unequivocally says that any interim licenses imposed upon patentees by a UK court are against the ordre public of the EU and will not be recognized. This is now a bright-line rule against jurisdictional usurpation.
• The UPC understandably takes issue with the English courts being prepared to engage in rate-setting for non-SEPs. That raises an even greater ordre public issue.
• Amazon can and presumably will appeal this decision to the UPC’s CoA. Unless an enforcement stay is ordered, it is enforceable during the appellate proceedings

Wider ramifications:

• The UPC’s official notification of the EC’s DG COMP and DG TRADE is an implicit suggestion to take action against the UK at the World Trade Organization (WTO) level because of its courts’ violation of the Treaty on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It would not make sense for the EU to pursue even a second case against China while turning a blind eye to the UK situation, which is more concerning than anything as UK courts even seek to restrict the enforcement of non-SEPs outside their country (which is seriously insane).
• The Mannheim LD ruling explains very well (and more than once) that the sole purpose UK interim-license declarations are meant to serve is entirely detached from UK litigation: it is about extraterritorial effects, tantamount to an antisuit injunction. The order points to expert evidence (discussed further below) confirming the coercive nature of such declarations, contrary to what some UK judges say.
• The decision also explains that the EWHC has sidestepped the single most important question so far: the consequences of the “Final Relief” sought by Amazon.
• Other parties pursuing similar tactics as Amazon may read the writing on the wall. And there is not only the UPC but also the Munich I Regional Court, which beyond fines has the authority to order the imprisonment of disobedient corporate executives, as it did this month (December 16, 2025 ip fray article).
• The order mentions Amazon’s pursuit of an ASI in Brazil. That is a reference to an intra-Brazil litigation tactic that resulted in sanctions against Hisense (December 19, 2025 ip fray article).