Context: For the increasingly complex procedural history of the Amazon-InterDigital FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) dispute, we refer you to our three most recent articles on the subject as starting points for your research if you are not familiar: the February 3, 2026 article on the European Commission’s diplomatically worded expression of incipient concern over the developments in the UK, our February 4, 2026 hearing report and the February 5, 2026 ip fray article on Amazon’s latest UPC appeal against InterDigital.
What’s new: As we sensed, there is a clear and present danger for escalation. The UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (LD) has just entered an order requesting comment from the parties on the Wednesday EWHC hearing as well as a transcript, referring to “publicly available media reports” on the hearing (of which there was, according to AI systems such as Google’s Gemini, only ours). The order reminds Amazon of the fact that the UPC injunction is not merely an anti-interim-license injunction (AILI) but a blanket prohibition of any foreign interference with the UPC proceedings. The UPC reiterates that Amazon can seek a UK-specific declaration in the UK, but nothing that relates to patent rights enforceable in UPCland. The UPC wants to know from the parties “why and upon which initative [underlined in the original] the Judge in charge of the UK proceedings â as reported by public media â apparently still suggests withdrawal of proceedings before the UPC, so as to protect the UK Final rate setting proceedings.”
Direct impact:
- The parties are ordered to report “until 10 February 2026 at the latest”, to explain “upon which initiative from which side that hearing took place and upon which initiative withdrawal of requests before the UPC was discussed or ordered, as the case may be.” The deadline also applies to the transcript.
- The order says: “After production of said documents and receipt of clarifying briefs the parties may be invited to further comment, if appropriate in an oral hearing, during which, if deemed necessary, witnesses may be heard and sworn in. No penalties will be set without having heard the parties again.” That means sanctions are a possibility, depending on the results of the investigation that has now begun.
Wider ramifications:
- Separately, the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) has now for the first time made an interim-license declaration sought by a standard-essential patent (SEP) holder, Huawei (February 5, 2026 ip fray article). But that is a different situation. The implementer, TP-Link, brought a FRAND action in the UK, and Huawei turned it into a boomerang. By contrast, InterDigital wants to be left alone in the UK.
- Amazon no longer defends its Amazon Web Service (AWS) cloud customers against video patent infringement claims, publicly blaming royalty demands by patent holders for the situation and arguing it would have to raise prices in the alternative (February 6, 2026 ip fray article).
Here’s the Mannheim order, signed by the entire panel, with one judge substituting for another who was not available today due to a vacation or for some other reason:
In the first part, today’s order refers to the operative provisional measures (preliminary injunction (PI): December 25, 2025 ip fray article). After clarifying that the objective was purely defensive and not aimed at “the main UK FRAND-rate-setting” (para. 19 of the PI), the court points to para. 38 thereof, which explicitly noted that “final” relief in the UK was also concerned to the extent that patent rights in UPC contracting member states are affected. Then, para. 39 says that the UK courts can, of course, do anything with effect in the UK, as long as it “does not interfere with access to the UPC.”
Quoting from para. 71 of the PI, the order notes that even final relief in the UK must not come with any “negative consequences” for InterDigital if it “choose[s] not to accept the [UK] outcome and enforce[s] [its] European patents in relation to UPCA contracting member states and argue[s] that the outcome is not binding upon them with regard to the territories of the UPCA contracting member states.” Based on our understanding of Mr Justice Richard Meade’s position, the problem is not (be it because it never was or as a result of de-escalation) that InterDigital couldn’t dispute the binding nature of a foreign determination. It’s about other potential consequences in the UK. In fact, InterDigital may not even have to raise any argument about the non-binding nature because both the UPC and the Munich I Regional Court (February 3, 2026 ip fray article) are more than disinclined to recognize any UK decision to that effect.
The introductory part of today’s order concludes with a reference to para. 80 of the PI, which stresses that the risk if not abstract, but imminent.
Then there’s a transitional part that recites Art. 82(4) UPCA on penalties for non-compliance with a court order and Rule 354(4) of the UPC’s Rules of Procedure (RoP), which essentially requires the court to hear both parties before imposing sanctions.
For the avoidance of doubt, we write for our entire esteemed audience, though we are obviously proud that it includes many judges. In fact, specialized judges from the U.S. and Europe are among the many professionals who have inquired about access to our premium content. Judicial, regulatory and policy-making bodies are entitled to complimentary access; within patent offices, that relates to judges (EPO BoA, USPTO PTAB etc.) and national patent policy departments. This is not the first time that a court has taken note of developments as a result of (unless those AI bots missed some other report) our coverage of a case. Our objective is just for ip fray to be a go-to website for those who take a professional interest in patent litigation, licensing, and policy. We are working hard to maintain that trust, and we are indebted to those who keep us appraised of important developments.
Panels and counsel
CoA
Presiding Judge Ulrike Voss (âVoĂâ in German) was recently sworn in as the Presiding Judge of the CoAâs new Panel 3. But for this case she is joined by President Dr. Grabinskiâs trusted sidekicks Judge-rapporteur Prof. Peter Blok and Judge Emmanuel GougĂ© (Panel 1). Presiding Judge Voss is famous in the SEP context for her referral of Huawei v. ZTE to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) while she was presiding over one of the divisions of the Dusseldorf Regional Court. For the Munich LD, she granted Nokia an anti-antisuit injunction against SUNMI (February 20, 2025 ip fray article).
Mannheim LD panel
Presiding Judge (and here, judge-rapporteur) Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge Dirk Boettcher (âBöttcherâ in German), and Judge AndrĂĄs Kupecz (CD Munich; August 30, 2024 ip fray interview). The February 6, 2026 order to report on the February 4, 2026 UK hearing was signed by Judges Prof. Tochtermann, Sender (filling in for Judge Boettcher), and Judge Kupecz. Judge Tobias Sender was in the audience during the first part of the November 14, 2025 hearing in this matter.
Counsel for InterDigital
Counsel for InterDigital: Arnold Ruessâs Cordula Schumacher (also lead counsel on appeal), Dr. Lisa Rieth, Tim Smentkowski, Julija Kravtsova, and Dr. Marina Wehler. From the UK, Bird & Birdâs Mark Livsey attended the Mannheim LD hearing in person. U.S. attorney Richard Kamprath of McKool Smith was also among the remote attendees. In-house litigation counsel Steven Akerley attended in person, and several other InterDigital lawyers and executives followed the video stream.
Counsel for Amazon
- In person at the Mannheim hearing: Hoyng Rokh Monegierâs Klaus Haft, Sven Krause, Roeland Grijpink, Dr. LĂ©on Dijkman, Moritz Lohr, Dr. Nico Schur, and Antonia Wilhelm; as well as (from the UK) Hogan Lovellsâs Paul Brown.
- By video: Hoyng Rokh Monegierâs Kay Kasper; Hogan Lovells UKâs Will Buswell and Ian Moss; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hamptonâs Martin Bader and Stephen Korniczky; and Amazon VP IP Scott Hayden and Associate General Counsel IP Marc Ascolese.