Upcoming litigation events
The High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) is working on its Samsung v. ZTE FRAND ruling. In less than two weeks, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) will hear Tesla v. InterDigital & Avanci. And next month, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Court of Appeal (CoA) will hear Amazon’s appeal of InterDigital’s anti-interference injunction (AII).
Latest major development: China says enough is enough
Thanks to a Chinese contributor, ip fray was first to report on the Chinese government’s new regulations combating extraterritorial judicial overreach. Those who breach Chinese law through usurpation, or play a role in the enforcement of judgments contrary to Chinese law, face serious consequences, potentially even imprisonment.
Opinion: UPC Mannheim LD is mainstream and represents common sense while UK is outlier
So far, the Mannheim LD has masterfully and responsibly handled the delicate situation surrounding the InterDigital v. Amazon AII matter before it. Acting forcefully and leaving no doubt about its resolve, the panel avoided escalation — after conduct that other courts would have treated as malicious compliance — and was even prepared to depart from dogmatic case management principles for comity’s sake.
The Mannheim LD’s concerns are shared by governments collectively representing approximately 60% of global Gross Domestic Product:
| United States of America (26%) | The U.S. deputy antitrust chief said in October 2025 that global license agreements imposed on companies by a single jurisdiction could create trade barriers, and noted that the Trump Administration takes trade law very seriously. |
| European Union (18%) | Last year, the European Commission (EC) filed a World Trade Organization (WTO) complaint over global FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing) determinations. It furthermore invited the Mannheim LD to share further information on the friction between the UPC and the UK courts. |
| People’s Republic of China (17%) | China is now protecting its companies against judicial encroachment. This is a clear message to the UK and to anyone else, such as the Tokyo District Court, who may want to engage in extraterritorial overreach. |
The above list does not even include Brazil (2%), where there is some regulatory concern and where the courts don’t take certain litigation tactics lightly even when they are confined to their own country.
There is no indication that anyone backs the UK.
Of course, the question is whether injunctions against implementers who are prepared to take a license to the patents registered in a given jurisdiction (but not beyond) could also raise issues under the new Chinese regulations. But that question can be left for another day. To our knowledge, there has not yet been a UPC case in which an implementer affirmatively declared itself prepared to take a license on certain terms, but wanted to limit its geographic scope to the UPC’s contracting member states. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there, but for now let’s focus on what’s on the agenda in the weeks and months ahead:
Samsung is sailing close to the wind. It has significant business interests in China. It would be well-advised to withdraw its UK FRAND case against ZTE. Now.
The UKSC has done more harm to comity than any other court in the worldwide history of patent litigation. The Unwired Planet v. Huawei / Conversant v. ZTE decisions were intellectually far below any reasonable level for a country’s top court. They did not even manage to provide a correct summary of the procedural history in Unwired. It is odd that they accepted to hear Tesla’s case, and more than odd that they have now decided to allocate three full days to that hearing. Tesla should forget about this being any helpful because Avanci has various major Chinese licensors. If Tesla leveraged the English courts against Avanci, it would by extension be doing so against major Chinese standard-essential patent (SEP) holders, in breach of China’s new regulations. And Tesla’s business interests in China are also very significant.
The fact that some Chinese automakers may also have certain interests concerning cellular SEP royalties won’t help Tesla. The Chinese car makers don’t bet on the UK.
Next month, the UPC CoA will hear Amazon’s appeal of InterDigital’s AII. Of course, the decision will have to be based on what the UPC’s governing statutes allow and require. It’s not about adding up GDP percentages. In that regard, it’s 60% vs. 3% in favor of the Mannheim LD’s views, and it’s hard to imagine that the UK could get any meaningful support.
The UPC has been tasked by its contracting member states with the protection of intellectual property rights. A major part of that is access to justice.
The UPC cannot and will not engage in “protectionism”. But European innovators such as Nokia and Ericsson, and in this specific case even InterDigital is a European innovator as the technologies in question were and are largely developed in France, need to be protected. The EU won’t be able to enact regulations comparable to the Chinese ones that became known yesterday, at least not anytime soon. But the UPC as a common court of 18 EU member states has every right to protect its jurisdiction and patent holders’ access to justice.
The case at hand shows that foreign extraterritorial overreach can tie a party’s hands, making it a necessity for UPC judges to be able to impose sanctions sua sponte. It’s what the UPC Agreement allows, and British judges participating in the process proposed it. That possibility can make all the difference. It is not on the agenda for the appellate hearing in May. But potentially next time.
If Europe doesn’t protect its companies and its jurisdiction, Chinese companies have another competitive advantage now that their government shields them from the harmful impact of jurisdictional imperialism.