Yesterday we broke the news on InterDigital’s anti-interim-license injunctions (AILIs) against Amazon (October 2, 2025 ip fray article). We can now publish the three documents (three because the Munich I Regional Court provided, at InterDigital’s request, a clarifying order to the original ex parte preliminary injunction (PI)).
You can find the documents further below. They start with an unofficial English translation, followed by the redacted originals.
We’d just like to add a couple of things first:
Carve-outs more difficult for interim licenses than ASIs
With antisuit injunctions (ASIs), which are typically anti-enforcement injunctions, plaintiffs have greater flexibility than with interim licenses to carve out certain patents. It has happened that parties sought ASIs with respect to certain jurisdictions, but not others, even to the extent that they entered into covenants not to seek ASIs with respect to those jurisdictions. It is hard to see how an interim-license declaration could carve out a jurisdiction, especially if the sole reason is fear of AILIs.
Now, for the sake of the argument let’s assume someone carves out all patents enforceable in the UPC (thereby also all that are enforceable in Germany) and that the UK judges still see a useful purpose (in the standard-essential patent (SEP) context, they’ve gutted the term anyway). It then takes just one jurisdiction to follow suit and enter an AILI, and the interim-license declaration goes away.
Munich I Regional Court presents united front to imperialists and opportunists
We already noted yesterday that the Munich panel consisted of the Presiding Judge of the 21st Civil Chamber, his deputy, but also the deputy of the Presiding Judge of the 7th Civil Chamber, who had already outlined an “enough is enough” stance in July. Contrary to what one industry player said in a comment relating to one of our articles in the summer, that FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) guidance never was a single judge’s opinion. It was signed by one judge, but he explicitly spoke in the name of “the chamber” (the panel). Now it’s clear that there is consensus across the two Munich panels that hear SEP cases. Of course, theoretically it’s possible that one of the three judges who signed voted against (there is no dissent in Germany), but the Presiding Judge is least likely to have done so and in any event, if it was a majority and not a unanimous decision, it means that judges from both Munich panels are in favor of putting an end to British imperialism.
Brazil and U.S.
The next major jurisdiction that should contemplate such defensive measures is Brazil.
It would also be perfectly consistent with President Trump’s Make America Great Again philosophy for the United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC) to sanction responds who try to subvert Section 337 investigations and/or U.S. district courts, who have wide latitude to grant ASIs of different kinds, should also protect U.S. intellectual property against foreign usurpation.
Tesla’s pool rate-setting case and UK SEP regulation aspirations
The UPC decision also mentions, as you will see below, the non-final outcome in Tesla v. InterDigital & Avanci (July 2, 2025 ip fray article), particularly the appellate decision that was a defeat for Lord Justice Arnold. This is another case in which one party wants the UK to resolve a global dispute. The UPC and the Munich I Regional Court are not going to tolerate that. If they bar a party from seeking an interim license, there is no reason why they should accept coercive measures to obtain a long-term license. That fact, combined with BYD’s decision to take an Avanci license, should be considered by Tesla before it launches its 5G cars or loses the opportunity to secure Avanci’s early-bird discount.
The UK government should recognize that its rate-setting plans are a dead end. They can waste (and make others waste) time, money and energy on that idea, but it’s not going to be fruitful. That government should set better priorities than regulating SEPs, an idea that appeared particularly odd after the EU had already given up on the subject (though the EU, unlike the UK, could enact legislation that would be binding on the UPC and national courts in Germany and the other EU member states).
Seeking interim licenses will not only fail now but may trigger findings of unwillingness
Presumably, AILIs are sufficient to finish off interim licenses. If all else fails, jurisdictions such as the UPC and Germany can do what ip fray suggested on past occasions and treat an implementer seeking an interim license as an unwilling licensee, thereby opening up the possibility of SEP PIs. Apart from FRAND, SEPs would actually be particularly suitable for PIs, even for ex parte PIs.
Before InterDigital has filed a single enforcement action (maybe it has, but none is known so far), Amazon may already have reached the point at which some key jurisdictions will consider it an unwilling licensee.
Our approach to law firms’ achievements
We highlighted the incredible track record of Arnold Ruess in the AASI and now AILI context, and we generally like to credit lawyers for stellar work, brilliant ideas and interesting streaks. For example, earlier this week we pointed out that Hoyng Rokh Monegier has achieved several BSH-based firsts (September 29, 2025 ip fray article). And there can be no doubt about the quality of the innovative and pioneering work by Kirkland & Ellis in the UK on implementer’s behalf, just that other jurisdictions have meanwhile shown that they are not defenseless.
We will soon publish the first version of our achievement lists and firm profiles. The achievement lists take a lot of work (not only on our part but also the participating firms’) to put in place initially, but we will update them as we report on UPC and SEP cases.
We have brought in another team member (as some of you may have noticed, not on this website yet but in direct correspondence) and have more growth plans. This is a labor-intensive effort, which is why we are behind our internal schedule, but the result will be more objective than traditional rankings and ratings. Plus, it creates opportunities for large and small firms alike to see their work recognized. If you haven’t submitted your achievement lists yet, please do so when you find the time. We provide the forms as part of the premium account setup.
Now, the court documents:
UPC Mannheim LD
Munich I Regional Court
(1/2) Original Munich order
(2/2) Supplemental clarifying order
Courts and counsel
UPC Mannheim LD (case no. UPC_CFI_936/2025): Presiding Judge (and here, judge-rapporteur) Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge Dirk Boettcher (“Böttcher” in German) and Judge András Kupecz (a Dutch national primarily assigned to the Munich seat of the Central Division).
Munich I Regional Court (case no. 21 O 12112/25): Presiding Judge Dr. Georg Werner, Judge Dr. Sebastian Benz and Judge Tözsér. In an April 2025 court document, Judge Dr. Benz is listed as Presiding Judge Dr. Werner’s deputy, and Judge Tözsér as the deputy of Presiding Judge Dr. Schoen of the 7th Division.
Arnold Ruess’s Cordula Schumacher, Dr. Arno Risse (“Riße” in German; he masterminded the 2019 AASI against Continental), Dr. Lisa Rieth, Anja Penners und Julija Kravtsova. On the UPC and German InterDigital v. Amazon cases, they are working together with df-mp patent attorney Dr. Dominik Ho.