Context:
- Tesla has an Avanci license to the vast majority of 4G standard-essential patents (SEPs), and a bilateral 5G SEP license from Huawei (April 29, 2026 ip fray article). It has yet to launch a 5G-capable vehicle.
- Tesla sued InterDigital and Avanci, the former just being an anchor defendant to go after the latter, in the UK, seeing a court determination of a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for the entire pool. No court in the world has done anything like that so far. In 2024, Mr Justice Fancourt of the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) showed some sympathy for Tesla’s desire, but ultimately dismissed the complaint (July 18, 2024 ip fray article). Tesla appealed to the England & Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA), where Lord Justice (LJ) [Richard] Arnold sided with the company that made electric vehicles popular but got outvoted by his co-panelists (March 6, 2025 ip fray article). Tesla appealed further by petitioning the UK Supreme Court (UKSC), which accepted to hear the case (July 2, 2025 ip fray article) and put it on an expedited schedule.
- A few months ago, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) conducted a Tesla v. InterDigital & Avanci hearing (April 27, 2026 ip fray article). ip fray followed the proceedings (April 28, 2026 ip fray article).
What’s new: The UKSC just announced the ruling (PDF) and sided 100% with Tesla, a surprisingly radical decision that is not entirely surprising as ip fray raised concerns over the ignorance and extremism of the panel (April 26, 2026 ip fray article).
Direct impact: The decision is a disgrace as it means that UK judges believe they should rule the world of SEP licensing. But it’s important to understand that this decision is just a reversal of a jurisdictional dismissal. It does not mean that Tesla will ultimately get the declaration it seeks, much less that the outcome will be a declaration that the market-validated Avanci rate is too high. It is about whether there are serious issues to be tried, which two courts before this one rightly denied, and does not prejudge the case itself.
Wider ramifications: Some of the same extremists who were responsible for the Unwired v. Huawei decision in 2020, which has led to serious interjurisdictional friction and trade issues, did it again. They live in an ivory tower. Or maybe they live in the UK’s imperial past. Whatever the reason may be, there still is the chance that the lower courts will find a way to reject Tesla’s complaint again, even if the UKSC did not let them do so at the earliest procedural stage. And the rest of the world will not sit by idly as some UK judges make illegitimate and grossly irresponsible decisions. UK policy makers may have to go for a legislative override as their judiciary cannot be relied upon to make rational decisions that avoid conflicts with major trading partners like the U.S. and the EU.
Reaction by appellee Avanci
Avanci provided the following statement (an extended version is available on the platform operator’s website):
“Avanci Responds to UK Supreme Court Decision in Tesla Litigation
We respectfully disagree with today’s decision and continue to believe Tesla’s claims are without merit.“Avanci’s 5G Vehicle program is an optional, market-driven licensing solution bringing together more than 90 licensors holding the vast majority of 5G/4G patents essential for cellular connected vehicles and more than 100 automotive brands selling most of those vehicles worldwide. Every participating automaker licenses on the same publicly available commercial terms, creating a global level playing field.
“Today’s ruling does not determine whether Tesla’s attempt to pay less than our widely adopted global price for an Avanci 5G Vehicle license will succeed. We remain confident that, when the matter is fully considered by the High Court, it will confirm what the marketplace has already demonstrated: Avanci provides a fair and efficient licensing solution that benefits both the automotive and telecom industries.”
UKSC ruling issue by issue
- On the question of whether there is a serious issue to be tried on the licensing claims against InterDigital or Avanci, the UKSC relied on the following considerations, each of which flies in the face of the reality that the Avanci pool is optional (meaning that even if a SEP holder pointed to the Avanci license as the only FRAND option, the issue would have to be dealt with in that context and not by determining a pool rate):
- “the growing use of licensing platforms across multiple technical fields and standards” (that means broad market acceptance and should have been a reason to reject the appeal)
- “Avanci’s own representations that the Avanci 5G Platform is FRAND” (if we say that ip fray‘s subscription terms are FRAND, does that mean a UK court should review them?)
- “the practice of certain SEP owners relying on the previous version of Avanci’s platform as satisfying their FRAND obligation” (that is an issue to be addressed in those bilateral disputes)
- “the recognised practical impossibility of negotiating bilateral licences with each SEP owner included in the relevant standard” (this is a total insanity: there are plenty of licensing markets in which there is no one-stop solution, and Tesla has in fact concluded bilateral licenses such as with Huawei)
- England & Wales jurisdiction: here, the UKSC relies on the fact that there are UK patents involved, and considers InterDigital’s patents as related to the Avanci platform.