Context: In a March 7, 2026 article, we analyzed an order by Mr Justice Richard Meade of the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) in Amazon v. InterDigital and expressed concern over what appeared to be a Cold War state between that court and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). We also took note of certain accusatory tendencies and concluded that Amazon had not done enough in the UK to remove, for good, any risk of InterDigital being held liable in the UK for patent enforcement in the UPC, absent a decision by the UPC’s Court of Appeal (CoA) reversing or modifying InterDigital’s anti-interference injunction (AII). We were wondering whether this was non-compliance or an act of malicious compliance, capitalizing in part on what was lost in German-to-English translation.
What’s new:
- Today, both the EWHC and the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (LD) entered new orders in the respective Amazon-InterDigital cases. The EWHC amended (either sua sponte or at Amazon’s request) last week’s consent order, effectively recognizing the potential for translation issues and explicitly limiting the scope of the FRAND1 (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) trial in the UK. The UPC’s Mannheim LD reminds Amazon of its obligations and requests explanations or, if necessary, further steps toward compliance.
- As explained below, both court orders vindicate certain parts of ip fray‘s Saturday analysis. It shows that our esteemed audience is often a step ahead of what happens in certain proceedings because we highlight issues early.
- The UPC order notes that at the February 27, 2026 hearing, everyone in the room (which only meant the judges, representatives and counsel for the parties, and ip fray) understood that Amazon was supposed to make a legally binding commitment in the UK as opposed to a non-binding statement.
- The UPC also rejects the EWHC’s criticism of its notice to the European Commission’s Directorates-General for Competition (DG COMP) and Trade (DG TRADE).
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
UPC panels and counsel
CoA
Presiding Judge Ulrike Voss (“Voß” in German) was recently sworn in as the Presiding Judge of the CoA’s new Panel 3. But for this case she is joined by President Dr. Grabinski’s trusted sidekicks Judge-rapporteur Prof. Peter Blok and Judge Emmanuel Gougé (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 (“Böttcher” in German), and Judge András Kupecz (CD Munich; August 30, 2024 ip fray interview). Temporarily, Judge Tobias Sender filled in for Judge Boettcher, but the latter was on the panel that held the February 27, 2026 hearing.
Today’s order was signed by the presiding judge alone, but with reference to a mandate by the entire panel.
Counsel for InterDigital
Counsel for InterDigital: Arnold Ruess‘s Cordula Schumacher (also lead counsel on appeal), Dr. Lisa Rieth, Tim Smentkowski, Julija Kravtsova, and Dr. Marina Wehler. From the UK, Bird & Bird’s Richard Vary attended the February 27, 2026 hearing. U.S. attorney Richard Kamprath of McKool Smith was among the remote attendees of various related hearings. In-house litigation counsel Steven Akerley attended the two Mannheim hearings in person, and several other InterDigital lawyers and executives followed the video stream.
Counsel for Amazon
- In person at the Mannheim hearing: Hoyng Rokh Monegier’s Klaus Haft, Sven Krause, Roeland Grijpink, Dr. Léon Dijkman, Moritz Lohr, Dr. Nico Schur, and Antonia Wilhelm; as well as (from the UK) Hogan Lovells’s Paul Brown.
- By video: Hoyng Rokh Monegier’s Kay Kasper; Hogan Lovells UK’s Will Buswell and Ian Moss; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton’s Martin Bader and Stephen Korniczky; and Amazon VP IP Scott Hayden and Associate General Counsel IP Marc Ascolese.
- In this case, the relevant standard-setting organization is the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and its licensing pledge uses the term RAND. The absence of the letter F has no practical effect. ↩︎