Ultimate showdown: UPC presumes Amazon is in breach of injunction, gives until Friday to back down; meanwhile, Disney may be settling with InterDigital

Context:

• The Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Mannheim Local Division (LD) summoned Amazon and InterDigital to a hearing that will be held on Friday (February 27, 2026) and is primarily a de facto contempt hearing (February 23, 2026 ip fray article) concerning an anti-interference injunction (AII) that applies not only to the (meanwhile abandoned) pursuit of a UK interim-license declaration but also (in fact, a fortiori) to any directly or indirectly coercive measure following a full UK FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) trial.
• The wisdom of Amazon’s bet on jurisdictional overreach instead of comity can be questioned (February 25, 2026 ip fray article).

What’s new:

InterDigital v. Amazon

Today, the Mannheim LD’s Presiding Judge (and here, judge-rapporteur) Prof. Peter Tochtermann followed up with an order filed in English and in German that sets the record straight and effectively gives Amazon an ultimatum:

• The order quotes from an email in which Amazon’s counsel told InterDigital’s counsel that “Amazon reserves all its rights” in the UK action, saying with respect to a potential damages claim (in a scenario where InterDigital declines to grant a global license on UK court-determined terms) only that “Amazon does not presently seek damages arising from any breach by InterDigital of its RAND¹ {reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing] Commitment,” thereby leaving the door open to a future damages claim.
• The judge then puts Amazon on notice that “[t]his would prejudice Interdigital in the pursuit of its rights before the UPC, which would constitute a breach of the [UPC’s anti-interference injunction].” He also says that there presumptively is a breach, but in order to understand that part, one needs to focus on the German version (the judge’s mother tongue), which contains a word that does not have a direct English equivalent and is far stronger than “may” in the English version.
• Amazon is told that it will have to take a clear, unambiguous, and “unrestricted” position on this at the Friday hearing, and that it is imperative that any potential procedural agreement between the parties take into account this particular aspect of the order. The words emphasized in the previous sentence (or their equivalents) are underlined in the order.

InterDigital v. Disney

A spokesperson for the Munich I Regional Court has just informed ip fray that an InterDigital v. Disney hearing scheduled for tomorrow has ben vacated. Last week the court told us it was on the agenda. A settlement could be in the making considering that InterDigital has already won three Munich injunctions against Disney (February 13, 2026 ip fray article).

Direct impact: Amazon now faces two choices:

• It can heed the warning and waive any future damages claim (or whatever other measure with coercive potential) against InterDigital arising under the FRAND ruling by the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) with respect to InterDigital’s exercise of patent rights enforceable in UPCland. In other words, Amazon can reduce the UK FRAND proceedings to a mere advisory opinion with respect to enforcement in UPCland, but the UK proceedings can neither have teeth now nor can Amazon reserve the right to implant teeth later.
• It can opt for recalcitrance, in which case a fine of up to €50M plus a per diem fine of €500K (with further increases being possible in the event of continued disobedience) looms large. The theoretically earliest point would be a bench ruling on Friday, followed by a written reasoning. It would not even be the UPC’s first bench ruling (February 12, 2026 ip fray article). And the overall circumstances would suggest a fine at or near the upper end of the range because the Mannheim LD has previously warned Amazon in writing that it must not seek damages from InterDigital if a license involving UPCland patent rights is denied (February 12, 2026 ip fray article).

Wider ramifications:

• Differences between an original German document (in that case, a patent application) and an English translation can make an important or even decisive difference in the UPC. A non-infringement ruling by the UPC’s Vienna LD depended on the meaning of one German word lacking a direct English equivalent, which is why the presence of German judges was an unfortunate circumstance for the plaintiff (February 24, 2026 ip fray article).
• The EWHC’s position negates the territoriality of patent rights and offends comity. The UPC’s position in this narrow context is purely defensive and consistent. In the greater scheme of things, the UPC could be more consistent if it refrained from requiring implementers of standards to take licenses beyond the boundaries of UPCland. But that is not presently an issue in the dispute at hand. If ever, it will come up toward the end of the patent infringement proceedings.