Anti-Suit and Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions - Amazon.com v InterDigital
 |
| Munich Law Courts Author Berthold Werner Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Source Wikipedia Commons |
This was an application by InterDigital VC Holdings Inc., InterDigital Inc., InterDigital Madison Patents Holdings SAS, InterDigital Patents Holdings Inc. and InterDigital CE Holdings SAS ("InterDigital") to set aside or, alternatively, vary the ex parte interim anti-anti-suit injunction that Mr Justice Meade had granted to the claimants, Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Digital UK Ltd., Amazon Europe Core SARL, Amazon EU SARL and Amazon Technologues Inc ("Amazon") on 20 Oct 2025 and continued on 30 Oct 2025. The reason why his lordship made that order is that the Munich regional court ("Landgericht München I") and the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court had each granted ex parte injunctions to restrain Amazon from seeking interim licences to work InterDigital's streaming patents on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) from the English courts to enable those companies to comply with ITU-T recommendations.
Licence Negotiations
According to Mr Justice Meade's judgment in Amazon.Com Inc and others v InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc and others [2025] EWHC 2600 (Pat) (9 Oct 2025), negotiations between Amazon and InterDigital for contractual licences had not progressed for the following reasons. First, the parties could not agree on whether ITU-T recommendations obliged standard essential patent owners to grant licences to implementers on RAND terms for both encoding and decoding patents, or only for decoding patents. Secondly, they disagreed on whether an implementer could obtain specific performance for a licence to work standard essential patents under Swiss law.
Amazon's Claim
On 29 Aug 2025, Amazon issued proceedings in England, Brazil and several other countries against InterDigital and previous owners of the patents in suit. The English proceedings challenged the validity and essentiality of InterDigital's streaming patents and claimed declarations that Amazon had not infringed them. Amazon also alleged that InterDigital had abused a dominant position and breached its ITU-T obligations. The proceedings sought a declaration that Amazon was entitled to be offered a licence to the challenged patents on RAND terms, and a declaration of licence terms to the challenged patents, including terms that are adjustable pending full court determination, if granted before such a determination. Mr Justice Meade noted that that is the sort of relief that touches on the English courts' jurisdiction to make declarations about patentee's obligations to grant interim licences under RAND or FRAND obligations.
The Ex Parte Injunctions
The Munich Regional Court made its initial order on 26 Sept 2025 and modified it on 1 Oct 2026. The Mannheim Local Division made its order on 30 Sept 2025 and not on 30 Oct as Mr Justice Meade said in para [13] of his judgment of 9 Oct 2025. InterDigital served both orders on Amazon on 2 Oct 2025.
The Munich Regional Court made its initial order on 26 Sept 2025 and modified it on 1 Oct 2026. The Mannheim Local Division made its order on 30 Sept 2025 and not on 30 Oct as Mr Justice Meade said in para [13] of his judgment of 9 Oct 2025. InterDigital served both orders on Amazon on 2 Oct 2025.
Mr Justice Meade's Ex Parte Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction
Fearing that InterDigital might ask the Munich Regional Court, Mannheim Local Division or some other court to restrain it from pursuing its claim to final RAND relief, Amazon applied without notice to Mr Justice Meade on 20 Oct 2025 for an anti-anti-suit injunction preventing InterDigital from seeking such an order. The learned judge granted the injunction in Amazon.Com, Inc and others v InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc and others [2025] EWHC 2708 (Pat) in the following terms:
"Until after the return date or further order of the Court, the Respondents (and each of them), whether by their directors, officers, partners, employees or agents, or in any other way, must not take any steps in any court or tribunal (wherever situated) to seek any orders, measures or other relief (including, without limitation, anti-suit relief) which would, directly or indirectly:
a. restrain, prevent or prohibit the Applicants or any of them from pursuing the Final Relief (or any part of it), the AASI Application, the Continuation Application, and/or the Expedition Application;
b. require the Applicants or any of them to withdraw any claims for the Final Relief (or any part of it), the AASI Application, the Continuation Application, and/or the Expedition Application;
c. seek to penalise the Applicants or any of them for the pursuit of the Final Relief (or any part of it), the AASI Application, the Continuation Application, and/or the Expedition Application."
Fearing that InterDigital might ask the Munich Regional Court, Mannheim Local Division or some other court to restrain it from pursuing its claim to final RAND relief, Amazon applied without notice to Mr Justice Meade on 20 Oct 2025 for an anti-anti-suit injunction preventing InterDigital from seeking such an order. The learned judge granted the injunction in Amazon.Com, Inc and others v InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc and others [2025] EWHC 2708 (Pat) in the following terms:
"Until after the return date or further order of the Court, the Respondents (and each of them), whether by their directors, officers, partners, employees or agents, or in any other way, must not take any steps in any court or tribunal (wherever situated) to seek any orders, measures or other relief (including, without limitation, anti-suit relief) which would, directly or indirectly:
a. restrain, prevent or prohibit the Applicants or any of them from pursuing the Final Relief (or any part of it), the AASI Application, the Continuation Application, and/or the Expedition Application;
b. require the Applicants or any of them to withdraw any claims for the Final Relief (or any part of it), the AASI Application, the Continuation Application, and/or the Expedition Application;
c. seek to penalise the Applicants or any of them for the pursuit of the Final Relief (or any part of it), the AASI Application, the Continuation Application, and/or the Expedition Application."
InterDigital's Application to set aside or vary the Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction
Mr Justice Meade summarized InterDigital's grounds for seeking the vacation or variation of his anti-anti-suit injunction at para [24] of his judgment of 2 Dec 2025:
"i) No sufficient threat or intent on its part to get ASI relief preventing Amazon from seeking final RAND relief.
ii) Offence against comity (which it said had to be assessed in the light of the no threat/intent question).
iii) The AASI Order should be varied to clarify its scope."
"i) No sufficient threat or intent on its part to get ASI relief preventing Amazon from seeking final RAND relief.
ii) Offence against comity (which it said had to be assessed in the light of the no threat/intent question).
iii) The AASI Order should be varied to clarify its scope."
Amazon contended that the injunction should be continued for the reasons why it was granted in the first place. It said that there was a threat and intention on InterDigital's part and that there was no lack of comity because any intrusion on what could be argued in the Mannheim Local Division, the Munich regional court or anywhere else was little to nil. Amazon did not accept that there was any lack of clarity but did not oppose clarifying changes which did not change the material effect of the relief and which the judge considered appropriate.
The Issue
The learned judge directed himself at para [29] that the main issue for him was whether to set aside or continue the anti-anti-suit order. He believed it was clear that he was not conducting a sort of appeal from himself or merely a review of his judgment on Amazon's ex parte application. He had to consider afresh whether anti-anti-suit relief was appropriate.
Quia Timet Relief
Mr Justice Meade observed at para [31] that a claimant cannot get an injunction just by asserting a fear that something will be done coupled with the argument that if the Defendant does not intend to do it, an injunction will do no harm. He referred to the following passage of Lord Justice Harman's judgment in Paul v Southern [1964] RPC 118, which Mr Justice Birss quoted in Merck Sharp & Dohme v Teva [2013] EWHC 1958 (Pat):
"It is exactly as if Mr Aldous in a sworn affidavit has said: 'I am fearful that unless restrained by the Court Sir Lionel Heald will hit me on the head with a volume of the Patent Reports'. He then goes on and says 'If he is not going to do it, it will not hurt him, so you may as well grant an injunction'. I have heard that argument before."
Mr Justice Meade observed at para [31] that a claimant cannot get an injunction just by asserting a fear that something will be done coupled with the argument that if the Defendant does not intend to do it, an injunction will do no harm. He referred to the following passage of Lord Justice Harman's judgment in Paul v Southern [1964] RPC 118, which Mr Justice Birss quoted in Merck Sharp & Dohme v Teva [2013] EWHC 1958 (Pat):
"It is exactly as if Mr Aldous in a sworn affidavit has said: 'I am fearful that unless restrained by the Court Sir Lionel Heald will hit me on the head with a volume of the Patent Reports'. He then goes on and says 'If he is not going to do it, it will not hurt him, so you may as well grant an injunction'. I have heard that argument before."
Amazon did not dispute the principle but argued that there was a concrete and definite threat and that the situation before the judge on the anti-anti-suit application was analogous to InterDigital's already having hit Amazon with two volumes of the Patent Reports and getting ready to do it again.
Principles for Granting Anti-Suit Injunctions
At para [22] of his judgment on Amazon's ex parte application for the anti-anti-suit injunction, Mr Justice Meade said that Mr Justice Foxton had summarized the relevant principles in para [107] of his judgment in J.P. Morgan v Werealize.com [2025] EWHC 1842 (Comm):
"The principles for the granting of anti-suit relief on the vexation and oppression basis are summarised by Males LJ in SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599 at [90]-[91], [103] and [108] and in JP Morgan I précised that summary and principles derived from other authorities cited in that case as follows:
(i) The basic principle is that the jurisdiction is to be exercised 'when the ends of Justice require it'.
(ii) Established categories of case where an injunction may be appropriate (which may overlap) include cases where an injunction is necessary to protect the jurisdiction of the English court and cases where the pursuit of foreign proceedings is regarded as vexatious or oppressive, but the jurisdiction is not confined to these categories and must be applied flexibly.
(iii) Great caution must be exercised before such an injunction is granted, at any rate in cases where the injunction is not sought in order to enforce an arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction clause, because of the requirements of comity.
(iv) When an anti-suit injunction is sought on grounds which do not involve a breach of contract, comity, telling against interference with the process of a foreign court, will always require careful consideration.
(v) Comity requires that in order for an anti-suit injunction to be granted, the English court must have 'a sufficient interest' in the matter in question. Often that sufficient interest will exist by reason of the fact that the English court is the natural forum for the determination of the parties' dispute. In a case where the injunction is sought in order to protect the jurisdiction or process of the English courts, the existence of a sufficient interest will generally be self-evident.
(vi) The categories of factors which may amount to vexation and oppression are not closed (Elektrim SA v Vivendi Holdings 1 Corp [2008]EWCA Civ 1178, [83]).
(vii) At [146], I added my own observation that even in cases in which injunctive relief is not sought on a contractual or quasi-contractual basis, the fact that the foreign proceedings involve the circumvention of an agreement for arbitration with an English seat, or an English EJC, can itself be relevant in determining whether the commencement and pursuit of the foreign proceedings is vexatious and oppressive, as well as establishing the necessary 'sufficient interest' of the English court to act."
Both sides agreed that the above passage contained the relevant principles. InterDigital cited para [50] of Lord Justice Toulson's judgment in Deutsche Bank AG v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 617, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 987, [2010] 1 WLR 1023, [2009] EWCA Civ 725, [2009] 2 CLC 45, [2009] CP Rep 45, which Amazon agreed was relevant:
"(5) An anti-suit injunction always requires caution because by definition it involves interference with the process or potential process of a foreign court. An injunction to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause governed by English law is not regarded as a breach of comity, because it merely requires a party to honour his contract. In other cases, the principle of comity requires the court to recognise that, in deciding questions of weight to be attached to different factors, different judges operating under different legal systems with different legal policies may legitimately arrive at different answers, without occasioning a breach of customary international law or manifest injustice, and that in such circumstances it is not for an English court to arrogate to itself the decision how a foreign court should determine the matter. The stronger the connection of the foreign court with the parties and the subject matter of the dispute, the stronger the argument against intervention."
"(5) An anti-suit injunction always requires caution because by definition it involves interference with the process or potential process of a foreign court. An injunction to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause governed by English law is not regarded as a breach of comity, because it merely requires a party to honour his contract. In other cases, the principle of comity requires the court to recognise that, in deciding questions of weight to be attached to different factors, different judges operating under different legal systems with different legal policies may legitimately arrive at different answers, without occasioning a breach of customary international law or manifest injustice, and that in such circumstances it is not for an English court to arrogate to itself the decision how a foreign court should determine the matter. The stronger the connection of the foreign court with the parties and the subject matter of the dispute, the stronger the argument against intervention."
Mr Justice Meade also contributed his judgment in Cook v Boston [2022] EWHC 504 (Pat).
Threat and Intention
InterDigital had argued that the anti-ant-suit injunction was directed purely at the risk of its interfering with expedition. His lordship said at para [47] that the following had to be taken into account when determining risk and intention:- InterDigital had already sought and obtained anti-suit injunctions directed against these proceedings;
- It had done so ex parte; and
- It had initially argued that the Munich and Mannheim injunctions did prevent the English courts from granting final RAND relief.
Clarity
The judge acknowledged that the Munich and Mannheim courts had concerns about the effect on their jurisdiction of any RAND relief that an English court might grant, particularly if it ordered specific performance. Amazon argued that InterDigital's objections were founded on misunderstandings or misdescriptions of the effect of Mr Justice Meade's anti-anti-suit injunction:
"(The relief sought in these English proceedings would not prevent any foreign Court from (i) determining for itself whether or not to enforce the property right granted by that country or (ii) determining the effect of an English Court ordered licence if raised as a defence (including considerations of ordre public and the appropriate national law); nor would it prevent InterDigital from bringing any such proceedings or arguing correspondingly; and nor would the AASI have that effect, as rightly recognised by the Court (and thus, neither InterDigital nor any third party would be exposed to sanctions for breach of the AASI as there would be no breach)."
Although Amazon did not believe that amending the anti-anti-suit injunction was necessary, it asked the judge to make those points clear in his order. While agreeing that such an amendment was not actually necessary, his lordship acceded to that request.
There were several other issues on which clarification was sought. Mr Justice Meade responded helpfully at [64]:
"It goes without saying that any order, but especially one for an injunction, should be as clear as possible. If the AASI Order was or is avoidably unclear then I am of course open to clarifying it. Even were I to think that it is clear but also that InterDigital has a reasonable (if misplaced) concern, then I would be willing to consider including a provision "for the avoidance of doubt", although experience teaches that those often have the opposite effect. I am also happy to include clarifications if I think they will assist the UPC or the German court."
"It goes without saying that any order, but especially one for an injunction, should be as clear as possible. If the AASI Order was or is avoidably unclear then I am of course open to clarifying it. Even were I to think that it is clear but also that InterDigital has a reasonable (if misplaced) concern, then I would be willing to consider including a provision "for the avoidance of doubt", although experience teaches that those often have the opposite effect. I am also happy to include clarifications if I think they will assist the UPC or the German court."
Comity
The learned judge made clear at [86] that InterDigital could argue in proceedings before the UPC or German courts that any final RAND relief in the UK would be ineffective in those jurisdictions. There was nothing to prevent InterDigital from bringing or continuing infringement claims. It could even bring overlapping rate-setting claims if it so wished. It just could not try to prevent a final RAND Trial in the UK from going ahead.
The learned judge made clear at [86] that InterDigital could argue in proceedings before the UPC or German courts that any final RAND relief in the UK would be ineffective in those jurisdictions. There was nothing to prevent InterDigital from bringing or continuing infringement claims. It could even bring overlapping rate-setting claims if it so wished. It just could not try to prevent a final RAND Trial in the UK from going ahead.
Decision
His lordship concluded that there was a strong and sufficient intention/threat/likelihood of InterDigital's seeking anti-suit injunctive relief if not restrained. There was no lack of comity in continuing the anti-anti-suit injunction. It was therefore justified to protect the English courts' jurisdiction over final RAND relief and to prevent vexation or oppression for the reasons the judge gave in his judgment on Amazon's application for ex parte injunctive relief. He therefore decided to continue the order with the modifications mentioned above.
His lordship concluded that there was a strong and sufficient intention/threat/likelihood of InterDigital's seeking anti-suit injunctive relief if not restrained. There was no lack of comity in continuing the anti-anti-suit injunction. It was therefore justified to protect the English courts' jurisdiction over final RAND relief and to prevent vexation or oppression for the reasons the judge gave in his judgment on Amazon's application for ex parte injunctive relief. He therefore decided to continue the order with the modifications mentioned above.
Further Proceedings
Although Mr Justice Meade went out of his way to reassure the Mannheim Local Division and the Munich regional court that his order would not impinge on their respective jurisdictions and expressed hopes for de-escalation and better communications, the Local Division rejected Amazon's objection to its ex parte anti-suit injunction. It also held that Amazon had breached its order and required it to make a declaration to Mr Justice Meade limiting the relief that it would seek in its action in England. In Amazon.com Inc and others v Interdigital VC Holdings Inc and others [2026] EWHC 499 (Pat) (5 March 2026), the learned judge agreed to accept such a declaration from Amazon with considerable reservations. He thought that the Local Division's overall course had had and would have an unfair and unfortunate effect within the UK proceedings, both in relation to Amazon and to the efficient conduct of the litigation.
Further Reading
Konstanze Richter has chronicled the proceedings in Munich and Mannheim as well as in London in InterDigital vs Amazon – A chronology of the escalation 16 March 2026 Juve Patent. Anyone wishing to discuss this topic may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form at any time.
Konstanze Richter has chronicled the proceedings in Munich and Mannheim as well as in London in InterDigital vs Amazon – A chronology of the escalation 16 March 2026 Juve Patent. Anyone wishing to discuss this topic may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form at any time.
.png)
Comments