England and Wales Case Law

Amazon.Com, Inc & Ors v Interdigital VC Holdings, Inc & Ors

The Court permits Amazon to make the declaration required by the UPC LD, noting that neither party considers Amazon to be in breach of the UPC LD anti-suit injunction and that the UPC LD's position prevents de-escalation by agreement. The September RAND trial will not include Amazon's claim for damages relating to UPC territories. The Court declines to make any order against InterDigital but reserves the right to reconsider if necessary.

Source excerpt

• Patent licensing
• Anti-suit injunctions
• Frand terms
• Judicial comity
• Standard essential patents
• International jurisdiction

Read case analysis

TP-Link Systems Inc & Anor v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd

The interim payment should be set at the mid-point between TP-Link’s US$12 million offer and Huawei’s rack rate approach, covering sales from 2008 to April 2027, including interest at US Prime + 1%, and including white label and mesh products. The interim payment is to be paid directly to Huawei, not into escrow. The non-refundable amount remains US$12 million, subject to adjustment if white label or mesh product figures are significant.

Source excerpt

• Rand/frand licensing
• Standard essential patents
• Interim relief
• Interest on damages
• Disclosure
• Patent licensing

Read case analysis

Acer Incorporated & Ors v Nokia Technologies Oy

The High Court held Nokia’s ITU-T RAND commitment required offers capable of acceptance, upheld jurisdiction, and granted interim licence declarations.

• Standard essential patents
• Rand/frand licensing
• Declaratory relief
• Jurisdiction
• Swiss contract law
• Patent licensing

Read case analysis

Amazon.com, Inc & Ors v Interdigital VC Holdings, Inc & Ors

Amazon.com, Inc & Ors v Interdigital VC Holdings, Inc & Ors [2025] EWHC 3334 (Pat) (15 December 2025)

Claims for determination of RAND terms for licences relating to UK patents, even if global in scope, relate to property within the jurisdiction and fall within CPR r.63.14 and gateway 11. Service within the jurisdiction was valid, permission to serve out was properly granted, and InterDigital failed to show any alternative forum (arbitration, Switzerland, Delaware) that is clearly and distinctly more appropriate. Undertakings and arbitration offers do not alter the jurisdictional analysis. The English court is the appropriate forum, especially given the competition claims.

Source excerpt

• Patent licensing
• Rand/frand commitments
• Jurisdiction
• Forum non conveniens
• Service of process
• International arbitration

Read case analysis

Motorola Mobility LLC v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Clause 2.4A of the 2011 Licence limits the scope of the licence to actual Motorola Mobility products in existence as of the Effective Date and commercially reasonable updates or extensions thereof, assessed from the perspective of the developer; broad interpretations covering all future cellular handsets or product categories are rejected. No implied term prevents Ericsson from bringing infringement proceedings within the scope of the licence.

Source excerpt

• Patent licensing
• Contractual construction
• Implied terms
• Assignment of rights
• Commercially reasonable updates or extensions

Read case analysis

Amazon.Com, Inc & Ors v InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc & Ors

The court granted an interim anti-anti-suit injunction ex parte, finding it seriously arguable that InterDigital may imminently seek to restrain Amazon's pursuit of final RAND relief in the UK, which would undermine the English court's jurisdiction and could be vexatious or oppressive. The risk was real and imminent, justifying quia timet relief. The order was limited in duration to preserve the status quo until an inter partes hearing, and was carefully crafted to avoid interfering with substantive patent infringement proceedings in foreign courts.

Source excerpt

• Anti-suit injunctions
• Anti-anti-suit injunctions
• Patent licensing
• Comity
• Rand licensing

Read case analysis

InterDigital, Inc & Ors v Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors

The correct legal approach is the balancing exercise ('old test'), not an automatic redaction under the Trade Secrets Regulations. Both lump sum and per unit financial figures, as well as derived averages and totals, are confidential and their publication would materially harm the competitive position of the relevant parties. Therefore, all such information should be redacted from the published judgment. Factual errors should be corrected under the slip rule.

Source excerpt

• Frand licensing
• Confidentiality
• Trade secrets
• Patent licensing
• Open justice
• Redaction of judgments

Read case analysis

InterDigital Inc & Ors, In the Matter Of (Re Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors)

InterDigital Inc & Ors, In the Matter Of (Re Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors) [2025] EWCA Civ 1263 (07 October 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that FRAND judgment redactions should cover confidential lump sums, per-unit rates, and derived averages and totals, and it corrected minor slips in Annex 3.

• Frand licensing
• Confidentiality
• Trade secrets
• Patent licensing
• Open justice
• Redaction of judgments

Read case analysis

The University of Sheffield v Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors

Expert evidence on market practice is not admissible in this claim because the disputed term is defined in ordinary language, the contract was drafted by skilled professionals, and no relevant market practice has been identified that would assist the court; permitting such evidence would usurp the court's function in contract construction.

Source excerpt

• Patent licensing
• Contract construction
• Admissibility of expert evidence

Read case analysis

University of Sheffield v Kudos Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors

University of Sheffield v Kudos Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1252 (Ch) (09 May 2025)

The High Court refused permission to adduce expert evidence on market practice in a patent licence construction dispute, finding it unnecessary and unhelpful.

• Interpretation of commercial contracts
• Admissibility of expert evidence
• Patent licensing
• Market practice evidence
• Expert-evidence
• Contract-interpretation

Read case analysis