UPC_CoA_936/2025 – Amazon v Interdigital

Expert Commentary

Suspensive Effect Facts 1. On 30 September 2025, the Local Division Mannheim issued an ex parte order forbidding Amazon to seek for or continue seeking an antisuit injunction or a similar measure, such as a temporary restraining order, which would result in Interdigital being prevented from conducting patent infringement proceedings in the UPC based on patents granted for the UPC, in particular, to refrain from asking the UK High Court for an interim license or to rule that InterDigital would violate its FRAND obligations if it did not grant an interim license, and, in brief, to take every necessary step so that the UPC can decide and enforce judgments in patent infringement proceedings with respect to patents granted for the UPC. 2. On 22 December 2025, the Mannheim Division confirmed the order in review proceedings. 3. In case of non-compliance with the order, the Mannheim Division ruled that a penalty of up to € 50 million and an additional € 500,000 per day may be imposed. 4. Amazon appealed on 23 December asking for suspensive effect as far as the order prohibits Amazon from pursuing its request for final relief in the UK. 5. Amazon asked this because the Mannheim Local Division stated in its order that Amazon may already be in breach of the order, which meant that the Mannheim Division could initiate penalty proceedings any day. The Court of Appeal (standing judge) 1. Amazon referred to the correct criteria for suspensive effect. 2. However, Amazon has not demonstrated that the order of the Court of First Instance (CFI) is “manifestly” erroneous. This is not to say that the order may not be erroneous. 3. The question whether or not a request for a court-determined license as Amazon applied for (in the UK) is an antisuit injunction, is a complex issue. 4. According to the standing judge, what the CFI stated with respect to Amazon possibly already being in breach of the order is not relevant considering that, before being able to impose penalty sums, the CFI will have to hear both parties and Amazon could then still ask for suspensive effect. 5. The request for suspensive effect is rejected. Comment 1. It is understandable and prudent that the standing judge (in this case the President of the Court of Appeal) did not decide that the decision of the Mannheim Local Division is manifestly erroneous. It was not necessary and is preferable (also vis-à-vis his colleagues) to decide this matter with the full panel. Note, however, that the standing judge explicitly states that this does not prejudge whether or not the decision is erroneous. This is interesting because such addition was of course not necessary. We have already seen refusals of suspensive effect in cases where the full panel of the Court of Appeal later ruled that the decision was wrong. 2. Amazon does not have to worry about having to pay the draconian penalty sums because of the CFI suggesting that it may already be in breach of the order. The standing judge makes clear that if the Mannheim Court, after hearing the parties, would indeed impose penalty payments, Amazon could still ask for suspensive effect. 3. Even more importantly, the standing judge states very clearly in paragraph 13 that the Mannheim Local Division has not ruled that Amazon has violated the order but only that the (confirmed) order is based on a finding of “imminent danger”. So the possibility that the Mannheim Local Division would start immediate penalty proceedings is very remote. 4. This ruling shows that for a decision to be manifestly erroneous, it has to be very clearly wrong at first glance. A known example to date: a decision of The Hague Local Division which had extended an injunction to Ireland as if Ireland was a UPC country. On the contrary, the decision of the Hamburg Local Division which had in fact injuncted prior art products was not considered manifestly erroneous but (unsurprisingly) overturned on appeal. So the bar for manifestly erroneous is very high!

Full Decision Text

Appeal n°: Unified Patent Court UPC-COA-0000936/2025 Einheitliches Patentgericht Juridiction unifiée du brevet ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 29 December 2025 regarding an application for suspensive effect (R. 223.4 RoP) APPLICANTS AND APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1. Amazon.com, Inc., 410 Terry Avenue North Seattle, Washington, 98109, USA 2. Amazon Digital UK Limited, 1 Principal Place, Worship Street, London, EC2A, United Kingdom 3. Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., 38 Avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxemburg 4. Amazon EU S.à.r.l., 38 Avenue John F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxemburg 5. Amazon Technologies, Inc., 410 Terry Avenue North Seattle, Washington, 98109, USA hereinafter together: “Amazon” represented by Klaus Haft, attorney-at-law, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, USA 2. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, USA 3. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, 20 rue Rouget de Lisle, 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France 4. InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS, 20 rue Rouget de Lisle, 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France hereinafter together: ”InterDigital” represented by Cordula Schumacher, attorney-at-law, ARNOLD RUESS Rechtsanwälte PATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 449 782 DECIDING JUDGE Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal and Standing judge LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Mannheim, dated 22 December 2025 Reference number: UPCCFI936/2025 SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS 1. Upon application of InterDigital, the Court of First Instance, Local Division Mannheim (LD Mannheim) issued an ex-parte order in German (being the language of the proceedings at the time of issuance) on 30 September 2025 (UPCCFI936/2025). 2. The operative part of the order of the LD Mannheim, as far as relevant for the order-at-hand, reads as follows: I. Den Antragsgegnerinnen wird im Wege der einstweiligen Maßnahme untersagt, ein Verfahren auf Erlass einer Anti-Suit-Injunction einzuleiten und/oder weiter zu verfolgen oder eine andere gleichwertige gerichtliche oder behördliche Maßnahme wie eine Temporary Restraining Order zu beantragen, aufgrund derer die Antragstellerinnen effektiv daran gehindert werden und/oder werden sollen, Patentverletzungsverfahren aus ihren der Zuständigkeit des EPG unterliegenden Europäischen Patenten vor dem EPG im Geltungsbereich des EPGÜ zu betreiben oder fortzusetzen, und/oder daraus resultierende Urteile oder Maßnahmen zu vollstrecken, II. wobei diese Unterlassungsverpflichtung, betreffend Patentverletzungsverfahren aus der Zuständigkeit des EPG unterliegenden Europäischen Patenten vor dem EPG im Geltungsbereich des EPGÜ, insbesondere auch umfasst 1. beim UK High Court keine vorläufige Anordnung zu beantragen, die den Antragstellerinnen aufgibt, den Antragsgegnerinnen eine Interimslizenz an Patenten der Antragstellerinnen, zu gewähren; 2. beim UK High Court keine vorläufige Anordnung zu beantragen, festzustellen, dass die Antragstellerinnen gegen RAND-Verpflichtungen verstoßen, wenn sie den Antragsgegnerinnen keine Interimslizenz an Patenten der Antragstellerinnen, zu den von dem UK High Court festgelegten Konditionen gewähren würde; 3. das Gebot, etwaige Anträge nach Ziff. 1. und 2. zurückzunehmen oder andere prozessuale Mittel zu ergreifen, um sie mit Wirkung für den Geltungsbereich des EPGÜ endgültig zu widerrufen; 4. das sofortige Verbot, ein etwaiges Interimslizenz-Verfahren mit Wirkung für den Geltungsbereich des EPGÜ außer zum Zweck der Antragsrücknahme weiter zu betreiben; 5. das Verbot, den Antragstellerinnen durch eine gerichtliche oder behördliche Anordnung 2 gerichtet auf Untersagung des vorliegenden Verfahrens verbieten zu lassen, Patentverletzungsverfahren aus ihren Patenten vor den zuständigen Kammern des EPG zu führen und/oder daraus resultierende Urteil zu vollstrecken; wobei die vorstehenden Ge- und Verbote auch umfassen, auf konzernverbundene Gesellschaften unter Ausschöpfung konzernrechtlicher Möglichkeiten entsprechend einzuwirken. 3. By application of 14 October 2025 and after a change of the language of proceedings to English, defendants asked for a review under R. 212.3 RoP requesting the LD Mannheim I. to revoke its order of 30 September 2025; II. to dismiss the application; III. to have the applicants bear the costs of the proceedings. 4. By order of 22 December 2025, the Mannheim LD decided (to the extent relevant for the order-at-hand) that I. its order of 30 September 2025 is confirmed; II. the application for review is rejected; III. the order of 30 September 2025 remains in force and enforceable unter the conditions of this order of 30 September 2025; IV. in case any or all of the Amazon companies disobey the order of 30 September 2025, a penalty of up to 50.000.000 € may be set; V. for each day of further non-compliance with one or more orders mentioned under IV, a penalty of up to 500.00 € may be set. 5. On 23 December 2025, Amazon filed an appeal from the order of 22 December 2025 and an application for suspensive effect considering the latter being a case of extreme urgency under R. 223.4 RoP requesting the Standing judge to decide that I. Amazon’s appeal against the Order of the Local Division Mannheim of 22 December 2025 in conjunction with the Order of 30 September 2025 in the case UPCCFI936/2025 (jointly the “Order”) has suspensive effect on the Order as far as the Order prohibits Amazon to pursue Amazon’s request for final relief in the proceedings HP-2025-000043 as set out in mn. 11 of the Order of 22 December 2025, in the alternative: II. Amazon’s appeal against the Order of the Local Division Mannheim of 22 December 2025 in conjunction with the Order of 30 September 2025 in the case UPCCFI936/2025 (jointly the “Order”) has suspensive effect on the Order as far as the Order prohibits Amazon to pursue Amazon’s request for final relief in the proceedings HP-2025-000043 as set out in mn. 11 of the Order of 22 December 2025. The suspensive effect shall be subject to a review by the panel of the Court of Appeal which is assigned with Amazon’s appeal, within a time period to be determined by the Court after receipt of Amazon’s written grounds of appeal. 6. Amazon sets out in its reasons that the request for suspensive effect is only addressing the part of the impugned order (IO) aiming to cover Final Relief in the UK (for the exact definition of the Final Relief see page 10 f. IO) not any Interim License, for InterDigital, suspensive effect in that regard comes without any detriment, since undisputedly Final Relief may only follow a hearing scheduled in September 2026 and nothing whatsoever may happen in between impacting Inter Digital, in contrast the Mannheim LD suggests in para. 80 IO that Amazon “may be in breach of this court’s order already depending on the future effects of their applications”. Leaving aside that this logic is an obvious violation of law, it imposes the risk on Amazon that the CFI may initiate penalty proceedings of its own motion under R. 354.4 RoP as early as today or any day going forward. This applies even more as the Mannheim LD did already inform the EU authorities of its own motion. Thus, in absence of a correction of the IO irreversible harm is imminent which can only be avoided by granting suspensive effect. REASONS 7. The request for suspensive effect is admissible but not well-founded. 8. As rightly stated by Amazon, it is established case law of the UPC Court of Appeal that suspensive effect may be granted if there are exceptional circumstances that justify an exception to the principle laid down in Art. 74(1) UPCA that the appeal has no suspensive effect and such exceptional circumstances may be given if the decision or order against which the appeal is directed is manifestly erroneous or if the enforcement of the impugned decision or order would make the appeal devoid of purpose (inter alia: UPCCoA549/2024, APL_51838/2024, order of 29 October 2024, para 58 ff.). 9. In the case-at-hand, Amazon has not demonstrated that the IO is “manifestly” erroneous. This does not prejudice whether the IO is “erroneous” or not which remains to be decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of the appeal proceedings-at-hand. 10. Amazon argues that the IO is based on the evidently incorrect assumption that a decision by the UK Court on a request for a court determined license as Amazon made in terms of the Final Relief would be equal to an anti-suit relief with respect to patent rights in jurisdiction outside the UK. This is a complex issue which needs an in-depth-analysis of the orders of the High Court of England and Wales and the respective understanding of the Mannheim LD which does not justify considering the IO to be manifestly erroneous. 11. Amazon sees a further obvious violation in para 80 IO which states the following: ”That this is not an abstract risk, but an imminent one, is supported by the scope of the UK High Court order itself, which was issued after the present Order was issued upon application of Respondents, who therefore may be in breach of this court’s Order already depending on the future effects of their application.” 12. Amazon considers this statement to be an obvious violation of the law, as R. 354.4 RoP allows the imposition of penalties only against a party that ”fails to comply with the terms of the order”. As the forfeiture of a penalty requires an unambiguous order following an established breach by the order’s addressee, Amazon finds it inappropriate by the Mannheim LD to speculate in vague terms that Amazon ”may be in breach ... already” and also reminds that the imposition of a penalty requires fault. 13. Irrespective of whether the remarks of the Mannheim LD cited from para 80 IO by Amazon are vague or not, it clearly appears from the context of para 80 IO as a whole and the paragraphs preceding para 80 IO that the Mannheim LD based its decision to confirm the order of 30 September 2025 on a continuing ”imminent risk” of an infringement of its order of 30 September 2025 rather than on a finding that Amazon already infringed the Mannheim LD order of 30 September 2025 (”... may be in breach of the court’s order already depending on the future effects of their application”). 14. Furthermore, Amazon’s assertion that the statement of the LD Mannheim in para 80 IO imposes the risk on Amazon that the Mannheim LD may initiate penalty proceedings of its own motion under R. 354.4 RoP as early as today or any day going forward does not justify the order of suspensive effect. During such penalty proceedings under R. 354.4 RoP, the LD Mannheim would have to hear both parties including Amazon which could bring forward its arguments against issuing such an order. Amazon would also have the option to file an appeal against an order to their detriment including a request for suspensive effect. 15. Against this background Amazon has also not established that irreversible harm is imminent and not ordering suspensive effect would render the appeal-at-hand devoid of purpose. Consequentially, Amazon’s main and alternative requests for suspensive effect are to be dismissed. 16. As the order rendered does not have any negative effect on InterDigital, there was no need to hear InterDigital before. 17. As this order does not terminate appeal proceedings, no cost decision is needed. ORDER Amazon’s main and alternative requests for suspensive effect are dismissed. This order was issued on 29 December 2025. Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal and Standing judge

Key Holdings

• Suspensive effect for an appeal is granted only if the first instance order is 'manifestly' erroneous, a very high bar meaning 'very clearly wrong at first glance'.
• A court's statement about a party possibly being in breach of an order does not automatically trigger penalty proceedings; parties must be heard first, and suspensive effect can still be requested.
• The question of whether a request for a court-determined license constitutes an antisuit injunction is a complex issue.
• The standing judge's refusal of suspensive effect does not prejudge whether the underlying decision is erroneous.

Tags

• Anti-Suit Injunction
• Appeal
• FRAND
• Suspensive Effect

Related Cases

• UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Docket Navigator v Sumi Agro and Syngenta
• UPC_CoA_917/2025 – Merz v Viatris
• UPC_CoA_891/2025 – Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks
• UPC-COA-0000894/2025 – Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v bellissa HAAS GmbH
• UPC_CoA_012/2026 – Amazon v Interdigital