UPC_CoA_936/2025 – Amazon v Interdigital
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Withdrawn
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Withdrawal of PI application Facts 1. This case concerns an appeal against a preliminary injunction in which the Local Division Mannheim granted an order against Amazon not to do anything in the UK courts that would prevent or make it difficult for Interdigital to seek an injunction in the UPC under its standard essential patents. 2. After the oral argument on appeal, Interdigital asks for withdrawal of its application for a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal. Comments This is somewhat of a cold shower for the interested observer, as we still do not have an answer to the question whether an implementer can ask the UK courts for an interim licence during the time of a rate-setting procedure in the UK and what the value of such an interim licence (or rate-setting) is in the UPC in the light of a contractual FRAND commitment by the SEP holder which contractual obligation does not contain a choice of forum.
Full Decision Text
UPC Court of Appeal Appeal n°: UPC-CoA-936/2025 Decision ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal (R. 265 RoP) issued on 15 July 2026 Patent at Issue: The patents listed in InterDigital's exhibit AR 10 **APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** 1. Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA 2. Amazon Digital UK Limited, London, United Kingdom 3. Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Luxemburg 4. Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Luxemburg 5. Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA hereinafter together: “Amazon” represented by Klaus Haft, attorney-at-law, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, and other representatives of that firm **RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** 1. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA 2. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA 3. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France 4. InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France hereinafter together: ”InterDigital” represented by Cordula Schumacher, attorney-at-law, ARNOLD RUESS Rechtsanwälte, and other representatives of that firm **PATENTS AT ISSUE** The patents listed in InterDigital's exhibit AR 10 **DECIDING PANEL** Panel 3 Ulrike Voβ, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Peter Blok, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS** English **IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE** □ Order of the Local Division Mannheim, dated 22 December 2025 □ Reference number: **SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS** 1. By order of 30 September 2025, the Mannheim Local Division granted ex parte preliminary measures against Amazon. Amazon filed an application for review, requesting that the Court revoke the measures. By final order dated 22 December 2025, the Mannheim Local Division rejected the application for review (“the impugned order”). 2. On 23 December 2025, Amazon filed an appeal against the impugned order together with an application for suspensive effect. The latter was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 29 December 2025. 3. Amazon filed a Statement of response. The oral hearing was held on 28 Mai 2026. 4. On 10 July 2026, InterDigital filed an application pursuant to R. 265 RoP for withdrawal of its application for provisional measures, indicating that Amazon consents to the withdrawal and will not apply for a cost decision. 5. In the statement of 10 July 2026, Amazon consented to InterDigital's withdrawal of the application for provisional measures and indicated that the parties have agreed that neither of them shall file an application for reimbursement of costs versus the other party. **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER** Conditions for permitting withdrawal 6. As long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may, pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, apply to withdraw his action. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. 7. The application for withdrawal is admissible. It concerns an action for provisional measures and there is no final order in the action pending the appeal against the impugned order (CoA, 15 January 2025, UPC_CoA_637/2024, Avago vs Tesla). 8. In view of its consent, Amazon cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. 9. On application by InterDigital and with the agreement of Amazon, the Court of Appeal therefore permits the withdrawal of the action for provisional measures. Costs 10. R. 265.2 (c) RoP provides that the Court shall issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 (R.150 to 152 RoP). 11. Since both parties agreed that neither of them shall file an application for reimbursement of costs versus the other party, there is no need for a cost decision in the present case. **ORDER** The Court of Appeal I. permits the withdrawal of the action for provisional measures and declares the proceedings closed; II. orders that this order be entered on the register. This decision was issued on 15 July 2026. Ulrike Voβ, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Peter Blok, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge
Key Holdings
- An application for a preliminary injunction can be withdrawn during the appeal stage.
- The Court of Appeal has the power to grant a request for withdrawal of an application.
- The case involved complex issues regarding anti-suit injunctions, UK courts, and the enforcement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in the UPC.
- The withdrawal prevented a judicial ruling on the interplay between UK interim licenses and UPC FRAND commitments.
Tags
- Withdrawal
- Preliminary Injunction
- Standard Essential Patents
- FRAND
- Anti-suit injunction
- Appeal
- Procedural