Recently, in its patent dispute with InterDigital, Amazon was found by the Mannheim Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to have violated an anti-interference injunction (AII)*. The company made a court commitment during the hearing, thereby avoiding a potential fine of up to 50 million euros (approximately 404 million yuan).

On February 27, 2026, the Mannheim Division of the UPC held a hearing to adjudicate InterDigital's claim that Amazon violated the anti-interference injunction. Amazon's legal counsel had previously written to InterDigital stating it “reserves all rights” in the UK litigation; and regarding potential claims arising from InterDigital's refusal to grant a global license under the terms determined by the UK court, they indicated they were only “not currently seeking” damages for breach of the RAND commitment, thereby leaving room for future claims. Presiding Judge Peter Tochtermann explicitly stated that the panel considered Amazon's actions to constitute a violation of the injunction, potentially subjecting them to a maximum fine of €50 million.

To avoid sanctions, Amazon made an in-court undertaking to:

(a) Immediately commit not to assert hypothetical future damages claims (following a UK trial judgment) based on InterDigital's enforcement actions in the UPC; and

(b) Formalize this commitment at a hearing before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (EWHC) next Thursday (March 5, 2026).

Previously, InterDigital had sought a broader settlement and offered concessions, but Amazon opted to await the UPC Court of Appeal's decision. In response, Amazon submitted third-party observations to the UPC, which the court merely acknowledged.

Judge Tochtermann noted that Amazon primarily raised procedural defenses, but the panel focused more on whether its conduct substantially undermined the UPC's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the higher interest in preserving access to justice should not be disrupted by foreign proceedings. The judge stated that, by contrast, Amazon's legal position in seeking counterclaim relief in the UK was uncontested, and its actions constituted a potential interference with the UPC's proceedings.

This ruling marks a pivotal stage in the dispute over counterclaim relief. The case represents a landmark UPC proceeding addressing anti-interference relief in SEP parallel litigation, aiming to resolve core legal issues concerning the UPC's immunity from foreign parallel proceedings.

IP Finance will continue monitoring subsequent developments.

*Note: The term “Anti-Interference Injunction” (AII) is not an officially recognized court term but a provisional designation used in IP Fray reporting. The order was initially termed an “Anti-Interim License Injunction” (AILI), but the court later clarified that the focus should be on substance rather than procedure, and this specific label is not currently adopted at this stage.