ip fray
ip fray
Edit
Amazon backs down (pending appeal) after UPC’s Mannheim LD finds it in breach of InterDigital’s anti-interference injunction; further guidance
Feb 27, 2026
Context: On Wednesday, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Local Division (LD) asserted its authority once more (February 25, 2026 ip fray article). It advised Amazon that it was presumptively in breach of InterDigital’s anti-interference injunction (AII)1 and stated the unequivocal expectation that Amazon provide at today’s hearing the necessary clarity concerning the pursuit of damages in the UK over InterDigital’s patent enforcement in the UPC.
What’s new:
At today’s hearing, Amazon faced a court that was not hostile to it (the tone was low-key and purely analytical), yet unprepared to compromise the “overarching interest” in access to justice without foreign interference. Amazon stated from the beginning that it had no intent to breach the AII. Toward the end, however, Presiding Judge Prof. Peter Tochtermann stated directly that in the opinion of the panel, Amazon is (not just “may be” or “presumptively is”) in breach (you can find the exact wording in German and an English translation further below), and offered them a “suspension” subject to (a) an immediate commitment not to base a hypothetical future (after a post-trial ruling in the UK) damages claims on InterDigital’s enforcement in the UPC and (b) its implementation at a hearing in the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) next Thursday (March 5, 2026). Amazon accepted and will get out of this commitment only if the UPC’s Court of Appeal (CoA) overrules the Mannheim LD.
Previously, InterDigital would have preferred a further-reaching partial settment concerning antisuit relief and was prepared to make concessions (even to the extent that the court might not have blessed them anymore, voicing concerns over the impact on the ordre public), but Amazon clearly wants to await the outcome in the CoA, which will hear the matter in three months from today.
Some “third-party input” was filed with the UPC by Amazon, and the court did not appear to be amused. It merely acknowledged it.
Direct impact: Amazon could have been fined to the tune of €50M (maximum initial fine, with daily fines of €500K on top and the possibility of a future increase). That has been avoided, and at no point during the hearing was there any indication that Amazon would go that far. It appears that, apart from whatever may happen in the UK now, the next milestone in the antisuit part of the dispute is the UPC CoA hearing.
Wider ramifications:
The court provided further clarifications regarding anti-interference relief and long-arm jurisdiction. You can find the details further below.
Amazon and anyone else contemplating similar litigation tactics will get pushback from the Mannheim LD if it is asked to intervene, but this is a court that is conscious of its responsibility and committed to de-escalation, however, provided that access to the UPC not be impaired.
The presiding judge also mentioned the fact that the European Commission’s (EC) Directorate General for Trade (DG TRADE) is watching this matter.
To Read The Full Story
Sign In
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Contact us
Originally, the order was called an anti-interim-license injunction (AILI). The court later made it clear that the focus should be on substance rather than labels. It declines to use any particular label at this stage. We refer to it as an anti-interference injunction (AII), but it is not a court-endorsed term.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
