Gemini said
The High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC), led by Mr. Justice Richard Meade, has taken a sharply critical stance toward the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Mannheim Local Division regarding the ongoing InterDigital v. Amazon dispute.
The UK court’s position can be summarized into the following key points:
1. Accusations of Unfairness and "Soviet" Tactics
The EWHC characterizes the UPC’s recent conduct as having an "unfair and unfortunate effect" on UK proceedings. Mr. Justice Meade likened the UPC’s jurisdictional approach to "Soviet-style negotiation," suggesting the UPC operates on a philosophy of "What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable." This refers to the UK’s belief that the UPC expects other courts to compromise their jurisdiction while the UPC maintains its own without concession.
2. Skepticism of the "Peace Proposal"
The UK court is highly skeptical of the UPC's attempt to force Amazon into a "declaration" regarding UK proceedings:
Lack of Legal Force: Meade dismissed Amazon’s statements to the UK court (intended to satisfy the UPC) as "purely performative" and legally unenforceable.
Translation Errors: The court suggests a fundamental misunderstanding occurred where the German term Erklärung (which can mean a binding "declaration of will") was translated to English in a way that lacked any real legal teeth, failing to provide the "lasting peace" the UPC sought.
3. Resistance to UPC "Long-Arm" Jurisdiction
The UK court views the UPC’s anti-interference injunctions as an attempt to usurp the jurisdiction of English courts. Specifically, the EWHC:
Faults the UPC for not narrowing its injunctions to exclude "final relief" determined by UK courts.
Criticizes the UPC for disregarding the "free will" of the litigants, arguing that any concessions made by InterDigital in the UPC are the result of duress from the UK’s own antisuit injunctions.
4. Direct Communication vs. Conflict
While the relationship is currently described as a "Cold War phase," Mr. Justice Meade advocated for direct communication between judges to avoid friction. He criticized the current "haphazard and indirect" way information is passed between the courts through parties' submissions, even noting that the UPC’s characterization of his own communication as a "third-party filing" was inaccurate.
5. Preservation of Sanction Power
Despite the friction, the EWHC decided not to issue immediate sanctions against InterDigital for its actions in the UPC. However, the court explicitly reserved the right to reconsider these sanctions after the UPC Court of Appeal rules, effectively keeping a "Damocles sword" over InterDigital to ensure the UK proceedings aren't undermined.
Would you like me to look into the specific details of the UPC's Mannheim Local Division's response to these criticisms?
yes
Gemini said
In light of the recent March 2026 developments, the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC), led by Mr. Justice Richard Meade, has taken an increasingly firm and critical stance against the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the InterDigital v. Amazon dispute.
The UK court's current position can be summarized as follows:
1. Critiquing "Soviet-Style" Negotiation
Mr. Justice Meade has characterized the UPC's approach to jurisdiction as "Soviet-style negotiation," essentially accusing the UPC of operating under the principle of "What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable." The EWHC argues that while the UK is expected to compromise its jurisdiction in the name of de-escalation, the UPC remains unwilling to make similar concessions.
2. Accusations of Unfairness
The UK judgment explicitly states that the conduct of the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division has had an "unfair and unfortunate effect" on UK proceedings. The EWHC views the UPC's anti-interference injunctions as an attempt to undermine the efficiency of English litigation and usurp the role of the UK court in determining global FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms.
3. Dismissal of "Performative" Statements
A major point of contention involves a "peace proposal" regarding Amazon's legal standing. The EWHC dismissed Amazon’s statements to the court—intended to satisfy the UPC—as "purely performative."
Enforceability: Meade argued these statements lack legal force and do not constitute a binding waiver of rights.
Translation Errors: The court suggested that a misunderstanding of the German term Erklärung (which can mean a binding "declaration of will") led the UPC to believe a meaningful legal commitment had been made when, in the UK court's view, it had not.
4. Resistance to Coercive Pressure
The UK court maintains that any concessions or narrowing of claims made by InterDigital in the UPC are the result of duress caused by the UK’s own antisuit measures. The EWHC believes the UPC is disregarding the "free will" of the litigants by forcing them to maintain injunctions they might otherwise be prepared to release.
5. Reserving the Right to Sanction
While the EWHC decided not to issue immediate sanctions against InterDigital, it has pointedly reserved the right to reconsider sanctions after the UPC Court of Appeal issues its ruling. This serves as a "Damocles sword" to ensure that the UK's jurisdiction over the global FRAND dispute is not bypassed or ignored by the UPC.
Would you like me to summarize the specific arguments the UPC's Mannheim Local Division used to justify its "long-arm" jurisdiction in this case?
yes
Gemini said
In the InterDigital v. Amazon dispute, the UPC's Mannheim Local Division (LD) has asserted its "long-arm" jurisdiction based on a desire to prevent what it views as a "frontal assault" on its authority.
The UPC’s justification for its expansive jurisdiction rests on the following core arguments:
1. Protection of Patent Enforcement Rights
The Mannheim LD contends that its primary duty is to protect a patentee’s (InterDigital’s) ability to enforce its patents within the UPC’s territory. It views any foreign legal action—specifically the UK FRAND proceedings—as a potential impairment of this right. The UPC argues that if a UK court sets a global rate, it effectively dictates the terms of a license that the UPC must then respect, thereby "hollowing out" the UPC's own judicial power.
2. The "Anti-Interference" Doctrine
Rather than calling its orders "anti-suit injunctions," the UPC uses the term Anti-Interference Injunction (AII). The justification is that:
The Goal is Defensive: The UPC claims it is not trying to stop UK litigation per se, but rather preventing that litigation from being used as a weapon to interfere with UPC infringement proceedings.
Prevention of Coercion: The Mannheim LD believes that Amazon’s pursuit of a global FRAND rate in the UK is a coercive tactic designed to force InterDigital into a settlement that bypasses the UPC’s infringement findings.
3. Broad Interpretation of "Interference"
The UPC has adopted a very wide definition of what constitutes interference. It argues that even "final relief" (the ultimate decision) from a UK court could be a breach of the UPC’s injunction if that relief:
Requires InterDigital to grant a license that covers the UPC territory.
Results in damages against InterDigital for pursuing its claims in the UPC.
Limits InterDigital's ability to seek injunctions in EU member states.
4. Jurisdiction over Global Behavior
The UPC justifies its "long-arm" reach by stating that even though it is a European court, it must be able to regulate the conduct of parties anywhere in the world if that conduct has a direct effect on the integrity of UPC proceedings. This includes prohibiting parties from seeking "retaliatory" measures in foreign courts like the UK or Brazil.
5. Rejection of "Comity" in the Face of Overreach
While the UK court emphasizes international comity (mutual respect between courts), the Mannheim LD effectively argues that comity is a "two-way street." From the UPC’s perspective, it is the UK court that is overreaching by attempting to set rates for patents it does not own (non-UK patents). Therefore, the UPC views its own aggressive stance as a necessary self-defense mechanism against "jurisdictional imperialism."
Market Data 
Markets 
