InterDigital’s jurisdictional challenge comprehensively rejected by the UK Patents Court

In August 2025, Amazon brought proceedings against InterDigital in the UK Patents Court in relation to the terms on which UK patents owned by InterDigital were to be licensed to Amazon. The claims brought by Amazon fell into three groups:

1. claims relating to the validity and status of four UK Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”) owned by InterDigital (the “Patent Claims”);
2. claims seeking determination of global reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms for licences in respect of certain of InterDigital’s UK patents (the “RAND Claims”); and
3. claims alleging that InterDigital was in breach of UK competition law, including that it had, inter alia, abused a dominant position contrary to the Chapter II Prohibition by refusing to grant certain licences to Amazon on fair or non-excessive price terms (the “Competition Claims”). 

The defendants were all corporate entities incorporated outside of England and Wales and InterDigital challenged the jurisdiction of the UK Patents Court to hear the RAND and Competition Claims[3]. Amazon’s position was that both groups of claims had been validly served on InterDigital - either on the basis that Amazon was able to serve proceedings in this jurisdiction as of right pursuant to CPR r 63.14, or, in the alternative, that Amazon was correctly granted permission to serve each of the defendants outside of the jurisdiction.  

InterDigital challenged Amazon’s position on jurisdiction in two ways. First, it alleged that when properly characterised the RAND and Competition Claims did not fall within the requirements of r 64.13, nor the necessary gateway (Gateway 11) for the purposes of obtaining permission to serve outside of the jurisdiction[4]. Second, and if it was unsuccessful on its first challenge, it sought a forum non conveniens stay on the basis that an alternative forum was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum to hear Amazon’s claims than the courts of England and Wales. InterDigital was unsuccessful on both of its jurisdiction challenges. 

Amazon’s claims fell within CPR r 63.14 and Gateway 11

There is significant overlap between the requirements of CPR r 63.14 and Gateway 11. Under CPR r 63.14(2), a claim may be served on a party at the UK address for service registered at the United Kingdom Patent Office for that patent, provided the claim “relates” to the relevant patent. Similarly, a claim will fall within Gateway 11 if the “subject matter of the claim relates wholly or principally to property within jurisdiction”.

InterDigital argued that both the RAND and Competition Claims were contractual or competition claims relating to global licenses not related to registered rights or property (i.e. patents) within the jurisdiction and that they therefore did not fall within the wording of either r 63.14 or Gateway 11. The Court did not accept InterDigital’s submissions. In its reasoning the Court cited and reaffirmed past authority that, claims such as Amazon’s should be characterised as relating to the obtaining of a licence to the patents in issue, notwithstanding that on the evidence those licences would in practice be globally applicable. As a result, the claims fell within both CPR r 63.14 and Gateway 11. 

InterDigital’s unsuccessful application for a forum non conveniens stay

Having determined that Amazon’s RAND and Competition Claims had been validly served on InterDigital (both within the jurisdiction via r 63.14, or outside of the jurisdiction via Gateway 11), the Court considered InterDigital’s alternative argument for a forum non conveniens stay. In order to be successful in obtaining this stay, InterDigital needed to satisfy the Court that there was an alternative forum available that was clearly or distinctly more appropriate to hear the claims than the courts of England and Wales. InterDigital argued that arbitration, Switzerland and Delware (in that order) were all more appropriate alternative fora.

The Court gave the arbitration proposed by InterDigital as a possible alternative forum short shrift. On the same day it filed its jurisdiction challenge application, InterDigital had offered to enter into arbitration with Amazon. The Court stated that a “fundamental feature of arbitration is that it is a consensual process” and that, if it concluded that the arbitration offered by InterDigital was the more appropriate forum, Amazon would essentially be compelled to arbitrate on terms imposed by InterDigital if it wanted to pursue its claims. It concluded that “compelling arbitration by imposing a stay of these proceedings would be wrong.”

The Court went on to conclude that each of the three proposed alternative fora were less appropriate than the courts of England and Wales.[5] In reaching that conclusion, the Court placed particular weight on the Competition Claims. Amazon’s abuse of dominance claim in competition law was considered to have “a really material connection to the jurisdiction” given that it alleged (i) an abuse of dominance in respect of UK markets; and (ii) effects on trade in the UK. While acknowledging that a foreign forum (including an arbitral tribunal) could assess these issues, the Court concluded that the Competition Claims were “a significant factor in favour” of the courts of England and Wales having jurisdiction. 

Comment

This judgment provides a thorough review of the existing case law on the Court’s approach to jurisdiction challenges in patent licence cases. The Court’s dismissal of InterDigital’s challenge to the applicability of CPR r 63.14 and Gateway 11 to Amazon’s claims reinforces previous authority that the key consideration is not the subject matter of the licence sought (which in this case had global reach), but rather the subject matter of the dispute (which in this case was about UK patents).

Having been unable to find previous authority considering whether arbitration may be treated as an alternative forum in a forum non conveniens application, the Court did not rule out that arbitration could be the more appropriate forum than the courts of England and Wales for certain disputes. However, in dismissing InterDigital’s proposed arbitration in this case the Court strongly suggests that the parties’ consent to the arbitration process will be a material factor in considering any such application.

Footnotes
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2025/3334.pdf
[2] Amazon.com, Inc & Ors v InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc & Anor [2025] EWHC 3334 (Pat). 
[3] InterDigital accepted the jurisdiction of the UK Patents Court to hear the Patent Claims. 
[4] Being the gateways set out in paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 6B – service out of the jurisdiction. 
[5] In reaching this conclusion the Court held that even if it had not dismissed InterDigital’s proposed arbitration at the outset (on the basis that arbitration should only be a consensual process), it still would not have concluded that arbitration was the more appropriate forum.