Date of Judgment
27 July 2026
Court
UK Supreme Court
Legal Issue
This case concerned the jurisdiction of English courts to determine if licensing terms for standard essential patents (SEPs) are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND), where those patents form part of an international licensing platform, as well as whether proceedings could be brought in England against parties based outside the jurisdiction.
Case 1
Tesla wanted to launch 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK, requiring licences for patents essential to the 5G technical standard. InterDigital holds a portfolio of these standard essential patents (SEPs) and is a member of the Avanci 5G Platform, which offers automotive manufacturers access to SEPs held by multiple patent owners.
Tesla argued that the fee set by the Avanci platform was too high to be FRAND. In December 2023, it brought proceedings seeking court declarations that it was entitled to a FRAND licence and that the platform fee should be lowered. Because both InterDigital and Avanci were based outside England and Wales, the proceedings also raised major questions about whether English courts had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Outcome
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Tesla’s appeal and dismissed InterDigital’s cross-appeal. It ruled that Tesla had a real prospect of establishing that InterDigital remained subject to its FRAND obligation, even though the relevant licences were offered through the Avanci platform.
The Court emphasised that joining a licensing platform does not remove an SEP owner’s obligation to offer licences on FRAND terms. Because Tesla’s claims concerning InterDigital’s UK patents raised a serious issue to be tried, the Court allowed the case to proceed in England.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not determine the appropriate royalty or decide that Avanci’s fee was unfair. Instead, it simply ruled that Tesla’s claims were sufficiently arguable to proceed to trial.
Note
This judgment builds on Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd [2020] UKSC 37, where the Supreme Court first established the importance of FRAND licensing in disputes concerning SEPs. The Tesla judgment extends those principles to the increasingly common use of licensing platforms and patent pools.
Why It Matters
The decision holds major significance for businesses operating in industries that depend on technical standards, including telecommunications, connected vehicles and the Internet of Things. It confirms that English courts can resolve international SEP disputes, even where licensing arrangements extend beyond UK patents and involve parties based overseas.
For businesses, the judgment provides greater clarity when negotiating technology licences and choosing England as a forum for resolving disputes. For patent owners, it also reinforces that participation in a licensing platform does not remove their individual FRAND obligations. The decision therefore strengthens London’s position as a forum for complex international intellectual property disputes while demonstrating the growing importance of FRAND litigation in global technology markets.