Tesla, Inc and Another v Interdigital Patent Holdings and Others (and No 2)

Why It Matters

The decision will determine whether UK courts can assert jurisdiction over global patent‑licensing disputes, impacting multinational tech firms' litigation strategies and the future scope of IP jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

• Tesla argues its claim isn’t narrowed under gateway 11.
• Court must decide if 6314 covers only patent licenses or broader rights.
• Tesla seeks global license, not just infringement defense, affecting jurisdiction.
• Opposing counsel warns expanding 6314 would distort UK jurisdictional framework.
• Potential ruling could set precedent for worldwide patent licensing disputes.

Summary

The hearing on the third day of Tesla Inc. v. Interdigital Patent Holdings centered on whether the UK courts have jurisdiction over Tesla’s request for a worldwide licence to use certain patented technologies, invoking gateway provisions 11 and 6314 of the Patents Act.

Tesla contended that its claim has not been narrowed and therefore falls outside the restrictive interpretation of gateway 11. It argued that section 6314 should be read broadly to cover “relating to” a registered right, allowing the claim to proceed even if the challenged patents represent only a tiny fraction of a 170,000‑patent portfolio. Opponents countered that the provision was intended solely for patent‑specific actions and that extending it would create a “huge hole” in the jurisdictional scheme.

Lord Justice Burrow’s earlier remark that a different view might arise if the claim were narrowed was cited by Tesla, while Lord Justice Arnold’s suggestion that the claim aims to prevent infringement was dismissed as speculative. The parties referenced prior judgments, including Vestel and Unwired, to illustrate how a literal reading of “relating to” could transform a narrow IP provision into a universal gateway for non‑patent claims.

A ruling in Tesla’s favour could reshape how global patent licences are litigated, potentially granting English courts de facto authority over worldwide licensing disputes. Conversely, a narrow interpretation would preserve the current balance, limiting cross‑border jurisdiction to cases tightly linked to the specific UK‑registered right.

Original Description

Tesla, Inc and another (Appellants) v Interdigital Patent Holdings and others (Respondents)

Case ID: UKSC/2025/0058

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0058.html

Tesla, Inc and others (Respondents) v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc and another (Appellants) No 2

Case ID: UKSC/2025/0058/A

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0058-a.html

Hearing date: 29 April 2026

Session: Morning session [Session 5 of 5]

Issue:

(1) Do the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to determine disputes as to what licence terms are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory at the request of an implementor rather than a patent owner, where the licence is offered by an intermediary as part of a pool or platform of patents?

UKSC/2025/0058/A:

(2) What is the scope of the rule of civil procedure concerning the service of documents in intellectual property claims and the appropriate forum in relation to claims seeking licences under standard-essential patents?

Facts:

InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. (“IDPH”) and InterDigital Holdings, Inc (“IDH”) (collectively “InterDigital”) are members of the InterDigital Group, which develops and licenses wireless communications technology. The InterDigital Group owns a portfolio of patents which have been declared essential (referred to as “standard-essential patents” or “SEPs”) to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G standards (the “ETSI Standards”). The third respondent (“Avanci”) administers patent pools or platforms, which allow patentees to pool their SEPs and authorise the pool or platform administrator to act as a licensing agent. Avanci’s patent pool/platform includes a platform for SEPs declared essential to the ETSI Standards for use in 5G-enabled vehicles (the “Avanci 5G Platform”). The InterDigital group is one of the licensor members of the Avanci 5G Platform. Tesla Inc. and Tesla Motors Limited (collectively “Tesla”) wish to launch 5G enabled vehicles in the UK.

The Avanci 5G Platform includes approximately 11,900 UK SEPs, all of which are subject to undertakings given to ETSI which oblige their owners to offer licenses of the SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. Avanci offers standard patent license agreements at to all the SEPs in the platform at a flat rate per car. Outside of a modest set of approved possible modifications, Avanci cannot vary the standard patent license agreements without the consent of the members of the Avanci 5G Platform. Avanci offered Tesla’s position is that a flat rate of $32 per vehicle for a license on a non-negotiable basis is not FRAND.

In December 2023, Tesla raised proceedings seeking (i) declarations of invalidity and/or inessentiality of the patents owned by IDH (the “Challenged Patents”) against InterDigital (the patent claims) and (ii) declarations as to FRAND terms for a license of UK SEPs in Avanci 5G Platform, or alternatively the Challenged Patents, against InterDigital and Avanci (the licensing claims). The proceedings were issued against Avanci as the operator of the Avanci 5G Platform and InterDigital, as one of the Avanci 5G Platform members that has given a FRAND commitment to ETSI, InterDigital challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear the claims. The High Court set aside service of the claim form in respect of certain claims. Tesla appealed to the Court of Appeal against the jurisdictional orders and InterDigital cross appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by majority, with Arnold LJ dissenting.

Tesla now appeals to the Supreme Court. InterDigital cross appeals.

Please see the case page for the main appeal, UKSC/2025/0058, for more information and to access the published documents for the both the appeal and cross-appeal.