On 11 June 2026, InterDigital announced that it had reached an agreement with Amazon regarding video patent licensing, stipulating that the final licensing terms would be determined through binding arbitration; the very next day, Amazon publicly responded that the press release was inaccurate, stating that the two parties had not signed any agreement and that the relevant litigation remained unresolved. The two companies are at odds over whether an agreement has been reached and the nature of such an agreement.
According to InterDigital’s announcement on 11 June, the company had reached a new video service and device licensing arrangement with Amazon covering its devices and services (including Prime Video). The parties agreed to withdraw all ongoing litigation and to determine the final terms of the new licensing agreement through binding arbitration. Julia Mattis, Chief Licensing Officer at InterDigital, stated that this agreement represents a significant milestone in the company’s long-term goal of expanding its video streaming service licensing portfolio, and reflects Amazon’s willingness to enter into a licensing agreement with InterDigital and resolve outstanding issues through global arbitration.
However, the day after InterDigital’s announcement, Amazon responded to media enquiries by stating that InterDigital’s press release contained inaccuracies. Amazon claimed that the two parties are currently only negotiating the arbitration process and have not signed any agreement; neither a patent licence agreement has been signed, nor have the ongoing legal proceedings between the two parties been resolved.
InterDigital, however, maintains that the content of its announcement is accurate. A company spokesperson responded that, pursuant to the consent order filed by both parties with the High Court of Justice in the UK, they have agreed to determine FRAND licence terms through arbitration; as this arbitration agreement and the resulting licence will inevitably lead to the resolution of all litigation, there are no inaccuracies in the press release.
To date, neither party has disclosed the arbitration body, the arbitration rules, or the anticipated completion date. The SEP royalty rates for video and the final FRAND licensing terms are to be determined in subsequent arbitration proceedings.
Case Background
On 29 August 2025, Amazon brought proceedings against InterDigital in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, seeking interim licensing relief;
On 30 September 2025, InterDigital obtained two ‘Anti-Interim Licence Injunctions’ (AILI) from the Mannheim Regional Division of the UPC and the First Instance Court in Munich, prohibiting Amazon from seeking an interim licence;
On 20 October 2025, Amazon obtained an Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) issued by Judge Meade of the High Court of Justice;
On 10 November 2025, InterDigital filed lawsuits against Amazon in four jurisdictions—the UPC Mannheim, Munich, Delaware (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)—alleging infringement of its 10 video patents;
On 22 December 2025, the UPC Mannheim Regional Division upheld the AILI injunction and refused to recognise the UK interim licence relief, threatening a fine of up to €50 million;
11 February 2026: The UPC Mannheim Regional Division ruled that the scope of its counterclaim injunction extended to any claims for damages that Amazon might raise in the UK proceedings;
27 February 2026: The UPC found that Amazon’s previous declaration reserving its right to damages constituted a breach of the rules and compelled Amazon to make an ‘unconditional and explicit’ waiver of damages before the UPC and the UK courts;
On 28 May 2026, at a hearing before the UPC Court of Appeal, InterDigital publicly proposed arbitration, whilst Amazon indicated it still preferred a court ruling;
On 11 June 2026, InterDigital issued a statement announcing that the parties had reached a settlement, agreeing to withdraw all litigation, with licensing terms to be determined subsequently through a binding arbitration agreement;
On 12 June 2026, Amazon publicly responded, stating that the press release was inaccurate, that the parties had not signed any agreement, and that the relevant litigation remained unresolved.
