The law around interim licences in SEP/(F)RAND disputes has garnered a lot of coverage lately and, in an interesting development, the UK court has for the first time set the terms of an interim licence with the consent of the net licensor. In cases to date, interim licence declarations have been sought in the UK by the net implementor in the dispute, often in an attempt to fend off parallel injunctions sought by the licensor in other jurisdictions. Also noteworthy is Meade J’s confirmation that the ‘mid-point’ approach to setting the terms between the parties’ latest offers is often appropriate; the interim licence covers the period back to first sales (rather than being curtailed by the statute of limitations) and includes ‘truly compensatory interest’ for the past; as well as comments from the judge addressing recent criticism by the UPC of the UK court’s approach to interim licence declarations.
More detailed comments are below, with a copy of the judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2026/179.html
Case background
The wider case is an implementer-led claim by TP-Link, who are seeking a final RAND licence to Huawei’s Wi-Fi 6 portfolio. TP-Link brought their claim in September 2025 in response to proceedings commenced by Huawei in China in 2023 and 2024 as well as UPC and German national proceedings in August 2025. Interestingly, despite choosing to initiate claims elsewhere and not the UK, Huawei submitted to the UK court’s jurisdiction and to the terms of the final RAND licence to be determined following trial in 2027.
This is speculative, but it is possible Huawei did this following the Court of Appeal’s May 2025 decision in Optis v Apple to increase the royalties due to Optis to over $700m, making the UK a more ‘friendly’ jurisdiction for SEP holders in the eyes of many. In any event, having done so, Huawei made an application for determination of RAND terms for an interim licence with an undertaking to withdraw all pending actions against TP-Link should TP-Link sign the interim licence.
Court’s approach to interim licence terms
The court considered the merits of using the ‘mid-point’ approach between the parties’ latest offers to set the terms of the interim licence, as has been done in previous cases. Huawei were in favour of this approach, with TP Link criticising it. Meade J held the mid-point approach is fair, simple, and can be done cheaply without the need for evidence or a mini trial, which is the whole point of it. He also held that a benefit of the mid-point approach is that it avoids any assessment of the merits of each party’s arguments in support of its (F)RAND position (beyond that they are arguable) until the full (F)RAND trial. The judge reiterated the position noted in previous cases that the mid-point approach is not the only approach the courts can take to setting terms of the interim licence, but he saw no reason to depart from it on this occasion and the image emerging from the body of case law is that this is the default approach of the court to calculating interim licence terms.
On past sales, the judge noted previous decisions in which the court has held limitation provisions do not apply in FRAND determinations. The judge noted that in the right circumstances an implementer might be able to show an industry practice of releasing past sales which might justify the licence not going all the way back to first sales. However, TP Link had not established that here, and so the interim licence covered the period all the way back to first sales by TP Link in 2008.
Regarding interest, the judge held that the case law is clear that a final FRAND determination should include “truly compensatory interest” to cover the past royalties due and that interim licences should “reflect that”. On this basis the court awarded interest at the rate requested by Huawei of US Prime + 1%.
Tension with the UPC
Much has been said about apparent friction between the UK and UPC on the UK’s approach to interim licence declarations, with some viewing them as no more than an anti-suit injunction in all but name.
In its decision of 30 September 2025 in Amazon v InterDigital, the Mannheim Local Division made a number of comments on interim licence declarations: i) they are granted without examination of whether the parties’ competing offers are FRAND or not; ii) setting the interim licence terms as the mid-point might result in a determination that is not FRAND compliant; iii) UK courts consider it desirable for parties to reach a settlement under the ‘pressure’ of an interim licence; iv) in such a case, the interim licence terms might become a reference point in further negotiations that is contrary to EU antitrust law; and v) it encourages parties to adopt even more extreme starting points to favour further negotiations.
Meade J rejected much of this criticism, saying that in real FRAND negotiations the parties will make initial offers without any thought to a potential interim award and so what approach the UK court might take to setting terms of an interim licence is unlikely to have any impact. Concerns over the impact on settlement were also rejected, with Meade J stating that the interim licence is just a down-payment on the final RAND determination and acts to secure the position of the patentee not being kept out of money whilst the implementer is using its technology. Further, he noted, such an aim is consistent with the jurisprudence of the CJEU and UPC, with the concept of an interim payment being envisaged (in the form of “security”) by the CJEU in the seminal Huawei v ZTE judgment that guides jurisprudence in this area on the continent. The judge rounds off his comments by saying that the alternative – where the patentee must always wait for a final (F)RAND determination before getting any money at all – is inconsistent with the case law and not FRAND.
Conclusion
This decision shows that, in the right factual circumstances, an interim licence declaration is a strategic option available to both SEP holders and implementers alike. Further, a clear picture of the court’s approach to the terms of the interim licence is emerging from the body of case law. Differences between the UK courts on the one hand, and German national courts and UPC on the other, on the principle of interim licence declarations remain but this latest decision indicates the UK courts are not going to dramatically change their stance anytime soon and so an understanding of their approach remains important for all actors in this space.
For further information or to discuss any issues around SEP/FRAND disputes in more detail, please contact a member of our team.
