Alcatel Lucent SAS v Amazon Digital UK Limited & Ors

This was a procedural appeal, not the final licence trial. Amazon wanted permission to amend its case so it could seek an interim licence while the Patents Court later decides the final RAND terms for Nokia's video patent portfolio.

The Court of Appeal allowed that amendment. It did not decide that Amazon is entitled to an interim licence. It decided only that the claim was arguable and should be heard properly rather than being stopped at the pleading stage.

Nokia's group companies held a global video patent portfolio. The portfolio included codec patents declared essential to the H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC standards, and also non-essential patents. Amazon used video technology across major consumer services and devices, so the licensing dispute went directly to operational continuity.

Amazon wanted a comprehensive licence that would let its business continue without the threat of injunctions. It accepted that it needed at least a licence for the standard-essential patents. Its case was that a RAND licence should also include an option to take rights under relevant non-essential patents, and it said Nokia had licensed competitors on that basis.

The parties had negotiated for many years without agreement. Nokia said it had made several offers consistent with its RAND obligations. One important offer, made on 30 May 2024, covered encoding and decoding claims of Nokia's codec SEPs for end-user devices, but not streaming, in return for a lump sum payment.

At the same time, Nokia had started or pursued litigation in multiple jurisdictions. The Court of Appeal recorded proceedings in Brazil, Germany, the ITC in the United States, the Unified Patent Court, India, Delaware and the UK. Amazon said this campaign was highly damaging and created a very real risk of disruption to its business.

The English claim began when Alcatel sued Amazon over three non-essential patents. Amazon defended the claim by disputing validity and infringement. It also relied on Nokia's RAND obligations and counterclaimed for relief connected with those obligations.

Amazon then brought a Part 20 claim against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Technologies OY. In that claim it challenged two codec patents, sought a declaration of non-essentiality for those patents, and asked the Patents Court to enforce Nokia's RAND obligations. Amazon's position was that a RAND licence for the challenged patents would extend to Nokia's other codec SEPs and to the non-essential patents in the Nokia video portfolio.

Several applications followed. The first instance judge dealt with strike-out, jurisdiction, expedition and amendment issues. He accepted that Amazon's wider RAND case had a real prospect of success and expedited the RAND trial to October 2025 because of the increasing risk of harm from Nokia's foreign enforcement campaign.

But he refused permission for the amendments that would add Amazon's interim-licence claim. Amazon appealed that refusal to the Court of Appeal.

Amazon wanted to add claims for two main remedies. First, a declaration that a willing licensor in Nokia's position would agree to enter into an interim licence of the Nokia video portfolio, or at least part of it, pending the Patents Court's determination of final RAND terms. Second, an order for specific performance requiring Nokia to enter into that interim licence.

Its pleaded case, as summarised by the Court of Appeal, was that Nokia's RAND commitment under Swiss law required good faith negotiations and required Nokia to refrain from seeking to enjoin Amazon while Amazon was prepared to undertake to enter into a court-determined RAND licence and make an early adjustable royalty payment.

Amazon also argued that foreign courts considering injunctions would look at the parties' efforts to reach a licensing agreement and the adequacy of the dispute-resolution mechanisms already in place. On that basis, it said the RAND commitment required Nokia to agree to an interim licence determined by the English court.

By the time of the appeal, Amazon had revised the proposed interim licence. It moved closer to Nokia's position by proposing an interim licence that mirrored the scope of Nokia's 30 May 2024 offer and by offering to pay whatever interim consideration the court thought appropriate.

The first instance judge held that Amazon did not have a sufficiently arguable case that the Swiss law principles it relied on led to a legal obligation on Nokia to enter into an interim licence. In his view, even if Nokia had to negotiate in good faith for a RAND licence, that did not necessarily mean it also had to agree to a temporary licence covering at least part of the same period before the final licence was settled.

He also expressed concern about case management. He said that if an interim licence had to be on RAND terms, many of the same complexities would arise as in the final RAND trial, including scope. He considered that holding two RAND trials would be unrealistic and wasteful.

Later, when refusing permission to appeal, he clarified that the case management difficulties were not part of his reasoning on the point of law itself. That distinction mattered in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed Amazon's appeal. It held that Amazon should be given permission to amend its Particulars of Counterclaim and also its Defence and Counterclaim so it could advance the interim-licence claim.

The court treated the later decision in Panasonic v Xiaomi as highly relevant. Amazon's core argument was that, in light of that authority, the first instance refusal could now be seen to be wrong. The Court of Appeal accepted that Amazon had a real prospect of success in arguing for an interim licence and that the claim should therefore be allowed into the case.

The court also rejected Nokia's argument that the appeal had become procedurally inappropriate because Amazon had revised the proposed terms of the interim licence. The changes narrowed the dispute and did not alter the core legal argument. The judge's refusal had been based on principle, not on the detailed terms of Amazon's earlier proposal.

Importantly, the court did not decide the final merits of the interim-licence claim. It decided only that the claim was arguable and should be tested properly.

The Court of Appeal emphasised the test on an amendment application. Because this was not a late amendment, the usual approach was that the amendment should be allowed unless the claim had no real prospect of success. That is broadly the same test used on summary judgment.

On Swiss law, there was no expert evidence before the court at this stage. Because foreign law is treated as a question of fact, the court said it had to assume for present purposes that Amazon's pleaded allegations about Swiss law were correct. That was enough to let the argument proceed if it was otherwise arguable.

The court also rejected the idea that an interim-licence hearing would simply duplicate the final RAND trial. It said the two exercises are different. The final trial would involve a full investigation of all RAND issues and was expected to take 20 days. An interim licence, by contrast, is a narrower ring-holding measure designed to preserve the position until final terms are decided.

The court noted that, after Amazon revised its proposal to mirror Nokia's 30 May offer more closely, there should be much less to argue about on interim terms. Prima facie, the main remaining issue would be how much should be paid on an interim basis, with later adjustment once final terms are determined.

This case is not a general rule for every commercial dispute. It sits in a specific setting: rights-dependent licensing, RAND obligations and cross-border patent enforcement. The lesson should stay within that setting.

For a business that depends on licensed rights to keep products or services running, the case shows the value of turning willingness into something concrete. Amazon did not rely only on broad statements that it wanted a deal. It had already undertaken to enter into a licence on terms later set by the Patents Court and offered an interim payment mechanism that could be adjusted later.

That matters because courts are more likely to take an interim arrangement seriously when it looks like a genuine attempt to preserve operations and protect both sides, rather than a tactic to delay payment or avoid a final licence.

The case also shows the importance of timing. If foreign proceedings are moving faster than the main English trial, a business may need a temporary solution that holds the ring. Waiting for the final trial may be commercially unrealistic if injunctions or exclusion orders could bite first.

Several features of Amazon's conduct helped make the amendment arguable. First, Amazon had undertaken to enter into a licence on terms the Patents Court later determined to be RAND, subject to adjustment on appeal. That reduced the force of any suggestion that Amazon was simply resisting payment.

Second, Amazon offered interim payment that could later be adjusted up or down once final terms were known. That gave the court a practical mechanism for preserving the position without prejudging the final licence.

Third, Amazon revised its interim proposal during the litigation so it more closely matched Nokia's own 30 May 2024 offer. The Court of Appeal treated that as narrowing the dispute rather than changing the case in a way that made the appeal defective.

Fourth, the wider litigation picture mattered. The court repeatedly referred to the urgency created by Nokia's enforcement campaign in multiple jurisdictions and the risk of real business disruption before the final RAND trial.

If your business relies on technology, content or other rights that could be blocked while licence terms are disputed, prepare for both negotiation and litigation pressure at the same time. This case shows the value of having a documented fallback position before the pressure becomes acute.

That does not mean every dispute should go to court. It means your internal records and interim options should be organised early enough that you can act if the other side escalates.

The Court of Appeal judgment was handed down on 28 January 2025. It arose from a High Court order made on 10 September 2024 for reasons given in a judgment dated 24 July 2024. The appeal hearing took place on 16 January 2025.

The decision should be read as a commercially important procedural ruling. It confirms that Amazon can pursue the interim-licence claim in its pleadings. It does not finally determine whether an interim licence must be granted or what the final RAND licence terms will be.