Tesla v InterDigital & Avanci
[2026] UKSC 27
27 Jul 2026
Share
The Supreme Court has decided that UK courts have jurisdiction to hear a claim for declarations as to whether the rates and terms offered for global pools of standard essential patents (SEPs) are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND).
By its claim, Tesla seeks a declaration that the rate of $32 per vehicle offered by the Avanci pool for a 5G global licence is not FRAND. In the High Court, Fancourt J held that it was “obviously of interest to implementers like Tesla to know whether the non-negotiable terms that are offered by Avanci are FRAND”, but that UK courts had no jurisdiction so to decide. In the Court of Appeal, the majority agreed with Fancourt J, but Arnold LJ gave a dissenting judgment explaining why he would have allowed Tesla’s appeal.
The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed Tesla’s further appeal, holding that:
(i) Tesla has a real prospect of successfully arguing that (a) the FRAND obligation applies to a pool licence offer (paras 79-92), (b) the only FRAND licence under InterDigital’s UK SEPs on the Avanci platform is a pool licence (paras 93-105), and (c) declaratory relief can fairly and properly be granted (paras 106-145).
(ii) Tesla’s claim is properly characterised as relating principally to InterDigital’s UK SEPs on the Avanci platform (paras 154-177).
(iii) Tesla’s claim was properly served on InterDigital under CPR 63.14 (paras 178-193) and passed through Gateway 3 as regards Avanci (paras 190-193); and would in any event have passed through Gateway 11 against all defendants (paras 194-203).
(iv) The Delaware Court of Chancery was not an alternative available forum for the determination of the dispute (paras 204-216).
The decision can be found here.
James Segan KC acted for Tesla in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP.
