The Court of Appeal determined whether English courts have jurisdiction to hear Tesla’s claims seeking declarations on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) terms for SEPs available through the Avanci 5G Platform. By majority (Phillips LJ, Whipple LJ; Arnold LJ dissenting), the appeal was dismissed, establishing limitations on the English courts’ jurisdiction over patent pool licensing disputes.

Background

Tesla planned to launch 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK, requiring licences for SEPs declared to ETSI. It commenced proceedings against InterDigital (SEP owner) and Avanci (platform administrator), challenging the $32 per vehicle rate for the Avanci 5G Platform and seeking declarations on FRAND terms. 

The High Court set aside service of claim forms except for patent invalidity claims against IDPH, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding collective licensing claims.

Judgment

Phillips LJ, Whipple LJ dismissed Tesla’s appeal, holding that the claim lacked contractual foundation necessary for jurisdiction:

• ETSI IPR Policy creates obligations only for individual SEP owners to license their own patents on FRAND terms
• As established in Unwired Planet [2020] UKSC 37 at [58], absent contractual arrangements, English courts lack jurisdiction to determine terms for foreign patents
• No contractual obligation exists requiring collective licensing on FRAND terms
• SEP owners’ voluntary participation in the Avanci Platform does not extend their FRAND obligations
• Tesla’s case lacked the “applicable legal standard” necessary for justiciability per Vestel v Access Advance [2021] EWCA Civ 440

Phillips LJ held that Tesla’s attempt to invoke the court’s declaratory jurisdiction was fundamentally misconceived: “The owners who have joined the Platform have not somehow extended the scope of their undertaking to ETSI or entered any other binding agreement to license their SEPs on a collective basis.”

Arnold LJ (dissenting) would have allowed the appeal, finding:

• Tesla’s claims presented serious justiciable issues with real prospects of success
• The dispute was properly characterised as concerning terms for licences of UK SEPs
• The Delaware Court of Chancery was not an available alternative forum for global FRAND determinations
• Declarations would serve a legitimate purpose by clarifying FRAND obligations

Endnote

This judgment delineates the boundaries of English jurisdiction in FRAND disputes involving patent pools, confirming that contractual FRAND obligations under ETSI do not extend to collective licensing arrangements. The decision reinforces that jurisdiction to determine global FRAND terms derives strictly from contractual undertakings given by SEP owners individually.

Read the full judgment: Tesla v InterDigital [2025] EWCA Civ 193