Huawei, Nokia Leverage UK Interim License as Bargaining Chip
May 13, 2026
Interim license has long been a useful litigation tactic for implementers. Some courts view it as having nearly the same effect as anti-suit injunctions, which has led to jurisdictional conflicts between courts.
As Huawei and Nokia now take the initiative to apply to UK courts for adjustable license for defendants—a form of interim licensing—the long one-sided situation is changing fast. From three existing cases, interim license can also serve SEP holders well as a practical way to resolve disputes efficiently. It can even avoid the need for a final court decision on FRAND royalty rates and speed up settlement between the two sides.
TP-Link v. Huawei
(1) Latest Developments
On April 30, Huawei and TP-Link jointly filed motions to dismiss with the UPC Munich Local Division. Judge Zigann approved the dismissal of both the patent infringement claim and the counterclaim on the basis of the parties’ settlement agreement. (PRIP Substack, May 6, 2026)
The move marks the substantial end of their global patent litigation battle. After the two parties reached a substantive arrangement on royalty payment terms, subsequent proceedings over the adjustable license in the UK court are no longer of much significance.
(2) Background
The two sides are in dispute over Wi‑Fi 6 licensing terms. Huawei filed suit against TP-Link at the UPC Munich LD on August 27, 2025. TP-Link then countered with a FRAND rate claim against Huawei in the High Court of England and Wales on September 5, 2025. (PRIP Wechat, July 22, 2025)
However, Huawei is the first SEP holder to offer interim license. Accordingly, in its ruling dated January 30, 2026, the court converted the $12 million RAND royalty proposed by TP-Link into the non-refundable cash portion of the interim licensing rate advocated by Huawei. The court also upheld Huawei’s request to add interest at the U.S. Prime rate plus 1% (7.75%).
(3) Analysis
A non-refundable interim license fee is a key factor that can push both sides toward a settlement. This explains why, in certain cases—especially where no prior licensing agreement exists and the interim license amount is relatively large—interim license may replace a final FRAND rate ruling and serve as a turning point for resolving the dispute.
Acer / ASUS v. Nokia
On May 12, 2026, in the judgment delivered by Lord Justice Arnold at the UK Court of Appeal, the court granted Nokia’s request for a case management stay and allowed the RAND rate dispute to be resolved by arbitration. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed Nokia’s jurisdiction appeal. This means the court further confirmed that the UK has jurisdiction over RAND-related disputes. Future cases are not required to be resolved by arbitration, and courts remain entitled to issue rulings. (PRIP Wechat, May 12, 2026)
In addition, arbitration is not a disadvantageous outcome for Acer and ASUS.
First, once arbitration is initiated, all existing lawsuits and injunctions filed by Nokia against the two companies will be stayed. For example, both Acer and ASUS have faced injunctions in Germany, which forced them to remove potentially infringing products from their official German websites. By agreeing to arbitration, the interim license terms offered by Nokia will take effect, allowing the two firms to resume sales in the German market. Meanwhile, litigation proceedings before the US ITC, Brazil, India and other jurisdictions, will also be stayed. (PRIP Wechat, May 13, 2026)
Second, Acer and ASUS can decide the arbitration location, and Nokia has to accept it. The arbitration can also rely on existing evidence already compiled under UK proceedings, which greatly reduces litigation costs.
The core issue is the two sides are arguing over not just codecs, but also 4G and 5G patent licensing. Therefore, exactly what matters the arbitration will cover needs to be further clarified.
WBD / Paramount v. Nokia
Nokia argued in the Acer/ASUS case that no court has or should have the power to determine (F)RAND terms.
But in the Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD)/Paramount case, Nokia agreed to have the UK court determine the royalty, and therefore withdrew its lawsuits in the United States, the UPC, Germany and Brazil at the end of March.
Nokia explained to PRIP (PRIP Wechat, March 31, 2026):
provide for the use of Nokia’s video technologies in Warner Bros’ and Paramount’s streaming services
enable the UK court to determine the appropriate royalty for a license scope that is customary to what Nokia have agreed with Warner Bros’ and Paramount’s peers in the video streaming space
and provides for the UK court to set an interim payment until the appropriate royalty can be adjudicated.
Warner Bros and Paramount accepted this offer. The three parties have therefore agreed to halt ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions.
Conclusion
The core of SEP disputes lies in how to resolve the problem of “getting on board first and buying a ticket later.” In practice, injunctive relief has become one means to push both parties to eventually “pay the ticket.” However, a new phenomenon has emerged: many implementers would rather exit the market and remove their services than “pay the ticket,” mainly because they regard the licensing royalty rates as unreasonable.
As a preliminary step before the final determination of FRAND rates between the parties, interim licenses have long been resisted by SEP holders despite triggering numerous controversies. After Huawei took the initiative to seek interim licenses, Nokia followed suit and adopted different strategies in two cases—having courts and arbitral institutions determine FRAND rates respectively—both of which explore a fast-track dispute resolution approach.
From the results, the TP‑Link v Huawei case achieved the best outcome: the core issues between the two parties were largely resolved after the interim license was adopted. Whether Nokia’s two ongoing cases can be resolved in a more efficient manner may become a typical benchmark for whether interim licenses will continue to play a role in the future.
At present, following the judgment of the Chongqing Court in China, discussions around global rate determination, Chinese rate determination, and interim licenses will continue to get more attention. China is likely to shift from its cautious approach to SEP disputes and become an active SEP jurisdiction.