Tesla has won an important legal round in Britain, reopening its attempt to secure court-determined licensing terms for the 5G technology used inside connected vehicles.
The UK Supreme Court ruled in Tesla’s favour on July 27, allowing the electric vehicle manufacturer to revive its lawsuit against US technology company InterDigital and automotive patent licensing platform Avanci.
This is not a dispute over whether Tesla wants access to 5G patents. It does. The uncomfortable question is how much that access should cost—and whether joining a patent licensing pool allows individual patent owners to step away from their existing obligations.
For Tesla, the answer could shape the economics of bringing more deeply connected vehicles to the British market.
Tesla’s 5G Patent Case Returns to the High Court
Tesla filed the original lawsuit at London’s High Court in 2023 as it prepared to introduce 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK.
The company asked the court to determine fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, commonly known as FRAND terms, for a licence covering patents available through Avanci’s 5G vehicle platform.
InterDigital owns some of the standard-essential patents included in that platform. Avanci acts as a licensing intermediary, combining patents from numerous owners and offering manufacturers one broader licence instead of requiring separate negotiations with every patent holder.
The High Court dismissed part of Tesla’s case in 2024. Tesla could continue challenging the validity of three InterDigital patents, but its wider request for the court to determine FRAND terms was rejected.
The Supreme Court has now overturned that outcome and sent the broader licensing dispute back toward the High Court.
The Dispute Centres on Avanci’s Per-Vehicle Fee
Avanci has offered Tesla a worldwide licence covering the 5G standard-essential patents on its automotive platform.
Court documents show that Avanci’s stated rate was $32 per vehicle. Tesla argued that the rate was non-negotiable and substantially higher than what it considered fair under FRAND principles.
Tesla has also said it would accept a licence on whatever terms the English court ultimately determines to be FRAND, subject to the outcome of any later appeal.
That commitment matters. Tesla is not simply asking for a lower price without accepting the result. It is asking the court to establish the licensing terms and has indicated that it will take the licence once those terms have been settled.
What Standard-Essential Patents Mean for Connected Cars
A standard-essential patent covers technology that manufacturers must use when building a product compatible with an agreed technical standard.
For 5G vehicles, that can include wireless systems supporting connectivity between the car, mobile networks and online services. A manufacturer may have little practical choice but to use the patented technology once it decides to build a vehicle around that standard.
Patent owners generally commit to licensing such technology on FRAND terms. The arrangement tries to maintain a rough balance: inventors receive payment for their work, while manufacturers gain access without facing unreasonable or discriminatory demands.
That balance becomes harder to judge when dozens of patent owners place their rights inside one licensing pool.
A single platform can simplify the process. One agreement is easier than negotiating with scores of companies. Yet a bundled licence can also make it difficult for manufacturers to challenge individual patents or understand how the final price was calculated.
Tesla’s lawsuit goes straight into that tension.
Supreme Court Rejects a Potential Escape From FRAND Duties
The Supreme Court found that patent owners do not automatically free themselves from their FRAND licensing obligations simply by placing their patents into a pool or licensing platform.
In other words, participation in Avanci does not necessarily shield an individual patent owner from legal scrutiny over whether the resulting offer meets FRAND requirements.
The court concluded that Tesla had raised a serious issue that deserved to be tried. It did not rule that Tesla’s preferred price was correct, nor did it set a new licensing fee.
The decision is procedural but still significant. Tesla now gets another opportunity to argue the substance of its case before the High Court.
Avanci Disagrees With the Decision
Avanci Vehicle President Laurie Fitzgerald said the company respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision and continued to believe that Tesla’s claims lacked merit.
Tesla and InterDigital did not immediately comment on the ruling, according to Reuters.
That response points to a fight that is far from finished. The Supreme Court has reopened the door, but the High Court must still examine the licensing arguments, contractual obligations and requested declarations in greater detail.
Why This Case Reaches Beyond Tesla
Cars are becoming mobile computing platforms. They rely on wireless connections for navigation, diagnostics, entertainment, software downloads and communication with external services.
That makes telecommunications patents part of the automotive cost structure.
A dispute that once might have belonged mainly to smartphone manufacturers now matters to car companies, transport technology providers and almost anyone building connected hardware.
Should the High Court eventually set or clarify FRAND terms for Tesla’s licence, the ruling could influence how other vehicle manufacturers negotiate with patent pools. It could also affect how licensing platforms structure their agreements with patent owners.
The consequences may stretch beyond the $32 fee at the centre of Tesla’s complaint.
Tesla Still Has to Prove Its Case
The Supreme Court victory does not mean Tesla has secured cheaper access to Avanci’s 5G patent portfolio.
It means the company’s request can proceed.
Tesla must still persuade the High Court that the existing licensing offer does not satisfy FRAND requirements and that the court should provide the declarations or terms it seeks. InterDigital and Avanci will have the opportunity to defend the platform and its pricing structure.
The next stage will be less about whether the case can be heard and more about what a fair 5G licence for a connected car should actually look like.
That could prove much harder to answer.
Sources
- Reuters – Tesla wins bid to revive UK lawsuit for 5G patents licence
- UK Supreme Court – Tesla, Inc and another v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary – Tesla v InterDigital Final Judgment
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary – Tesla v InterDigital, March 2025