On March 6, 2025, the UK Court of Appeal rendered its decision, rejecting Tesla's appeal and affirming the initial judgment of the High Court. The court concluded that UK tribunals lack the jurisdiction to set licensing fees for global 5G patent pools. The dispute arose from Tesla's necessity to utilize approximately 12,000 5G standard essential patents (SEPs) overseen by the Avanci platform to introduce 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK market. These patents are held by 65 entities, including InterDigital. Avanci had proposed a standardized rate of $32 per vehicle, a figure Tesla considered exorbitant and contrary to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) principles.

In response, Tesla initiated legal proceedings against InterDigital and Avanci in the UK High Court in December 2023, seeking a court-mandated determination of global FRAND licensing rates. The High Court dismissed Tesla's claims in the first instance, reasoning that Tesla had not demonstrated that the UK courts were the proper venue for adjudicating the licensing dispute. Furthermore, the court noted that Tesla had no contractual agreement with Avanci, undermining the legal basis for its licensing request.

Following Tesla's appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the original decision by a 2:1 majority. Only Justice Arnold dissented, asserting that UK courts possess the authority to establish global FRAND rates for patent pool licensing. This ruling underscores the UK judiciary's prudent approach to regulating licensing fees for global 5G patent pools and sets a significant precedent for future patent pool licensing conflicts.