Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
BTC 
DOGE Tesla wins key victory in 5G patent litigation in the UK Supreme Court
Tesla has won a key victory in the UK Supreme Court, allowing its legal challenge to patent licensing terms required for 5G connected cars to be restarted. Previously, some of the company's claims were rejected.
Summary of the case
Tesla was able to resume its FRAND (fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory) licensing claims against InterDigital and patent licensing platform Avanci. According to information when the lawsuit was launched, Avanci's proposed license fee for each 5G connected car was approximately $32. In addition, Tesla still holds 11509 bitcoins, despite a $112 million loss on digital assets during the quarter. Dogecoin can still be used to purchase eligible items in Tesla stores, but is not yet open for vehicle payments.
Tesla restarts UK 5G patent litigation
The UK Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tesla on July 27, overturning the decision that had previously blocked the automaker's claims against InterDigital and Avanci. Tesla filed the lawsuit in the High Court in London in 2023, as the company prepared to launch 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK. Tesla wants a British court to rule on the FRAND license terms it will have to pay to use standard essential patents for connected cars. InterDigital owns some of the patents available through the Avanci 5G licensing platform. Avanci integrates the intellectual property rights of multiple patent holders and mainly provides licenses to automakers.
According to a brief from the Supreme Court of the UK, when Tesla filed the lawsuit, the platform license fee was $32 per vehicle. Tesla believes that the rate does not comply with the FRAND principle. The Supreme Court held that patent holders cannot circumvent FRAND obligations by placing their patents in a patent pool or licensing platform. The ruling allows Tesla's claim to be returned to the High Court for further hearing.
Why Tesla challenged Avanci's licensing model
In 2024, the High Court rejected Tesla's request for a FRAND determination because InterDigital and Avanci tried to dismiss this part of the lawsuit. But the court allowed Tesla to continue to challenge the validity of three InterDigital patents separately. Tesla subsequently appealed the FRAND ruling. A majority of the appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling, prompting the electric vehicle maker to take the dispute to the Supreme Court. Organizations including the Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Motion Picture Association of America supported Tesla's appeal.
The Supreme Court's ruling did not determine the final license fee rate Tesla must pay, but instead revived the company's attempt to have British courts review whether the platform's license terms comply with FRAND obligations. "We respect but disagree with today's ruling and continue to believe Tesla's lawsuit lacks merit," Avanci Vehicles President Laurie Fitzgerald said in a statement.
Tesla shares retracted pre-market gains
After the ruling was announced, Tesla's share price rose about 0.98% to US$316.10 in pre-market trading, but failed to hold on to the gain after the opening. Later on July 27, Tesla shares traded around $309.10, down about 1.2% from the previous trading day's close. Stock prices fluctuated between $304.28 and $317 that day. The patent ruling cleared a procedural hurdle for Tesla, but the case still needed more time to resolve after it returned to the High Court. The final result could affect Tesla's terms for using 5G technology in vehicles sold in the UK.
For American investors, the controversy is equally important because Tesla and InterDigital are both American companies. However, the ruling only applies to litigation proceedings in England and Wales and does not directly change U.S. patent law.
Tesla continues to hold bitcoin, and dogcoin payments remain restricted
Tesla's cryptocurrency holdings have nothing to do with the UK patent dispute. According to reports, the company's 11509 bitcoins held in the second quarter remained unchanged. In the three months ended June 30, Tesla neither bought nor sold Bitcoin, continuing the holding pattern after the massive sell-off in 2022. Falling cryptocurrency prices caused the company to incur a $112 million after-tax loss on digital assets during the quarter. Bitcoin traded at around $83000 at the beginning of the quarter, before falling to $58000 at the end of June. The decline reduced the book value of Tesla's remaining cryptocurrency holdings, but did not prompt the company to sell.
In addition to holding Bitcoin on its balance sheet, Tesla is also exploring broader uses of cryptocurrencies in its business. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has hinted that the company may eventually accept Dogecoin for vehicle purchases, but has not yet introduced the payment option on cars. Currently, Tesla only allows customers to use Dogecoin when purchasing eligible items through Tesla stores. As a result, the British ruling advanced Tesla's connected car plan, but did not change its current bitcoin holdings or dogcoin payment policies.
