January 30,The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a formal ruling, rejecting the FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) contract litigation and antitrust litigation initiated by South Korea's Samsung Electronics against Chinese communications equipment manufacturer ZTE (ZTE).Prior to this, ZTE had achieved preliminary victories in related lawsuits against Samsung Electronics in the United Kingdom, China, Brazil and other places. This will also bring more advantages to ZTE in subsequent FRAND clause negotiations and litigation with Samsung Electronics.

According to data, the dispute between Samsung Electronics and ZTE stems from a global patent cross-licensing agreement signed by the two parties in 2021 covering both parties’ 4G asset portfolios and early SEPs. The agreement expires at the end of 2023, but contains a covenant not to file lawsuits before December 31, 2024. Under the expected terms of the renewal, Samsung Electronics will become a net payer. In other words, after the value of the patent portfolios of the two companies offsets each other, Samsung Electronics will pay higher patent royalties to ZTE.

However, during the renewal negotiations after the agreement expired, the two parties had serious differences over the FRAND licensing rate during the renewal negotiations. The core of the dispute is the licensing rate - as one of the major contributors to the 5G standard, ZTE holds more than 6,500 families of essential patents for the 5G standard, and believes that the value of its patent portfolio should be reflected in the new licensing fee. As the world's largest smartphone manufacturer, Samsung believes that the rates proposed by ZTE are too high and inconsistent with FRAND principles, and is trying to lower costs through negotiations. On December 19, 2024, Samsung Electronics took the lead in filing a lawsuit against ZTE in the UK, and subsequently filed substantially overlapping FRAND lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions including Germany, the European Unified Patent Court, and the United States, all involving ZTE’s standard essential patents (SEPs), thus setting an industry record.

On December 23, 2024, ZTE filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics in the Chongqing Court of China, seeking to submit a declaration of global FRAND terms to the court. This is because ZTE believes that the licensing terms decided by domestic courts are more favorable to it.

In January 2025, ZTE also sent a letter to Samsung Electronics, stating that if Samsung Electronics agrees to have global FRAND terms determined by the Chongqing Court of China, all litigation will be suspended. But it was rejected by Samsung Electronics.

Subsequently, ZTE also filed a series of infringement lawsuits against Samsung Electronics in Hangzhou, China, Germany, and Brazil, seeking unconditional injunctive relief for patent infringement. Samsung Electronics subsequently also launched a patent lawsuit against ZTE in Hangzhou, China.

UK lawsuit: Samsung provisional license overturned

On December 19, 2024, Samsung Electronics filed a lawsuit against ZTE in the British High Court, accusing ZTE of infringing on multiple of its British SEPs, seeking a ruling on global FRAND rates and applying for a temporary license. In March 2025, Samsung Electronics applied for a temporary global cross-licensing declaration in the British High Court. More specifically, Samsung Electronics sought a declaration from the court that: (a) ZTE had acted in bad faith, (b) a willing licensor in ZTE's territory would enter into an interim license on terms determined by the UK court, subject to such terms being subject to adjustment upon the UK High Court's final ruling on the FRAND terms; and (c) if ZTE refused such an interim license, it would be deemed a reluctant licensor. On the same day that Samsung Electronics submitted its application, ZTE once again proposed a global temporary cross-license to Samsung Electronics, including a temporary payment to ZTE before the final FRAND ruling of the Chongqing Court in China and the adjustment of terms based on the final ruling of the court. The proposed interim terms would require Samsung to withdraw or suspend all other proceedings, including those in the UK.

Subsequently, ZTE proposed slightly revised terms in April 2025, excluding British litigation proceedings. According to ICIG reports, Judge Mailer of the British High Court ruled in June 2025 that ZTE had "showed bad faith through a wave of unnecessary injunction proceedings and used continued threats to try to marginalize or displace the jurisdiction of this court" to pressure Samsung Electronics to accept global FRAND terms, which will be decided in a court in Chongqing, China. Therefore, it was ruled in the first instance that Samsung Electronics could obtain a provisional license. Subsequently, ZTE filed four grounds of appeal with the England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) in the United Kingdom, claiming that it had the right to preferentially choose domestic courts and that Judge Mailer incorrectly applied the concept of the principle of bad faith. Samsung Electronics opposed the appeal, arguing that the Patent Court is a neutral and experienced forum for FRAND rulings, and that ZTE’s litigation activities violated its obligation to negotiate in good faith under Article 6.1 of the ETSI Policy. In October 2025, EWCA overturned the British High Court's ruling and supported ZTE's appeal. ZTE also became the first Chinese SEP holder to challenge an application for a provisional license in the Court of Appeal and was upheld.

Judge Arnold of EWCA pointed out that this case is fundamentally different from previous FRAND temporary license cases (such as Panasonic v. Xiaomi, Lenovo v. Ericsson). The SEP owners in the previous cases requested an injunction in order to charge super-FRAND tax rates. But in this case, the two parties agreed on the existence and main terms of the interim license. Their only disagreement was which court should ultimately rule on adjustments to the terms of the interim license, such as recalculating royalties to match the final FRAND rate.

Arnold said ZTE's repeated litigation in the Chinese courts of Chongqing had "gratuitously resulted in a significant increase in costs for both parties", but he rejected the idea that ZTE's pursuit of a ruling in its own courts was inherently inappropriate. "The parties wish to litigate in their home country's courts and have no objection in principle," he noted, adding that Samsung Electronics had not raised any legal objections to Chinese courts. "If the Chongqing court decides that the FRAND clause is illegal, I do not think it would constitute bad faith for ZTE to use a legal process that has not been suggested to be inappropriately open to pressure Samsung Electronics to agree to the process. This behavior is unpleasant and I should not be considered to support it, but it is not enough to constitute bad faith."

In allowing ZTE's appeal, the EWCA held that Mellor J was wrong in principle to treat the English courts "first seized" - that is, the first court formally granted jurisdiction over the dispute - as de facto decisive. Lord Justice Arnold said: "Even if the English courts held that jurisdiction should be exercised by the court where the proceedings were first initiated, this cannot be said to be a universally agreed answer." "If the principle of transferring jurisdiction to the court where proceedings were first initiated were accepted internationally, the Chongqing court in China would refuse jurisdiction."

China Litigation: Samsung’s request to invalidate ZTE’s patents was denied, and the FRAND licensing rate remains to be determined

On December 23, 2024, ZTE formally sued Samsung Electronics in the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court of China, requesting the court to rule on the global FRAND licensing rate. Because the court has previously ruled on the FRAND licensing rate between OPPO and Nokia.

At the end of 2023, the Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment in the case of OPPO v. Nokia's standard essential patent license fee dispute, and determined that the global cumulative rate for the 5G standard in the mobile phone industry is 4.341%-5.273%. This is also the first cumulative rate for the 5G standard determined globally.

That is, the reasonable licensing fee for Nokia’s 2G-5G patent portfolio is determined as:

Single unit license fee for 5G multi-mode mobile phones: Zone 1: US$1.151/unit; Zone 2 (Mainland China) and Zone 3 (other countries and regions except Zones 1 and 2): US$0.707/unit;

Single unit license fee for 4G multi-mode mobile phones: Zone 1: US$0.777/unit; Zone 2 (Mainland China) and Zone 3 (other countries and regions except Zones 1 and 2): US$0.477/unit.

The judgment also determined the value proportions of 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G intergenerational standards in 5G multi-mode mobile phones. The corresponding value ratio of 5G-2G is 50:40:5:5.

This judgment is not only the first global licensing rate judgment for standard essential patents made by a Chinese judicial authority, but also the first time in the world to determine the upper limit of the cumulative rate for 5G standards in the mobile phone industry, providing a highly valuable "China solution" for complex global 5G standard essential patent (SEP) licensing disputes.

However, the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court has not yet made a ruling on the FRAND licensing rate of ZTE v. Samsung Electronics. The industry expects that the relevant ruling will be made in the first quarter of 2026.

It should be pointed out that shortly after ZTE filed a lawsuit against it in the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, Samsung Electronics filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of Chongqing’s final FRAND clause, but it was rejected by the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court.

Subsequently, Samsung Electronics filed an invalidation request against ZTE’s multiple patents.

On January 9, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) made two invalid decisions on ZTE’s patent ZL201710056532.0 titled “Polar Code Rate Matching Processing Method and Device”, and the results were both to remain valid. The invalid requesters are Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. and Beijing Samsung Communication Technology Research Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Samsung").

On January 13, 2026, the State Intellectual Property Office of China made a decision in response to the patent invalidation challenge initiated by Samsung Electronics, declaring that the 5G core patent held by ZTE called "Reference Signal Transmission Method and Device" (Patent No.: ZL201711311872.X) will continue to be valid.

U.S. lawsuit: Samsung Electronics’ claim dismissed

In March 2025, Samsung Electronics filed a FRAND contract lawsuit and antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. Northern District Court of California, accusing ZTE of violating its FRAND license obligations and seeking a broader preliminary and permanent injunction.

In May 2025, ZTE filed a motion with the court to dismiss Samsung Electronics' lawsuit on the grounds of jurisdiction and substantive disputes. ZTE said, "It would be inappropriate, inefficient, and detrimental to ZTE to force an antitrust investigation into ZTE before a court determines whether personal jurisdiction exists or whether Samsung has asserted any legitimate claims."

In July 2025, a judge in the Northern District of California granted ZTE’s motion to suspend discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved.

Subsequently, ZTE filed a motion with the court to dismiss Samsung Electronics' lawsuit, in which Samsung belittled the Chinese judiciary (Intellectual Property Disputes Article on June 11, 2025). This clearly did not impress Judge Araceli Martinez-Holguin. She apparently lowered the priority of the case, delaying the dismissal hearing for four months (IP Disputes article June 18, 2025). However, a case management conference is still scheduled for July 16 (next Wednesday) and the question of whether discovery should begin cannot wait until the motion hearing in November.

On January 30, local time in the United States, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California made a formal ruling, rejecting the FRAND lawsuit and antitrust lawsuit initiated by South Korea's Samsung Electronics against ZTE.

Brazilian lawsuit: ZTE obtained temporary injunction against Samsung

In January 2025, the Rio de Janeiro State Court in Brazil granted ZTE a temporary injunction against Samsung, prohibiting Samsung from continuing to infringe ZTE's 5G standard essential patents in the Brazilian market, otherwise it would face high daily fines.

This verdict means that ZTE has achieved a key stage victory in Brazil, where Samsung Electronics plays an important role in the market share. It also provides ZTE with an important bargaining chip in negotiating FRAND terms with Samsung Electronics.

However, in March 2025, the ban was lifted after Samsung Electronics paid bail.

German lawsuit

At the Frankfurt District Court in Germany, Samsung Electronics filed a lawsuit against ZTE regarding the formation of a FRAND contract involving EU competition law;

At the Munich Court in Germany, Samsung Electronics and ZTE also engaged in mutual litigation over 4G/5G patent rights. However, a trial originally scheduled for the end of 2025 was canceled at the last minute, triggering speculation that the two parties may reach a settlement.

UPC vs. ETSI Litigation

Samsung Electronics filed a FRAND lawsuit against ZTE at the Mannheim branch of the European Unified Patent Court (UPC).

In addition, Samsung Electronics also filed a complaint against ZTE with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The core of the complaint is that ZTE failed to meet its FRAND obligations by failing to comply with the interim license statement. However, Samsung Electronics had to withdraw the complaint after the First District Court of Munich, Germany filed an anti-ETSI complaint injunction (AECI) against ZTE. This exposed that Samsung Electronics’ complaint was completely baseless. ETSI even considered rejecting the complaint based on an obviously unreasonable complaint and made a fundamental mistake by submitting the issue of ZTE’s participation in standard setting to the general meeting for voting. But this is an unprecedented situation for ETSI, and lawsuits against ETSI's implementers may scare them into thinking they have an obligation to investigate even false complaints.

summary:

Judging from the current situation, Samsung Electronics and ZTE have suffered losses in related FRAND licensing or patent litigation in the United Kingdom, the United States, China, and Brazil, and their complaints in ETSI have also been dismissed. The subsequent judgment of the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in China may become a key judgment that drives both parties to determine the FRAND licensing rate and eventually move toward reconciliation.