One Dispute, Many FRANDs: The Samsung–ZTE Dispute and the Fragmentation of Global SEP Licensing

Standard-essential patent disputes are no longer just national patent disputes. When products such as smartphones must comply with global telecommunications standards, the licensing fight often becomes worldwide. 

The Samsung-ZTE dispute is a good example. The dispute arose after the parties’ prior cross-license expired at the end of 2023, with disputed royalties running from January 1, 2024, and possibly covering certain earlier uses. The dispute is about a global SEP cross-license between ZTE and Samsung for cellular standards, including 5G. Both sides own SEPs, but ZTE is treated as the net licensor and Samsung as the net licensee, meaning Samsung would likely owe a balancing payment to ZTE. The real fight is therefore not simply infringement, but the amount and structure of a FRAND payment Samsung must make for a worldwide license to ZTE’s SEP portfolio. Different courts have answered that question differently: the UK set a much lower rate, while China, Germany, and the UPC moved closer to ZTE’s valuation. This dispute therefore illustrates a growing problem in SEP law: “global FRAND” may depend heavily on which court is asked.

UK[1]

The United Kingdom has taken the most direct rate-setting approach. In the dispute, the English High Court determined that a $392 million lump-sum balancing payment was FRAND for a five-year cross-license. That number was closer to Samsung’s position than ZTE’s, and commentators have described the UK result as the outlier compared with later Chinese, German, and UPC developments.

The UK reached a lower number because the English High Court based its analysis on ZTE’s prior licenses with Apple and Samsung, which reflected lower historical rates for ZTE’s own portfolio. Samsung therefore argued that those agreements were the best comparables. The court did not simply copy those earlier rates; it recognized that ZTE had entered those licenses under weaker bargaining conditions and made upward adjustments. But because the court still treated those licenses as the most relevant starting point and rejected ZTE’s broader top-down valuation, the final number remained much closer to Samsung’s position than to ZTE’s. 

China[2]

China appears to have taken a different view. The Chongqing Intermediate People’s Court reportedly accepted ZTE’s $731 million six-year offer as FRAND, which is a materially higher number than the UK court. 

Unlike the UK court, which rejected ZTE’s top-down valuation and relied mainly on ZTE’s prior Apple/Samsung licenses, the Chongqing court reportedly used a mixed approach: it relied on the parties’ 2021 license for ZTE’s 2G–4G portfolio but calculated the 5G portion principally using ZTE’s top-down approach and Samsung’s 5G license with Nokia. The Chinese approach therefore seems more favorable to the SEP holder, at least on these facts.

Germany[3]

Germany’s approach is different again. The Munich court evaluated FRAND in the traditional German posture as part of the infringement/injunction analysis. The court found ZTE’s offer within the FRAND range, rejected Samsung’s FRAND defense, and granted ZTE an injunction in Germany. It also provided a hypothetical global rate analysis and arrived at figures much closer to China and the UPC than to the UK. Germany’s contribution is therefore not only about valuation but also about providing powerful leverage for further negotiation.

UPC[4]

The UPC’s Mannheim Local Division added another layer.  It did not issue a final FRAND judgment.  Instead, it made an unsolicited settlement proposal: Samsung would pay ZTE either $640 million for a license ending in 2028 or $730 million for a license ending in 2029.  The UPC also suggested PMAC mediation if the parties could not agree.  This is procedurally softer than a judgment, but practically significant. The UPC has multi-country reach, and its proposal signals where at least one UPC panel believed the reasonable settlement range lay.

U.S.[5]

For the U.S., the key development was not a FRAND rate determination, but the dismissal of Samsung’s U.S. antitrust action against ZTE in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In January 2026, the court granted ZTE’s motion to dismiss Samsung’s claims, based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over ZTE rather than on the merits of the proper FRAND rate. The ruling reflects that U.S. courts require a concrete jurisdictional basis before adjudicating FRAND-related antitrust claims against non-U.S. parties.

In conclusion, the dispute is currently in a multi-forum pressure stage. Samsung has a favorable UK number, but ZTE has the stronger position in China, Germany, and the UPC settlement proposal. The dispute therefore shows that global FRAND is becoming fragmented: different courts may claim to evaluate the same worldwide license yet reach materially different answers based on different methodologies. Unless parties agree in advance to be bound by one forum or by arbitration, SEP disputes like this will likely continue to depend heavily on forum selection.