UK High Court grants interim licence to Samsung in dispute with ZTE

The ruling in Samsung vs ZTE marks the first time the UK High Court has granted interim licence declaratory relief at first-instance level. Previous interim licence decisions such as Panasonic vs Xiaomi or Lenovo vs Ericsson were only granted at Court of Appeal level.

After the two Asian mobile phone manufacturers did not extend an existing licence agreement beyond 2024, Samsung filed suit at the UK High Court shortly before Christmas. The Korean mobile phone manufacturer asked the UK court to set a FRAND rate for ZTE’s global cellular portfolio. Samsung is also suing distributors Livewire Telecom and EFones Com, in addition to various ZTE companies.

In his ruling handed down today, judge James Mellor found that ZTE had breached its obligation to negotiate FRAND terms with Samsung in good faith. In his judgment he states that ZTE had “acted in bad faith” and that “a willing licensor would not commence a wave of injunctive proceedings”. He noted there was no suggestion that Samsung was operating other than as both a willing licensee and licensor (case ID: HP-2024-000044).

UPC and Germany

In response to Samsung’s action in the UK, ZTE filed patent infringement suits against Samsung in China, Germany and at the UPC. The company filed two lawsuits at the UPC local division Mannheim (case ID: ACT_68656/2024).

In February, Samsung countered with UPC actions against ZTE, also filed at the local division Mannheim (case IDs: ACT_10257/2025 and ACT_10226/2025). In these claims the Korean company accuses its Chinese competitor of infringing EP 4 050 804 and EP 4 096 288.

Furthermore, the parties are going head-to-head at Munich Regional Court over patents relating to 4G and 5G standards. ZTE and Samsung each filed two lawsuits, one each at the 7th Chamber under presiding judge Oliver Schön and the 21st Chamber presided over by Georg Werner.

At the same time, a contract formation claim regarding FRAND claims by Samsung is pending in Germany at Frankfurt Regional Court (case ID: 2-06 O 426/24).

Concentrated FRAND expertise

Kirkland & Ellis acted for Samsung in the recent UK proceedings. The team around Nicola Dagg, who coordinates the pan-European litigation in the case,  included partners Jin Ooi, Steve Baldwin  and associates Joseph Donkin, Andrew Marks and Alex Magnusdottir. The team has already been involved in two other prominent disputes where interim licences came into play, helping shape UK patent court jurisprudence through applications for Xiaomi and Lenovo. They instructed barristers Daniel Alexander KC and Henry Ward, both of 8 New Square, for the oral hearing.

Samsung relies on two law firms at the UPC. While regular counsel Rospatt is handling the active claims for the Korean client, A&O Shearman is handling Samsung’s defence against the infringement claims that ZTE has filed based on its own patents.

ZTE instructed IP boutique Powell Gilbert. The team was led by Ari Laakkonen and included partners Pete Damerell and Raj Jagdev as well as associates Richard Fawcett, James Bergus and Sam Andrews. Sarah Abraham KC of Brick Court Chambers and Ligia Osepciu of Monckton Chambers acted as barristers.

In the cross-border dispute the Powell Gilbert team works closely with the teams at mixed firm Vossius & Partner and the Munich-based team of IP boutique Taliens, who both act for ZTE at the UPC as well as in the national German proceedings at Munich Regional Court. Each law firm is taking on one active claim and one passive claim for the Chinese mobile phone provider at both courts.

Samsung filed the contract formation claim in Frankfurt with German law firm Glade Michel Wirtz. Name partner Markus Wirtz, who specialises in antitrust law, has experience in competition law counterclaims regarding FRAND. He represented Samsung in such a claim against Datang last year.

The antitrust law boutique Commeo, which cooperates closely with Taliens, is active on ZTE’s side.