UPC gives Frankfurt court priority in Samsung’s FRAND claim but revokes ZTE’s patent

On 18 March, Mannheim local division heard ZTE’s infringement action regarding EP 3 905 730. It was the first hearing of three infringement claims at the UPC between ZTE and Samsung. During the hearing presiding judge Peter Tochtermann addressed the topic of FRAND-rate setting.

At the end of 2025, Samsung had filed a FRAND counterclaim in the case at the local division. In the panel’s preliminary opinion, Tochtermann made it clear at the outset that the panel was inclined to reject this application. Samsung had already filed a similar application with Frankfurt Regional Court in summer 2025. According to the UPC, this would probably take precedence and, according to the Brussels Regulation, could not be filed with two different courts in the territory of the European Union.

Yesterday the court handed down a decision confirming this approach. The Mannheim local division declined jurisdiction over the FRAND counterclaim because of the parallel proceedings before the Regional Court Frankfurt. Even though formally different group entities are involved in the two parallel actions, according to the UPC they qualify as the same parties within the meaning of Art. 29 Brussels Regulation, as their interests are identical.

If both the FRAND counterclaim before the UPC and the action for contract formation of a FRAND licence agreement in Frankfurt went ahead in parallel, proceedings may result in irreconcilable judgments. Since the Frankfurt court was seized first, it has priority. The court also decided not to stay the infringement case pending the outcome of the Frankfurt proceedings.

With regards to the question of infringement and validity, the judges’ panel revoked EP 730 on the grounds of added matter and dismissed the infringement action (case ID: UPC_CFI_850/2024). Besides Tochtermann, the panel included judge rapporteur Dirk Böttcher, legally qualified judge Carine Gillet and technically qualified judge Klaus Loibner,

Hearing today

In the parallel national proceedings at the Regional Court Munich, the 7th Civil Chamber is hearing the actions regarding ZTE’s EP 2 654 356 and Samsung’s EP 3 625 887 today (case IDs: 7 O 64/25 and 7 O 2750/25). As regards EP 356, presiding judge Oliver Schön last summer set out a new approach to FRAND proceedings, dealing with the question of what constitutes willingness, the significance of security deposits from patent users and the relevance of interim licences.

In the parallel national action over Samsung’s EP 827, the Regional Court Munich planned to hand down another decision in mid-April. Instead, the 21st Civil Chamber suspended the proceedings pending a ruling on validity (case ID: 21 O 366/25). Previously, in late March, the same chamber had dismissed the claim over Samsung’s EP 3 580 883 (case ID: 21 O 3733/25).

Parallel nullity suits against Samsung’s EP 883 and EP 887 (case IDs: 6 Ni 38/25 and 5 Ni 25/25) as well as ZTE’s EP 356 and EP 827 (4 Ni 7/25 and 5 Ni 37/25) are pending at the German Federal Patent Court.

Twofold representation

Samsung relies on two law firms at the UPC and Munich Regional Court. While regular counsel Rospatt handles active claims for the Korean client, A&O Shearman handles Samsung’s defence against ZTE’s infringement claims. Munich-based partner Jan Ebersohl took the lead in the UPC proceedings over EP 730.

ZTE instructed Taliens and Vossius & Partner. Each firm is handling active and passive cases at the UPC and Munich Regional Court, and cooperating on all the questions regarding FRAND. While Taliens leads the national cases at the 7th Civil Chamber, Vossius is in charge of the proceedings at the 21st Civil Chamber. In the recent UPC case, Thomas Lynker of Taliens led the proceedings for the Chinese tech firm. He is also in the lead at today’s oral hearing in Munich.

Read more about the full teams here.