London calling: High Court gives c$400 million judgment in global FRAND mobile phone licensing dispute

05/05/26

The High Court (Meade J) has given judgment following the expedited trial heard in Jan-Feb 2026 of Samsung’s claim for a multi-year global licence over ZTE’s standard essential mobile telecommunication patents. 

Meade J’s judgment follows the first ever English trial dealing with fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms in which neither party was a non-practising entity.  It marks only the fourth occasion on which the High Court has determined terms for a global patent licence. 

The approach of the English courts in FRAND disputes – in particular in the context of interim licences – is currently the subject of broad international interest.  The litigation between Samsung and ZTE is the only case so far in which the English Court of Appeal has declined to declare terms for an interim licence when asked to do so, ([2025] EWCA Civ 1383, see News Item).

Giving judgment following the FRAND trial, Meade J has found that the FRAND outcome would be for Samsung to pay ZTE a net amount of just under US$400 million in return for a five-year licence (US$392 million, [576]).  Samsung, which is the claimant in the litigation, had argued that it should not pay more than US$200 million, [21]. 

Samsung’s primary case was that the terms of the licence to be settled by the Court should be based on the prior licence agreements entered into by ZTE with Samsung itself and/or Apple. 

The Court found that the prior licence agreement between ZTE and Samsung was a less good comparable, including because, as ZTE argued, it had been “pushed around” by Samsung in the licence negotiations relating to ZTE’s 5G patents: “Samsung exploited the fact that ZTE had effectively agreed the price prior to other key terms being sorted out, and forced through the inclusion of most of the benefit of ZTE’s 5G SEP patent coverage for no additional payment”: [228].

Further, Meade J found that, as ZTE argued, the prices achieved by ZTE under its prior licences had been adversely affected by a range of other factors ([231]).  These included the impact of US sanctions, ZTE’s expressed need for cash in return for a quick deal, its inexperience in outbound licensing, its lack of other major outbound licences and its lack of budget or appetite to commence FRAND litigation.  As a result, ZTE’s prior licences had been “severely affected by non-FRAND factors” ([39]), although the Judge underlined that “[n]o conscious bad faith or deliberate delaying tactics… was alleged” by ZTE, [37].

Making clear that “ZTE is entitled now to insist on full FRAND value” in the terms of a new agreement with Samsung ([37]), Meade J ruled that the best comparable agreement for the terms of the new ZTE/Samsung licence was the prior licence between ZTE and Apple.  The rate derived from unpacking this agreement was increased by assuming that an 80% discount had been given on past sales when the licence was agreed, [563].

ZTE’s argument that the best comparables were licences entered into by Samsung with, in particular, Ericsson and Nokia, was rejected given the differences between the portfolios and the greater willingness to litigate of those other licensors, [28].

The judgment is here.