According to Reuters, on May 1, the UK High Court ruled that Samsung Electronics must pay a one-time fee of $392 million to obtain a license for using ZTE's relevant smartphone patents. These patents are crucial for ensuring smartphones can connect to communication networks. This ruling is part of the litigation proceedings in the UK within the broader global patent licensing dispute between the two parties.
Judge Richard Meade ruled that, after the parties failed to reach an agreement on renewing their 2021-era agreement, Samsung must pay $392 million upfront. This amount exceeds Samsung’s previously claimed maximum of $200 million but falls short of ZTE’s demand of $731 million.
The industry has characterized the UK High Court’s judgment as a “compromise” in number, yet a “departure” in substance.
On the surface, $392 million sits between ZTE’s claim of $731 million and Samsung’s offer of $200 million—appearing to be a “middle ground.” However, when viewed alongside parallel litigation outcomes in other major jurisdictions globally, this decision stands out as particularly exceptional across key legal regions.
On the same day (May 1, 2026), Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court ruled that ZTE’s proposed six-year licensing proposal of $731 million complies with FRAND principles. Even under the UK’s five-year term standard, China’s assessed royalty rate exceeds $600 million—about 1.5 times higher than the UK’s figure. Earlier, the Frankfurt District Court in Germany had determined that ZTE’s offer was FRAND-compliant while Samsung’s bid was “unreasonably low”; Munich Court, after assessing ZTE’s proposal, dismissed Samsung’s infringement claims and issued an injunction against Samsung on April 30, finding Samsung liable for infringement and confirming ZTE’s FRAND compliance. Courts in Brazil and the UPC have largely also supported ZTE’s position. As such, the UK ruling now stands as an isolated exception among major jurisdictions, naturally undermining its persuasive authority.
The UK High Court’s award of $392 million may appear to be a numerical “midpoint” between the parties’ respective demands. But from the perspective of methodology and the global judicial landscape, it represents another clear assertion by the UK court of its own adjudicative logic in FRAND disputes—markedly contrasting with jurisdictions like Germany and China. As a first-instance ruling, its legal effect remains pending final confirmation. Yet it already clearly reflects the UK’s judicial strategy: actively intervening in global SEP disputes through “judicial activism” to establish its own rule-making influence. For Chinese enterprises, the takeaway from this case is clear: in the context of globalized patent battles, they must not only vigorously defend their substantive royalty calculations, but also fully recognize the strategic importance of procedural confrontation, building a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional litigation defense and counterattack system across major global legal territories.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1864177507515456/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.