<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
\u00a0The transition into 2026 has seen several notable developments in fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) litigation. In particular:<\/p>\n
Increasing jurisdictional fights: Courts in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) continue to protect their own competence to set or enforce FRAND outcomes. This trend has led to a dense web of anti\u2011suit, anti-anti\u2011suit and \u201canti\u2011interim\u2011license\u201d injunctions (AILIs). In the United Kingdom, Mr Justice Meade and Mr Justice Mellor, respectively, issued ex parte anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASIs) to safeguard the UK\u2019s rate\u2011setting jurisdiction in the Amazon v. InterDigital and Warner Bros v. Nokia cases (Nokia\u2019s AASI injunction was later lifted on the condition that Nokia give 21 days\u2019 notice before seeking any foreign injunctions that relate to the UK rate-setting proceedings). The UPC and German courts have so far upheld the AILIs against Amazon.<\/p>\n
Further articulation of approaches to FRAND disputes: The German Federal Court of Justice endorsed the Munich I Regional Court\u2019s strict approach to \u201cwillingness\u201d before an injunction could be granted. Despite the European Commission\u2019s intervention encouraging a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the interpretation of Huawei v. ZTE, the Federal Court of Justice refused to make such a referral. Separately, the Munich I Regional Court granted the first SEP preliminary injunction (PI) in Europe in Dolby v. Roku. In the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corporation reframed the grant of a declaration of the terms of an interim license as \u201cjurisdictionally neutral relief.\u201d In the United States, Judge Rodney Gilstrap allowed Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.\u2019s FRAND counterclaims against Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. to proceed and confirmed that Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) commitments are governed by US law, even if portfolios include foreign patents.<\/p>\n
Policymakers continue to be active: In the United States, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) voiced concerns about \u201ccollusive licensing negotiation groups,\u201d characterizing them as buyers\u2019 cartels and warning about unintended regulatory \u201cbutterfly effects.\u201d The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced an SEP Working Group aimed at \u201cstrong and predictable\u201d enforcement, framed as a response to an environment purportedly hostile to innovators. In Europe, the European Parliament initiated litigation against the European Commission over the withdrawal of the proposed SEP Regulation, alleging institutional overreach and breach of duties of cooperation and balance.<\/p>\n
US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Allows Samsung\u2019s RAND Counterclaims Against Wilus to Move Forward. On November 12, 2025, Judge Gilstrap denied Wilus\u2019s motion to dismiss Samsung\u2019s RAND\u2011related counterclaims in a series of Wi\u2011Fi 6 SEP infringement actions. Samsung alleged that Wilus breached its IEEE contractual obligations by failing to negotiate in good faith and by refusing to offer RAND\u2011compliant terms. Wilus argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the allegations implicated foreign patents and that Samsung failed to state viable claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith in light of Wilus\u2019s stated intent to grant RAND licenses.<\/p>\n
The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding that U.S. law governs the RAND obligations arising from commitments made to IEEE\u2014a New York\u2011based organization\u2014even when the portfolio includes foreign patents. Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. HP Inc., No. 2:24\u2011CV\u201100752\u2011JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2025). Judge Gilstrap distinguished this case from earlier decisions relating to FRAND commitments made to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) in which claims concerning foreign patents had been dismissed, emphasizing that adopting Wilus\u2019s position would allow any patent holder to circumvent U.S. jurisdiction by bundling foreign patents with domestic ones and declining to license them separately. The court further found that Samsung adequately pled its contract and good faith\u2013based claims, concluding that Wilus\u2019s stated willingness to offer RAND licenses did not negate its alleged non\u2011compliance.<\/p>\n
Eastern District of Texas Addresses Multiple FRAND Issues in Powermat-Anker Wireless Charging Dispute. On November 18, 2025, the Eastern District of Texas issued an order resolving several FRAND\u2011related issues in litigation between Powermat Technologies and Anker Innovations concerning five patents asserted to be essential to the Qi wireless charging standard. Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v. Anker Innovations, Ltd., 5:23-CV-00052-RWS, ECF No. 197 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2025). Powermat sued Anker in June 2023, and following discovery, the parties filed summary judgment motions, Daubert challenges, and a motion to stay FRAND\u2011related defenses and damages theories. The court first denied Anker\u2019s request to stay the case pending global FRAND proceedings before the UPC, as well as pending inter partes review (IPR) decisions, finding the stay unwarranted given Anker\u2019s year\u2011long delay in initiating IPR proceedings and the lack of clarity as to whether either the UPC or IPR outcomes would meaningfully streamline the litigation. The court also noted that Powermat would be unduly prejudiced by further delay two years into the case.<\/p>\n
The court next rejected Anker\u2019s challenge to Powermat\u2019s damages expert, who relied on Powermat\u2019s portfolio\u2011wide Qi licensing rates to support a reasonable royalty for the asserted subset of patents. Anker argued that the expert had failed to apportion the rate to account for technological differences between the asserted patents and Powermat\u2019s full patent portfolio, but the court concluded the expert had provided sufficient justification to rely on analogous licensing agreements and to opine that the portfolio\u2011based rate was appropriate. The court then addressed Powermat\u2019s attempt to exclude portions of Anker\u2019s expert\u2019s royalty\u2011stacking opinions. Although Anker agreed to withdraw certain stacking theories, the court permitted the remaining opinions, finding them sufficiently tied to the facts. In particular, Powermat\u2019s own expert had testified that Powermat could sue Anker on additional Qi patents immediately after the hypothetical negotiation, which the court determined provided a factual basis for considering how the possibility of further assertions might influence the negotiation and the parties\u2019 assessment of royalty stacking. Finally, the court rejected Anker\u2019s patent\u2011misuse defense at summary judgment. Anker argued that seeking supra\u2011FRAND damages alone could constitute misuse when a licensor is bound by FRAND commitments, but the court found no evidence that Powermat\u2019s damages positions or pre\u2011suit conduct produced any anticompetitive effect and thus concluded the defense could not proceed.<\/p>\n
DOJ Highlights Concerns About Collusive Licensing Negotiation Groups in Remarks at Chatham House Conference. On November 20, 2025, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Dina Kallay delivered remarks at the 2025 Chatham House Competition Policy Conference, addressing broader competition issues with relevance to SEPs. In an on-the-record keynote, Ms. Kallay cited the European Commission\u2019s recent letter on the proposed Automotive Licensing Negotiation Group as an example of what she described as \u201ccollusive licensing negotiation groups,\u201d characterizing such arrangements as illegal buyers\u2019 cartels under US antitrust law<\/a>. She cautioned that government regulations and interventions can have unintended \u201cbutterfly effects\u201d beyond their intended scope, noting that antitrust immunities and exemptions may incentivize companies to seek carve\u2011outs instead of adhering to antitrust laws. Ms. Kallay also emphasized that the DOJ Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission have led a government\u2011wide effort to identify and revise or rescind anticompetitive regulations across multiple sectors. She concluded by underscoring the Division\u2019s commitment to promoting competition, prioritizing industries that directly affect consumers\u2014such as the airline industry\u2014while continuing efforts to curb anticompetitive regulations and unwarranted government interventions that risk weakening competition in the marketplace.<\/p>\n USPTO Announces<\/a> SEP Working Group Focused on Strengthening Patent Enforcement and Participation in Standards Development. On December 29, 2025, the USPTO announced the formation of a new SEP Working Group. According to the USPTO, the initiative is intended to ensure that \u201call patent holders\u2014regardless of size or sophistication\u2014are treated fairly,\u201d with \u201cstrong and predictable\u201d enforcement of their rights when their patented technologies are incorporated into standards. The agency described the effort as a response to an SEP environment that has \u201cbecome increasingly hostile to innovators,\u201d citing concerns about devaluation of contributions, uncertain rights and suppressed licensing rates. The USPTO stated that the SEP Working Group will focus on restoring strong remedies, expanding meaningful participation in standards development\u2014particularly for small and medium\u2011sized US enterprises\u2014and engaging with stakeholders to improve transparency and predictability in SEP licensing and standards processes. The USPTO has invited input from the public as it begins this work.<\/p>\n European Parliament Takes European Commission to Court Over SEP Regulation Withdrawal. On November 25, 2025, members of the European Parliament voted to initiate litigation against the European Commission following the Commission\u2019s withdrawal of the proposed SEP Regulation. The parliament argues that the Commission overstepped its mandate by withdrawing a proposal that the Parliament had adopted in 2024 and seeks to annul the \u00a0Commission\u2019s decision. It argues that the SEP Regulation\u2019s withdrawal infringed EU law since it was without legitimate grounds, breached the principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance, and prematurely ended the legislative procedure, which encroaches on the legislative prerogatives of both the Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The Parliament also alleges a breach of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\u2019s (TFEU) duty of sincere cooperation on the basis that the Commission failed to consider the Parliament\u2019s concerns as co\u2011legislator and failed to clarify the reasons for the withdrawal.<\/p>\n UPC Local Division Upholds Novel AILI Against Amazon. In December 2025, the UPC issued two decisions in the SEP dispute between InterDigital and Amazon. On December 22, 2025, the Mannheim Local Division (LD) upheld its earlier order preventing Amazon from pursuing UK interim license relief and made clear that the order covers any step that effectively restrains enforcement of those European patents subject to the UPC\u2019s jurisdiction. In practice, the UPC held that this includes applications in the United Kingdom for interim license relief and could even encompass a final FRAND rate decision. This is because UK final FRAND relief would prevent a patentee from arguing its case and enforcing rights before the UPC. The Mannheim LD stressed that UK final relief is acceptable provided its effects \u201care strictly limited to the UK territory\u201d and \u201cdo not attach any negative consequences whatsoever\u201d to InterDigital for enforcing its patent rights in the UPC or its member states. Given the uncertainty about the downstream effects of potential UK final relief, the court maintained its order. In addition to maintaining the AILI, the Mannheim LD also issued a penalty warning to Amazon of \u20ac50 million per breach and up to \u20ac500,000 per day for ongoing non-compliance. On December 29, 2025, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) refused Amazon\u2019s request for suspensive effect of the Mannheim LD\u2019s 22 December order. Amazon\u2019s request focused on the aspects of the order that could affect the UK final relief. However, the UPC CoA held that under Article 74(1) of the UPC Agreement, appeals generally do not suspend enforcement and only do so in exceptional circumstances, which were not applicable in Amazon\u2019s case. Amazon also failed to show any irreversible harm that warranted urgent suspension. A hearing for the substantive appeal will take place on May 28, 2026. This case further signals the tension between the United Kingdom, the German courts and the UPC. As reported below, the UK court granted Amazon an AASI against InterDigital to protect the UK final FRAND relief.<\/p>\n InterDigital Secures Injunction Against Disney in Germany. On November 3, 2025, the Munich Regional Court granted InterDigital an injunction against Disney for infringing a patent related to dynamic video overlay technology \u2013 used, for example, to stream subtitles over video. InterDigital announced the ruling publicly on November 24, 2025, following a similar outcome in Brazil, where courts had already granted PIs against Disney on related grounds. The Munich decision adds to a growing string of enforcement wins for InterDigital in its global dispute with Disney, which also includes anti-anti-suit relief from the UPC\u2019s Mannheim LD.<\/p>\n Munich Court Grants First SEP-based PI in Europe. The Munich I Regional Court granted Dolby a PI against Roku on November 20, 2025 in connection with a video codec SEP. This marks the first time an SEP-based PI has been granted in Germany\u2014and in Europe more broadly. The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for SEP enforcement strategy, signaling a new willingness by German courts to grant urgent relief to SEP holders in FRAND disputes. Until now, SEP-based PIs had only been reported in Brazil and Colombia.<\/p>\n AILI Against Amazon Upheld by Munich Court. On November 25, 2025, the Munich Regional Court rejected Amazon\u2019s attempt to revoke an AILI previously granted in favor of InterDigital. The injunction prevents Amazon from seeking interim FRAND relief \u2013 such as an interim license or a declaration of unwillingness \u2013 from the UK courts in connection with InterDigital\u2019s video codec SEPs. Amazon had argued that the AILI effectively functioned as an anti-suit injunction (ASI), blocking it from enforcing contractual rights under InterDigital\u2019s FRAND undertaking to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The Munich court disagreed, reasoning that it was Amazon\u2019s UK case that acted as an anti-suit measure, as it could prevent patent holders from enforcing their rights in Germany. The court warned that permitting a UK court to provisionally license a global portfolio based on a single UK patent could sideline more appropriate jurisdictions. A parallel hearing on the same issue took place before the UPC\u2019s Mannheim Local Division on November 14, 2025, as discussed above.<\/p>\n BGH Upholds Munich FRAND Approach in VoiceAge v. HMD, Declines CJEU reference. On January 27, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed HMD\u2019s appeal in the long-running VoiceAge v. HMD litigation concerning audio codec SEPs. As we reported in a previous issue<\/a> of this FRAND update, the case attracted broad attention, including a 2024 amicus curiae brief<\/a> from the European Commission that expressed concern over the German courts\u2019 interpretation of the CJEU\u2019s Huawei v. ZTE (2015) framework. The dispute centered on the willingness standard applied by the Munich courts, which, among other things, requires implementers to post sufficient security (e.g. a bank guarantee) to demonstrate continued willingness to licence on FRAND terms. While observers had speculated that, in particular because of the Commission\u2019s amicus brief, the BGH might refer questions to the CJEU, the court held this was unnecessary. It held that the Huawei v. ZTE decision leaves room for national assessment and that Article 102 of the TFEU does not preclude injunctions where the implementer\u2019s overall conduct suggests a lack of serious willingness to license. The BGH pointed to significant delays in HMD\u2019s responses to licensing and confidentiality offers, as well as the provision of security well below even its own proposed terms, as evidence of a lack of serious willingness to license.<\/p>\n Munich Court Refines FRAND Approach in Wilus v. ASUS. On January\u00a029, 2026, the Munich Regional Court issued its judgment in Wilus v. ASUS, providing further guidance on how it applies FRAND principles in SEP disputes. The case relates to a Wi\u2011Fi\u00a06 SEP (EP\u00a03\u00a0512\u00a0289). Wilus successfully secured an injunction against ASUS that is provisionally enforceable subject to a security deposit.<\/p>\n The court took the opportunity to set out its approach on FRAND litigation as follows:<\/p>\n Substantive negotiation conduct matters: The court emphasized that procedural missteps early in negotiations (e.g. timing of expressions of willingness) can be remedied by later substantive license discussions, so long as negotiations meaningfully progress. As this is a first\u2011instance ruling, it remains subject to appeal.<\/p>\n The UK Court Grants First AASI Against InterDigital. On October 20, 2025, Mr Justice Meade granted an ex parte AASI in favor of Amazon. The order arose in the context of ongoing litigation (previously reported here<\/a>) over InterDigital\u2019s video codec portfolio (including both SEPs and non-essential patents) and amid a dispute as to whether the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU\u2011T) RAND obligation applies to both encoding and decoding patents or only the latter. Following the Munich Regional Court\u2019s ex parte\u00a0AILI (see above), Amazon grew concerned that InterDigital might seek further anti\u2011suit relief to restrain Amazon from pursuing final RAND relief in the UK. Amazon applied ex parte for an AASI\u2014not to challenge the foreign orders but to protect the English court\u2019s ability to determine final RAND terms. Meade J stressed the need for exceptional caution in this area and emphasized that the relief was directed at InterDigital\u2019s conduct, not at the German courts or the UPC. He granted the AASI (1) to protect the UK court\u2019s jurisdiction and (2) because InterDigital\u2019s conduct was vexatious and oppressive, with InterDigital\u2019s position \u201cconstantly changing\u201d as to whether the German and UPC orders extended to final RAND relief.<\/p>\n Court of Appeal Clarifies the Basis for the UK Interim License Regime. As previously reported<\/a>, on October 31, 2025, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Arnold, Birss and Jackson) overturned Mr Justice Mellor\u2019s finding that ZTE had breached its ETSI obligations in Samsung v. ZTE<\/a>. The central issue in this appeal was whether it was illegitimate for ZTE to prefer the Chinese court over the United Kingdom to determine the global FRAND license. The Court of Appeal observed that, outside the FRAND context, the appropriate jurisdiction is typically that of the defendant\u2019s domicile\u2014in this case, China. While ZTE\u2019s preference for the Chinese court was considered duplicative and therefore \u201cunattractive,\u201d it was nonetheless \u201cnot sufficient to constitute bad faith,\u201d even if ZTE sought injunctions elsewhere to encourage Samsung to agree to the jurisdiction of China. This decision noted that an interim license can be jurisdictionally neutral. It can simply be a \u201cdetermination by a court of the appropriate financial terms to operate in the interim until the parties had signed a final agreement.\u201d The interim license would apply whether the final terms are agreed upon in negotiation or settled by any competent court or arbitration.<\/p>\n
\n Security deposits remain central: Consistent with recent German practice, an implementer must provide adequate security reflecting the SEP holder\u2019s last license offer before the court will engage in a full examination of whether that offer is FRAND.
\n Focus on overall conduct: The court confirmed that it assesses the substance of the parties\u2019 licensing interactions rather than requiring strict adherence to a fixed sequence of steps under the Huawei v. ZTE CJEU framework.<\/p>\n