ZTE v Samsung (LG München I, 7 O 64/25, 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Munich I Regional Court finds Samsung liable for infringing a ZTE LTE patent and grants an injunction. With no usable comparable licence, the chamber uses, for the first time on its own account, a top-down analysis to set the reference value for a single licensor: a per-unit price of USD 170, an aggregate royalty burden of 8 % for the standard and a 5.7 % share for the claimant’s portfolio. ZTE’s cross-licence offer falls within the FRAND corridor and the FRAND defence fails. The judgment also takes a stand against unilateral rate-setting proceedings in the United Kingdom and China.

Facts and procedure

ZTE, a Chinese network technology company, owns European patent EP 2 654 356 on determining channel quality indication (CQI) in LTE (Rn. 1, 2 and 5). The defendants are the Korean parent company trading under the Samsung brand and its subsidiary; their LTE-Advanced smartphones, tablets and notebooks are accused (Rn. 6 and 7). A 2021 cross-licence (PLA 2021) ran until 31 December 2023 and contained a covenant not to sue for 2024 (Rn. 9 and 99).

Talks on a new agreement failed; on 19 December 2024 Samsung started rate-setting proceedings in the United Kingdom and ZTE similar proceedings in China, both decided at first instance on 1 May 2026 (Rn. 10). Samsung also brought licensing claims before the Frankfurt Regional Court and the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC, and a nullity action before the Federal Patent Court (Rn. 3 and 15).

The applicable law

Infringement of claims 13 and 15 is found under sections 9 and 139 of the Patent Act (Rn. 177 and 178). On the FRAND defence the chamber does not set a price: it asks whether the offer on the table at the close of the hearing lies within the FRAND corridor, applying the method developed in its ASUS I, ASUS II and Renault decisions (Rn. 77 and 80).

Question

How should a single licensor’s offer be placed within the FRAND corridor where no comparable licence can serve as a benchmark?

Decision

By a top-down analysis. The licences produced are set aside: the PLA 2021 is an « atypical first agreement » concluded by an inexperienced party under the pressure of US sanctions, to which the licensor need not remain bound if « secondary contractual victimisation » is to be avoided (Rn. 82 and 104 to 119); licences between Chinese companies are not comparable (Rn. 123 to 125). The year 2024, covered only by a covenant not to sue, remains to be paid for, contrary to the High Court’s analysis (Rn. 98 to 103).

The chamber adopts a per-unit price of USD 170, an aggregate royalty burden of 8 % and a share of 5.7 % including patent applications, giving USD 0.7752 per unit (Rn. 133 to 140), with no geographical adjustment (Rn. 141 to 154). After a 30 % discount for Samsung’s size, a 10 % uplift for its negotiating conduct and deduction of the cross-licence, the mean value is USD 726,038,664; the upper bound of the corridor is set by a 10 % uplift (Rn. 155 to 160). As the offer is below that bound, the FRAND defence fails (Rn. 161). By way of indication, a rate set by the chamber would be USD 640 million (Rn. 170 to 176). A stay is refused (Rn. 179 to 192).

Key points for practice

• A first agreement concluded under pressure or inexperience may be excluded as a comparable, the claimant choosing which agreements to produce subject to explaining its choice (Rn. 117 to 120).
• The chamber counts patent applications in the portfolio share and rejects the geographical adjustment proposed by the defence (Rn. 138, 144 and 154).
• The defendant’s negotiating conduct can make FRAND an offer that would otherwise be too high (Rn. 162).
• Practical point: the EUR 7.5 million enforcement security is set by reference to the cost of successive actions on other portfolio patents, not the defendant’s lost turnover (Rn. 195 to 199).

Relevance before the UPC

The judgment refers to Samsung’s FRAND counterclaim before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC (UPC_CFI_850/2024); the valuation of ZTE’s portfolio is therefore also in issue before the UPC in this dispute.

Provisions applied

European Patent Convention

Art. 69(2)

National law

Sections 9, 14 second sentence, 139(1) and (2) and 140b PatG; sections 242 and 259 BGB; sections 91, 148, 709 and 717(2) ZPO

Case law cited

CJEU, Huawei v ZTE; LG München I, ASUS I (7 O 5007/25, GRUR-RS 2026, 791); LG München I, ASUS II (7 O 4102/25); LG München I, Renault (7 O 7655/25, GRUR-RS 2026, 2292); LG München I, 30 October 2025, 7 O 1297/25; LG München I, 7 O 2968/26 (unpublished); High Court, 1 May 2026, [2026] EWHC 999 (Pat); BGH, Teilreflektierende Folie (X ZR 112/13); BGH, Wundreinigungstuch (X ZR 113/20)

Related decisions

• Samsung v ZTE ([2026] EWHC 999 (Pat)), 1 May 2026, English rate-setting judgment in the same dispute, discussed by the chamber.
• Samsung v ZTE ([2025] EWCA Civ 1383), 31 October 2025, same dispute before the Court of Appeal.
• ZTE v Samsung Electronics (UPC, UPC_CFI_850/2024), 13 January 2026, parallel proceedings before the UPC.
• Huawei v ZTE (CJEU, C-170/13), 16 July 2015, framework followed by the German courts, as the chamber notes.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the text of the decision (official portal gesetze-bayern.de), consulted on 11 October 2026. Only the official text is authoritative.