ZTE v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 20 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 20 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_850/2024, EP 3 905 730), issued of the court’s own motion by Judge-rapporteur Böttcher (Mannheim Local Division), the value in dispute of the whole proceedings brought by ZTE against Samsung Electronics and five group companies (infringement action, counterclaim for revocation and FRAND counterclaim) was set on a provisional basis, and Samsung Electronics Co. was ordered to pay an additional advance on court fees. The amounts are redacted in the published version. The order makes clear that a FRAND counterclaim is not valued by reference to the patent in suit alone.

Question

Can the value of a FRAND counterclaim be aligned with that of an infringement action based on a single patent?

Decision

Samsung Electronics Co. had valued its FRAND counterclaim at EUR 4 million, adopting the value ZTE gave to the infringement action. The judge-rapporteur considered this largely underestimated, since a FRAND licence does not relate solely to the patent in suit, having regard to the commercial background of the counterclaim and the parties’ discussion of the FRAND rate. He referred to Panasonic v OPPO, in which the same Division had set a value above EUR 50 million. The value is provisional and will be reviewed in the interim procedure. The parties may comment until 21 July 2025.

Key points for practice

• A defendant bringing a FRAND counterclaim should expect a value in dispute, and court fees, well beyond those of an infringement action on a single patent.

Provisions applied

Case law cited

Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (paragraph 252)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.