FRAND Litigation Watch
Structure a FRAND negotiation in light of the case law.
The questionnaire places your negotiation against the steps courts examine, flags the comparables to study and the points to look into. No rate is calculated.
- Structure my negotiationYour position, the standard and the state of the exchanges. You get the steps to secure, the comparables to examine and the documents to gather.Start →
- Understand an issueNegotiation conduct, injunctions, rates, global reach: a short synthesis, then decisions from ten legal systems.Explore →
- Find a decisionOne search: all UPC decisions classified SEP / FRAND and leading decisions from other courts.Open the database →
21 leading non-UPC decisions in the commented selection · all UPC decisions, without editorial selection · sources checked on 29 September 2026 · detailed case notes published on 11 October 2026 · database updated every week, on Friday · Corpus and method
Structure my negotiation
Put your FRAND negotiation in perspective
Identify what makes a licence comparable, what weakens a negotiation and which options deserve closer review. Three reasoned scenarios, without invented rates or coefficients.
- Answer the essential questions in a few minutes: your position, the right at stake, the timing and your objective.
- Complete the following sections if needed to refine the options.
- Receive a summary, the routes to examine and a downloadable orientation memo that you can share with the firm.
The engine applies explicit rules and does not predict a judgment. Your answers stay in your browser: the tool neither sends them to the firm nor stores them.
Enable JavaScript to use the questionnaire. The page’s analysis and sources remain accessible.
Working tool
Comparability grid for licences relied upon
A licence produced by a party serves as a comparison only once its scope, its structure and the circumstances of its conclusion are known. This grid records, criterion by criterion, what the document establishes, what it leaves open and the effect of the gap on comparability. It is not advice.
The twelve criteria
- Territorial scope
To check in the document: Countries covered, exclusions, treatment of out-of-scope sales
Effect if missing: The rate cannot be transposed to another territory without an explicit adjustment - Technical scope
To check in the document: Whole portfolio, named families, declared essential patents, non-essential patents included
Effect if missing: Comparison distorted where the licence is broader than the portfolio in dispute - Nature of the agreement
To check in the document: Straight licence, cross-licence, litigation settlement, package including services or supply
Effect if missing: Non-monetary consideration makes the apparent rate unusable as it stands - Royalty structure
To check in the document: Lump sum, per-unit rate, upfront payment, cap, floor, tiering
Effect if missing: A nominal rate without its full structure says nothing about actual cost - Volumes and term
To check in the document: Licensed volumes, period covered, renewal, termination
Effect if missing: A lump sum without volumes cannot be converted into a unit rate - Level in the value chain
To check in the document: Component, module or end-product maker
Effect if missing: A licence concluded at another level is comparable only once the royalty base is justified - Circumstances of conclusion
To check in the document: Free negotiation, compliance with a ruling, settlement under threat of an injunction, global peace agreement
Effect if missing: An agreement reached under procedural pressure does not necessarily reflect a market level - Date
To check in the document: Signature date, performance period, state of the portfolio at that date
Effect if missing: An older agreement reflects neither portfolio nor market developments - Currency and adjustments
To check in the document: Currency, conversion used, indexation, withholding tax
Effect if missing: The stated rate and the effective rate may differ - Past sales
To check in the document: Treatment of past use, amount allocated to earlier periods, waivers
Effect if missing: Back payments mistaken for current royalties inflate the apparent rate - Ancillary clauses
To check in the document: Audit, default, most favoured licensee, non-challenge, assignment
Effect if missing: These clauses shift economic value without appearing in the rate - Access to the text
To check in the document: Full text, extract, party-prepared summary, missing schedules
Effect if missing: Without the full text and its schedules, comparability remains an assertion
Record a conclusion for each licence examined: comparable, comparable subject to an identified adjustment, not comparable, or comparability not verifiable on the documents disclosed.
Understand an issue
Key issues in FRAND negotiations
For standard-essential patents (SEPs), compare the requirements of a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence. Choose a question to find relevant decisions and evidence to gather.
Commented international selection. 23 leading decisions, 2014 to 2026, from 10 legal systems, each with its practical reading and limitations. The selection is not exhaustive.
UPC decisions database. All UPC decisions classified SEP / FRAND, without selection, each with its record and the official decision: find a decision.
CROSS-JURISDICTION SYNTHESIS · EDITORIAL READING
Good faith is demonstrated through conduct.
A common reading of these cases is traceability: who explained an offer, responded, counter-proposed and enabled examination of the data? Economic substance and negotiating conduct need to be read together.
FTC/Qualcomm highlights the distinction between contractual FRAND duties and proof of competitive harm.
You hold the patents
Identify patents and alleged use. Explain the offer’s calculation and scope. Arrange proportionate access to confidential information.
You use the technology
Respond substantively and promptly. Explain disagreements. Document relevant counter-offers and security. A bare statement of willingness is fragile.
Differences and uncertainty
The tests differ: Article 102 TFEU in Europe, contractual obligations in the US and prima facie review in India’s Intex case. This corpus yields no universal response deadline.
Read more: Offer and counter-offer · Hold-out · Confidentiality
CROSS-JURISDICTION SYNTHESIS · EDITORIAL READING
A FRAND defence is not an automatic shield.
In the cases shown, genuine willingness, the rationale for the offer and the relief sought matter more than a “FRAND” label. An injunction, a payment order and damages must remain separate outcomes.
Panasonic/Xiaomi adds another setting: undertakings for English determination of terms can inform the good-faith assessment of parallel proceedings.
You hold the patents
Identify negotiating conduct supporting relief and check validity, infringement and the product scope sought.
You use the technology
Evidence real steps towards a licence. Also examine exhaustion, territorial scope and the conditions for the remedy sought.
Differences and uncertainty
Japan addresses damages here, India interim payment and the UPC merits injunctions. Combining these into a “success rate” would create a false comparison.
Read more: Injunctions and SEPs · UPC case analysis
CROSS-JURISDICTION SYNTHESIS · EDITORIAL READING
Compare agreements, not just rates.
The same headline royalty may cover different rights and periods. Comparable selection, economic conversion and consistency checks need explanation. Averaging a table does not itself establish a FRAND method.
InterDigital/Lenovo calls for isolating historic discounts and deferred payments. Ericsson/D-Link requires concrete evidence of hold-up or royalty stacking.
You hold the patents
Explain agreement relevance, portfolio value and scope differences. Identify non-cash concessions.
You use the technology
Test duration, territories, products, cross-licences and past releases. Seek data allowing adjustments to be checked.
Differences and uncertainty
Optis (2025) illustrates the potential use of a top-down cross-check without creating a general formula. Redacted and confidential agreements limit reliable public estimates.
Read more: Comparable licences · Top-down · Hold-up
CROSS-JURISDICTION SYNTHESIS · EDITORIAL READING
A global licence does not create a global patent.
Separate three questions: who can determine the agreement, where an injunction takes effect and which parallel proceedings may continue. A jurisdiction ruling does not yet determine a FRAND rate.
Also compare the type of relief: an enforcement restraint in Conversant/Huawei, an interim-licence declaration in Panasonic/Xiaomi. Their legal effects differ.
You hold the patents
Map rights, territories, contractual commitments and pending claims before choosing remedies.
You use the technology
Identify commitments to take a licence and overlaps between payment or injunction claims.
Differences and uncertainty
The UK reference uses contractual reasoning. The Chinese reference concerns jurisdiction. The French reference protects court access. These are neither three rates nor interchangeable solutions.
Read more: Portfolio licence · Understanding ASIs and anti-ASIs · The arbitration route
What the decisions say
The jurisdiction filter selects the cards below. The synthesis above remains cross-jurisdictional. Systems without a reference for the selected question are disabled.
Germany · Sisvel v Haier05.05.2020 · Merits · appeal on points of lawWillingness must translate into negotiating conduct. The holder must also enable a FRAND agreement.
Practical reading
Keep a chronology of responses and the rationale for portfolio scope.
Keep this limitation
The patent expired during proceedings: this judgment is not a new prohibitory injunction.
France · Conversant v LG16.04.2019 · Rate setting refusedThe court declines to set a royalty rate, the essentiality of the patents relied upon not being sufficiently established.
Practical reading
A request to set a rate first requires essentiality to be shown patent by patent. The declaration made to the standardisation body is not evidence, since ETSI does not verify essentiality.
Limit to keep in mind
The refusal rests on the proof of essentiality, not on any lack of jurisdiction.
France · Thales v Philips14.02.2023 · Appeal, evidence measureThe court upholds an ex parte evidence measure covering the licence negotiation record, the proof of negotiating conduct being at risk of disappearing.
Practical reading
Negotiating conduct has to be proved. Exchanges, offers and counter-offers may be seized without a prior hearing, which shifts the stake towards the internal traceability of the discussions.
Limit to keep in mind
The judgment concerns evidence, not whether the terms discussed were FRAND.
France · TCL v Philips and ETSI06.02.2020 · JurisdictionThe Paris court accepts jurisdiction over claims based on a FRAND undertaking against a foreign patent owner, ETSI being domiciled in France.
Practical reading
The French seat of the standardisation body gives implementers a route to Paris when they wish to have the FRAND undertaking enforced. The order treats that undertaking as a stipulation for the benefit of a third party, which gives the implementer a direct right.
Limit to keep in mind
The order rules on jurisdiction and admissibility, not on the financial terms of a licence.
France · Xiaomi v Philips and ETSI07.12.2021 · Jurisdiction and admissibilityThe court accepts jurisdiction over claims seeking the conclusion of a licence on FRAND terms, including on a worldwide basis.
Practical reading
Paris joins the fora that may entertain a request to set a worldwide licence. An implementer seeking to avoid a foreign forum has an interest in filing early, and the owner in anticipating that move in its negotiation sequence.
Limit to keep in mind
Accepting jurisdiction is not setting a rate. No French decision has so far determined financial terms on the merits.
United Kingdom · Panasonic v Xiaomi03.10.2024 · Appeal · interim-licence declarationsThe court grants interim-licence declarations and criticises pursuit of foreign injunctions in this setting.
Practical reading
Compare each party’s English-court undertakings with its parallel-litigation strategy.
Keep this limitation
Both parties had undertaken to accept English-determined terms. This is not an anti-suit injunction.
United States · FTC v Qualcomm11.08.2020 · Merits appeal · antitrustThe antitrust judgment is reversed. An alleged FRAND contractual breach does not establish the asserted competitive harm.
Practical reading
Separate the contractual basis, relevant market and competitive harm.
Keep this limitation
The court does not decide the contractual duty to license chipmakers. No FRAND rate is set.
United Kingdom · InterDigital v Lenovo12.07.2024 · Merits appeal · global licence termsThe court corrects treatment of past sales in comparables and upholds interest on historic payments.
Practical reading
Separate past sales, future sales, settlement discounts and the time value of deferred payment.
Keep this limitation
The adjustments are case-specific, not transferable coefficients.
United States · Ericsson v D-Link04.12.2014 · Merits appeal · damages and remandJury instructions must reflect the RAND commitment and distinguish inventive value from standardisation value.
Practical reading
Support hold-up or royalty-stacking arguments with concrete evidence.
Keep this limitation
The first-instance award is disturbed: it is not an approved tariff for Wi-Fi devices.
China · Conversant v Huawei11.09.2020 · Reconsideration · litigation-preservation measureThe Supreme People’s Court maintains the restraint on Conversant seeking provisional enforcement of the German injunction.
Practical reading
Map how foreign enforcement affects the pending royalty-setting proceedings.
Keep this limitation
A restraint directed at a party, not annulment of the German judgment or global rate-setting.
European Union · CJEU · Huawei v ZTE16.07.2015 · Preliminary rulingA dominant holder must give infringement notice and, following willingness, make a reasoned written offer. The user must respond diligently. Counter-offer and security follow as appropriate.
Practical reading
Build an evidenced chronology of both parties’ communications and proposals.
Keep this limitation
The CJEU neither grants an injunction nor sets a rate. Validity and essentiality challenges remain possible (§ 69).
Germany · FRAND-Einwand III27.01.2026 · Merits appealThe BGH stresses continuing willingness and appropriate security promptly after rejection of a counter-offer. The defendant’s appeal is dismissed.
Practical reading
An initial statement of willingness does not replace ongoing negotiating conduct.
Keep this limitation
This supplies neither a universal security amount nor a rule for every jurisdiction.
Open the source ↗ · Judicial headnotes ↗ · Detailed case note
UPC · Panasonic v Oppo22.11.2024 · First instance · meritsInjunction granted. Revocation dismissed. The latest offer and actual economic data are examined. A negotiating concession alone does not establish FRAND compliance.
Practical reading
Document the economic rationale beyond the headline royalty.
Keep this limitation
Other relief was partly refused. One case does not define UPC-wide practice.
UPC · Huawei v Netgear18.12.2024 · First instance · meritsInjunction granted with an exclusion for certain Qualcomm-modem products, subject to proof. Revocation dismissed. FRAND and IEEE defences fail in this dispute.
Practical reading
Separate FRAND issues from exhaustion and product scope.
Keep this limitation
Limited injunctive relief is neither a complete win nor a general success rate.
United Kingdom · Unwired Planet v Huawei26.08.2020 · Merits appealA global licence may be determined under the ETSI undertaking, backed by a UK patent injunction if refused. Comparables require reasoned adjustments.
Practical reading
Distinguish global contractual scope from territorial patent rights.
Keep this limitation
This does not decide foreign patent validity. Non-discrimination does not automatically require the lowest available price.
United Kingdom · Optis v Apple01.05.2025 · Appeal · FRAND determinationThe first-instance simple average is criticised. The Court weighs the best comparables and uses a top-down cross-check to test the result.
Practical reading
Explain contract selection and test the robustness of adjustments.
Keep this limitation
Case-specific data and concessions do not provide a transferable formula. The public version is partly redacted.
Netherlands · Philips v Asus24.12.2019 · Merits appealThe FRAND defence fails for lack of genuine willingness. A Dutch injunction is granted. Broad access to third-party licences is refused in this setting.
Practical reading
Evidence willingness and target requests for disclosure of agreements.
Keep this limitation
This is not a general bar on obtaining comparable licences.
United States · Microsoft v Motorola30.07.2015 · Appeal · contractual liabilityThe RAND determination and liability for breach of good faith are upheld. Proposed comparable agreements are assessed in their economic context.
Practical reading
An injunction strategy may also face contractual scrutiny.
Keep this limitation
A Washington-law contract action, not a single injunction test for every US court.
Japan · Samsung v Apple16.05.2014 · Appeal · damagesDamages above a FRAND royalty are held abusive in this case. FRAND-level compensation remains available. Willingness to license matters.
Practical reading
A FRAND commitment may constrain remedies without making use free of charge.
Keep this limitation
This judgment concerns damages. Related provisional proceedings are not counted as the same outcome.
India · Intex v Ericsson29.03.2023 · Appeal on interim reliefIntex is prima facie an unwilling licensee. Its appeal is dismissed and full payment of the relevant royalties is ordered at the interim stage.
Practical reading
Prepare relevant essentiality, validity and comparability evidence at the interim stage.
Keep this limitation
The Court expressly reserves the merits. A payment order is not a sales injunction.
France · Lenovo v IPCom03.03.2020 · Interim-relief appealAccording to INPI, withdrawal of the US anti-suit request is upheld, while the blanket ban on further foreign applications is reversed.
Practical reading
Identify the particular foreign procedure restricting access to the French court.
Keep this limitation
Secondary-level summary, excluded from outcome counts. Protection of court access is not a ban on all parallel litigation.
China · Oppo v Sharp19.08.2021 · Jurisdictional appealWIPO reports jurisdiction to determine global terms, based on Chinese connections and the intention to negotiate a global licence.
Practical reading
Map connections of the portfolio, business activities and negotiations.
Keep this limitation
This reference sets no rate and is not a full-judgment review. Excluded from outcome counts.
Germany · Sisvel v Haier II24.11.2020 · Merits · second appeal on points of lawWillingness to take a licence is assessed over time: a late counter-offer does not cure years of silence.
Practical reading
Date every exchange: the court looks at conduct from the first notification, not only at the state of negotiations on the day proceedings were served.
Limit to keep in mind
Second instalment of the same dispute as Sisvel v Haier of 5 May 2020. The two judgments are read together, not one instead of the other.
No reference in this selection. This does not imply an absence of case law.
Developments: three chronological reference points
- 2024 · JUB / UPC
Panasonic and Huawei/Netgear provide two merits applications of the FRAND defence. Their outcomes remain specific to the offers, products and rights examined.
- 2025 · Optis v Apple
Scrutiny of the comparison method is central: agreement selection, rejection of an unsupported average and a top-down consistency check.
- 2026 · BGH
FRAND-Einwand III stresses continuing willingness and the timing of security. A German development to read within its own framework.
Selected developments, not a statistical trend. Subsequent appeals and events require checking for an actual matter.
All 61 decisions analysed in detail, by jurisdiction
Find a decision
Find a SEP / FRAND decision, all courts
One search covers two sources: all UPC decisions classified SEP / FRAND, without editorial selection, from the UPC Litigation Watch database, and leading decisions from other courts (CJEU, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, France, Netherlands, China, Japan, India), each commented with its official source.
Open the UPC decisions in the full database
Scope of this search
Sector classification comes from the shared database taxonomy. Results count documents, not disputes or wins. Multiple orders, decisions or versions may involve the same parties on the same date. Titles alone do not establish duplicates. Search covers indexed fields, not necessarily full PDF text. Commented references are a separate, non-exhaustive selection.
Corpus, sources and reading method
The comparator contains 23 references: 21 decisions read as judgments or an abridged translation (Japan), and 2 clearly identified institutional summaries (France and China). Period: 16 May 2014-27 January 2026. An editorial selection, neither exhaustive nor representative of all worldwide case law.
Reading unit: one dated decision identified by court and number, copies, translations and multiple claims do not create additional cases. A decision may address several questions, so thematic counts must not be added. Additional worksheet references are not added to the comparator corpus.
Relevant texts and passages were consulted. This is not an exhaustive procedural-status audit. Outcomes are historical. Institutional summaries are not used to code outcomes. No frequency, causation or success probability is inferred from this selection.
Syntheses are predefined editorial analyses selected by your question. The filter does not generate legal advice or search for new cases in real time. Worksheet answers remain in your browser.
Browse the existing international case records: International explorer. UPC documentary database.
Verified UPC outcomes: the small pilot corpus
These separate counts do not measure worldwide trends.
Verified pilot corpus
Outcomes of the reviewed decisions
Two first-instance merits judgments, 22 November, 18 December 2024, selected from SEP/FRAND cases discussed on this site. Editorial selection of two disputes, neither exhaustive nor representative of all UPC cases.
Denominator: two decisions for each of the three indicators. No provisional or appeal decisions are included. These counts concern the identified issues, not an overall party success rate.
Panasonic v Oppo
Mannheim · 22.11.2024
UPC_CFI_210/2023
Revocation counterclaim dismissed. Infringement found. Injunction granted.
Operative part A.I, II, B. Some other relief was refused (A.VII): the overall result is not coded as a complete victory.
Huawei v Netgear
Munich · 18.12.2024
UPC_CFI_9/2023 · ORD_598538/2023
Revocation counterclaims dismissed. Infringement found within the non-exhausted scope. Injunction granted with an exclusion.
Operative part B, C and J: certain Qualcomm-modem products are excluded subject to proof of first EU marketing. Counted once despite multiple defendants and counterclaims.
Method, deduplication and limitations
Relevant reasons and operative parts reviewed on 28 September 2026. Unit: one dated judicial decision, identified by court, case number(s) and subject matter. Copies, translations, associated records, multiple defendants and cross-appeals disposed of together do not create additional observations.
Issue-level coding: revocation dismissed/allowed, infringement found/not found, injunction granted/refused, separately noting any limitation or undecided question. An injunction with an exclusion counts as granted, with that limitation displayed. No percentage or predictive probability is calculated from this small sample.
The outcomes describe the dated decisions. They do not establish present enforceability or the absence of later developments. The FRAND and Pharma corpora cover different periods and proceedings, so their counts are not directly comparable.
The broader documentary database
The UPC Litigation Watch database lists, under the topic “Standard-essential patents and FRAND”, every record classified under that heading (more than two hundred at 15 October 2026), the exact number and the date of the latest integration appear at the top of that database. These records are not the denominator of the outcomes above. The database covers decisions handed down since 1 June 2023. Full deduplication and outcome coding remain necessary before any overall statistics can be produced.
Apply the case law to your matter
Need to assess a negotiation, an offer or a cross-border strategy? Dhenne Avocats advises on patent and FRAND disputes.
Work and publications of Matthieu Dhenne: Kluwer Patent Blog, SSRN, Google Scholar, LinkedIn.
Latest analysis
- FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open (20 September 2026)
- Acer v Nokia: the contractual turn of FRAND arbitration (2 September 2026)
- Tesla v InterDigital: the FRAND undertaking inside the patent pool (1 September 2026)
Matthieu Dhenne on the Kluwer Patent Blog
Who maintains this watch
FRAND Litigation Watch is maintained by the Dhenne Avocats team, a Paris litigation boutique devoted to patent disputes. FRAND commitments and injunctions relating to standard essential patents are at the core of its work, regularly discussed at the Kluwer Patent Blog. References distinguish decisions from institutional summaries. The reading notes set out the firm’s editorial analysis and do not replace the cited text.
From the watch to the negotiation
No tool sets a FRAND rate. A rate is justified by a method, a scope and a complete negotiation record, and it must be defended before a judge. The firm acts in standard essential patent and FRAND litigation, provides a second opinion on pending litigation and works alongside negotiation teams, for patentees and implementers alike.
Frequently asked questions
What does FRAND Litigation Watch cover?
Decisions of the Unified Patent Court concerning standard essential patents and FRAND terms, put in perspective with the leading foreign decisions through the international case law explorer.
How does the UPC approach SEP disputes?
The case law is being built decision by decision, around the framework set by the Court of Justice in Huawei v ZTE and the assessment of the parties’ conduct in the negotiation. Each entry links to the official text of the decision.
Can a FRAND rate be computed automatically?
No. The tool on this page puts a negotiation in perspective. It replaces neither a valuation method, nor a portfolio analysis, nor a litigation strategy. For that, contact the firm.
One newsletter a week, only when there is something new in the sections you choose, with a link to each article, each case note and the official source.
Receive our articles and litigation updates