Context: On Wednesday, the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) demonstrated that when it comes to standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes, the UK judiciary considers all jurisdictions equal — but itself more equal. Therefore, Samsung obtained a declaration of an entitlement to an interim license to ZTE’s SEPs, despite ZTE having offered one, without recognizing an obligation to do so and subject to Samsung accepting a final FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) determination by a Chinese court (June 25, 2025 ip fray article). It is the most asymmetrical decision in any SEP case to date, blaming ZTE for doing the exact same things that Samsung is doing (and deeming it an unwilling licensor on that basis).
What’s new: We wanted to know from ZTE what they were going to do now, and while they did not explain it explicitly, the response we received says that no claims will be withdrawn, thereby indicating that no interim license making the UK the sole FRAND arbiter will be granted.
Direct impact: The Wednesday declaration is not a specific-performance injunction. Samsung cannot enforce it. However, at the 2nd Annual IP Dealmakers Forum Europe held in London earlier this week (June 26, 2025 ip fray article), Nokia’s chief litigation counsel equated interim licenses to antisuit injunctions (ASIs) and expressed the anticipation that some implementers will try to gain leverage beyond purely declaratory relief in whatever form.
Wider ramifications: This situation shows that UK case law has gutted the “useful purpose” requirement in connection with interim licenses. Not only but also in that regard, the Wednesday declaration is even more extreme than other interim-license declarations made by UK courts: while ZTE didn’t believe it had an obligation to do that, it readily offered an interim license, subject to Chinese jurisdiction, which is precisely the jurisdiction Samsung itself described as the most appropriate one only about four years ago in its dispute with Ericsson.
Here’s the statement we received from a ZTE spokesperson:
We have seen the interim license declaration issued by the High Court of England and Wales, requiring us to accept their final judgment on the global licence terms between the two parties. We remain firmly convinced that China is the appropriate jurisdiction for resolving this case. This declaration has no impact on ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions. We will continue to take all necessary actions to protect the interests of ZTE.
ZTE has always negotiated in good-faith and fulfilled its FRAND obligations. Technological innovation supports high-quality development. ZTE’s technology and patent strength are respected and recognized by many partners around the world — these are the result of the company’s significant and sustained R&D investment. Reasonable returns on intellectual property pave the way on the road to innovation. ZTE will strengthen communication and friendly consultation with global industry partners, continue to explore best practices for creating a virtuous cycle of continuous innovation, technology-sharing and returns on intellectual property.
The grant of an interim license would put an end to all enforcement actions. But ZTE says “[the] declaration has no impact on ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions,” meaning that infringement lawsuits in China, the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Germany and Brazil will continue irrespectively of the UK decision.
The statement does not indicate whether ZTE will appeal. It can “protect [its] interests” in many ways, potentially also through motions in other jurisdictions.
When UK judges make agenda-driven decisions and don’t know how to justify them, they resort to bizarre arguments that U.S. federal judges would not contemplate for even a second. For example, it was held against ZTE that they spent money defending themselves against Samsung’s interim-license request. That still does not prove that Samsung’s motion serves a useful purpose. Obviously they defended themselves against being declared an unwilling licensor, but they know that courts in other countries will decide. If anything, pointing to ZTE’s defensive efforts proves the intellectual bankruptcy of an argument.