This is a follow-up to yesterday’s report on the Munich I Regional Court’s anti-ETSI-complaint injunction (AECI) in ZTE v. Samsung (October 15, 2025 ip fray article). Next week will be a very important one for this standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing dispute. On or after Tuesday, October 21, ETSI Director-General Jan Ellsberger (June 30, 2025 ip fray podcast) will make a key procedural decision relating to Samsung’s call for disciplinary measures against ZTE, which had a deadline two days ago to make a filing. And on Thursday, October 23, the Munich I Regional Court will hold a technical trial, at the end or not long after which a judgment may come down, and that one would likely influence the further ETSI-internal proceedings. Should there be a bench ruling, then it might even come in time to influence Mr. Ellsberger’s decision.

Mr. Ellsberger will decide on whether and when to refer Samsung’s complaint to the ETSI General Assembly (GA). Theoretically, that could mean the ETSI GA scheduled for early December 25; one in March 2026; another one in December 2026; or an extraordinary one only for the purpose of discussing this matter.

Samsung would need a 71% supermajority of the votes. But ETSI’s voting system is not what it used to be, and technology makers have much less influence than they used to have.

The minutes of a recent meeting that ETSI held with representatives of complainant Samsung and respondent ZTE reflect awareness on ETSI’s part of its obligation to comply with EU law. Samsung argues that the determination by the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) that ZTE would have to grant an interim license shows a breach of EU law and ETSI’s rules. But ZTE’s appeal will be heard on an expedited schedule, and the EWHC decision may or may not be affirmed. If, in the meantime, the Munich I Regional Court were to hold that ZTE has discharged its FRAND licensing obligation while Samsung had not been a willing licensee, ETSI would have to take into consideration that one is a court of an EU member state and the other is not.

Here are the leaked meeting minutes (we protect our sources and will categorically decline to answer questions or comment on speculation):

ETSI – Meeting Minutes

Meeting ETSI – SAMSUNG – ZTE

Date: 29 September 2025 – 09:30

Location: ETSI Headquarters

1.Attendees

ETSI:

Ms Magali Fitzgibbon, Legal Affairs and Governance Director

Me Cyrille Amar, avocat à la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Amar Goussu Staub

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS :

Mr Hojin Chang, Corporate EVP/Head of team Licensing Team,

Mr Erik Guttman, Telecommunications Standardization Engineer

Mr Youngho Kim (YHK), Licensing Team

Mr Seong-Jin Lim (SJL), DE/EP Patent Attorney

Ms Nicola Dagg, solicitor of England and Wales, Kirkland & Ellis International LLP

ZTE :

Ms Amy Mi Yao, Director of Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Department/IPD/Legal&Compliance [by videoconference]

Ms Lai Wei, Head of IP litigation [by videoconference]

Ms Juliane Buchinski, Lead IP litigation counsel Europe

Mr Dao Tian, Focal point of ZTE Deutschland, France, Italia

2.1. Welcome and Introductions (09:37 – 09:49)

The meeting was opened by ETSI, welcoming all participants. ETSI recalled that the purpose of the session was to address the potential disciplinary procedure initiated following SAMSUNG’s letter of 16 July 2025 and to work on a fair and transparent timetable for the next steps.

ETSI sought the parties’ consent to record the session for the sole purpose of ensuring accuracy of the minutes. The recording will remain confidential and accessible only to the parties for correction requests. The parties agreed.

3.2. Reminder of the Framework of the Disciplinary Procedure (09:49 – 10:23)

a) Confidentiality

ETSI recalled that while the existence of the meeting is not confidential, its content is confidential. It must remain strictly between ETSI, SAMSUNG, and ZTE until the matter is referred, if at all, to the General Assembly. The latter must ultimately be informed of the steps taken by the Director-General since the procedure was triggered by SAMSUNG’s open letter. At the same time, any intervention by outside actors during the process is detrimental to due process and should not be solicited by the parties.

The parties agreed that minutes will be drafted and submitted by ETSI to both parties for review and approval.

b) Role of the Secretariat

ETSI emphasized that the Secretariat is neither an investigator nor a prosecutor. Its role is to guarantee that the rights of SAMSUNG as a plaintiff and the rights of ZTE as a defendant are strictly respected.

This means that each party must be informed in advance of the other party’s allegations against it, be given the opportunity to consult the disciplinary file, be granted sufficient time to prepare its defence, be allowed to present its observations, both in writing and orally before the General Assembly, and be entitled to be assisted by counsel of its choice.

Another essential rule is transparency of communications. All exchanges between a party and the Secretariat regarding the disciplinary procedure must be disclosed to the other party.

ETSI informed SAMSUNG of the existence of a telephone call on September 26 between Magali Fitzgibbon, Cyrille Amar and Juliane Buchinski, in order to express ETSI’s concern following interventions by ZTE and a third party with the Director General, regarding ETSI’s legal counsel. ETSI emphasized that it is free to appoint the counsel of its choice and to decide how its interests are represented.

c) Nature of the Procedure

ETSI reminded the parties that the disciplinary procedure is accusatory in nature. SAMSUNG, as complainant, must submit a memorandum addressed to the General Assembly (GA), setting out the facts, legal basis, and supporting evidence. The purpose of this memorandum is to persuade the GA that the alleged violation is sufficiently serious to justify exclusion—meaning that it harms ETSI’s fundamental interests and is incompatible with continued membership. ETSI emphasize that the objective of the procedure cannot be to remedy Samsung alleged prejudice, as this is a matter for courts to decide.

ZTE will have the opportunity to respond under the same conditions. Both parties’ briefs must be in a form suitable for circulation to all GA members in advance of the session. ETSI stressed that the Director General’s role is limited to ensuring that the file is complete and that both parties have equal opportunity to present their case. The Director General will not make any recommendation to the GA.

Parties’ interventions:

• ZTE emphasized the severe consequences that expulsion would entail, not only within ETSI but also for its standing before other standard-setting organisations. ZTE argued that:
  • There is also a threat of injunctions against ZTE due to SAMSUNG’s claims, though ZTE has not enforced any injunctions to date.
  • The decision of the court of England and Wales is not definitive yet.
  • Under Article 8 of the Statutes, only a “substantial breach” can justify expulsion, and the Director General should therefore assess the substantial nature of any alleged violation before referring the matter to the GA.
  • Expulsion would in any event be disproportionate, and this is the first time ETSI has initiated such a disciplinary procedure against a member.
• SAMSUNG maintained that ZTE’s pursuit of injunctions poses a major risk to it. SAMSUNG recalled that it had offered ZTE a standstill on injunction proceedings pending either (i) a decision on licensing rates or (ii) submission of the dispute to arbitration, and in such circumstances would withdraw its complaint for a disciplinary procedure. SAMSUNG insisted that the disciplinary procedure should proceed regardless of the mediation.

ETSI’s clarifications:

• The Director General cannot disregard a decision of a competent court when assessing a complaint. The DG’s role is to apply the Statutes, which do not provide for a scale of penalties; the Secretariat cannot create new rules. It is the role of the DG to submit the topic to the GA if conditions are met, depending on each party’s arguments.
• ETSI recalled that in the past five years, TCL, Xiaomi and Thales brought legal actions against ETSI and Philips Electronics, alleging breaches of the ETSI IPR Policy and failure by ETSI to take disciplinary action. Thales also alleged that ETSI’s inaction amounted to a forbidden undertaking with Philips Electronics in violation of Article 101 TFEU. Although these cases were settled before judgment, they demonstrated the necessity for ETSI to act when a potential violation of its rules is reported by a member.

Additional exchanges:

• ZTE reiterated that its dispute with SAMSUNG is essentially a financial matter and asked whether SAMSUNG maintained that the Article 8.2 IPR Policy procedure should be referred to the GA.
• SAMSUNG clarified that while it is no longer seeking to trigger Article 8.2 of the IPR Policy, it reserves the right to do so in the future. SAMSUNG confirmed its view that the disciplinary procedure should continue notwithstanding the parallel mediation.

4.3. Key Issues to be Clarified in Written Submissions (10:23 – 10:31)

ETSI noted that two central issues arise from ZTE’s letter of 8 September 2025 and SAMSUNG’s letter of 10 December 2025:

1. Whether other jurisdictions have been seized of the question of ZTE’s alleged breach of ETSI rules.
2. Whether the order of the High Court of England and Wales dated 26 June 2025 is final and binding.

ETSI recorded that it had received and taken note of the additional explanations provided by both parties in their written submissions submitted immediately before the meeting (from ZTE on 28 September and from SAMSUNG on 29 September 2025). ETSI indicated that it would take these written explanations into account when determining the timetable for the proceedings.

ETSI further reiterated that the disciplinary procedure must not interfere with or undermine the ongoing mediation, in accordance with the spirit of Article 18.2 of the ETSI Directives. The disciplinary procedure must also be conducted diligently as it could overwise be held invalid.

5.Break (10:31 – 10:52)

6.4. Timetable Discussion (10:52 – 12:19)

ETSI proposed the following sequence in case mediation is unsuccessful:

• SAMSUNG to file its formal complaint with the Secretariat.

• ZTE to respond within six weeks.

• SAMSUNG to reply within three weeks (recap., sole complainant document for GA).

• ZTE to submit rejoinder within three weeks (recap., sole defence document for GA).

• Secretariat to assess if conditions for GA submission are met and to prepare report within three weeks (no recommendations).

• Complete file to be sent to GA at least 30 days before its plenary session.

ETSI noted that under this calendar, should it be submitted to a GA meeting, the case cannot be ready for the GA of 2 December 2025. Depending on the date of complaint, the matter could be submitted to the GA of March 2026 or December 2026.

At the GA, two hours would be devoted to the matter with the following sequence:

• 15 minutes: introduction and reading of the report (ETSI Legal Director).
• 30 minutes: SAMSUNG presents its complaint.
• 30 minutes: ZTE presents its defence.
• 30 minutes: debate among members.
• 5 minutes: SAMSUNG closing remarks.
• 5 minutes: ZTE closing remarks.
• 5 minutes: vote.

Discussion on the Proposed Timetable

The parties engaged in an extensive discussion of the proposed timetable.

On the sequencing of written submissions, ZTE indicated that it was in substance in agreement with ETSI’s proposal, whereas SAMSUNG opposed it. SAMSUNG argued that it had acted with diligence and could not accept a timetable that would delay submission of the question of ZTE’s exclusion to the GA. SAMSUNG announced that it intended to adhere to the schedule of exchanges initially proposed by ETSI and that it would file its memorandum the following day, 30 September 2025. SAMSUNG further proposed instead that ZTE file its response by 14 October 2025, and stated that it would then not file a reply after ZTE’s response so that ETSI could prepare its report in time for inclusion with the convocation for the GA of 2 December 2025.

ZTE replied that this timetable was too short, noting in particular the impact of staff absences due to holidays. ZTE reiterated its opposition to the very principle of the disciplinary procedure. ZTE further argued that its expulsion would be contrary to competition law, which take precedence over the ETSI Statutes and French association law. On this basis, ZTE maintained that it could not be prosecuted for breach of the ETSI rules if it was found to have complied with the principles established by the CJEU, which prevail over the ETSI rules.

ETSI responded that the ETSI IPR Policy was precisely adopted to ensure compliance with competition law and noted that European competition law is, of course, applicable in France as in all Member States. Accordingly, the Statutes, the IPR Policy and French association law can only be interpreted within the limits set by competition law. ETSI added that the CJEU has never held that ETSI rules or the FRAND undertaking should be disregarded or replaced by a mechanism of its own creation. ETSI recalled, moreover, that the Thales case illustrates the risk ETSI could face under European competition law if it were to ignore disciplinary complaints from its members and fail to enforce its rules.

ETSI observed that in the absence of agreement between the parties on a procedural timetable, the Director General would have to decide and would only be in a position to do so once both parties had filed their written submissions.

The possibility of convening an extraordinary General Assembly was then raised as a means to allow the GA to decide the dispute before the next ordinary session. ETSI noted that such a decision was not within the power of the Secretariat but confirmed it would discuss this option with the Director General.

Finally, the parties discussed the practical modalities of the oral phase of the disciplinary procedure before the GA. Both agreed that additional time should be allocated for the debate, as interventions from members could be expected before and during the session. ETSI and the parties also concurred to say that more time should be allocated to the vote. Both ZTE and SAMSUNG recommended maintaining the proposed sequence of presentations, so that the defendant would have the final word, but leaving it to the Chair to decide on the organisation of the debate. This point of agreement was duly noted

7.5. Other Issues (12:19 – 12:42)

ETSI invited both parties to raise any further procedural or organisational issues. The scope of discussion was limited strictly to the disciplinary procedure.

The parties debated how the question of ZTE’s exclusion would eventually be submitted to the members of the General Assembly.

ETSI explained that it would transmit to the GA SAMSUNG’s request and ZTE’s response together with the Secretariat’s report, which would remain strictly factual, as previously indicated.

The parties observed that GA members might wish to submit their own contributions before the meeting or contact the GA chair, as is common practice for all agenda items. ETSI agreed that such interventions could not be excluded and would be debated at the GA meeting.

The duration of the vote would need to be longer. ETSI confirms that more time would be needed for members to use the voting tools, in accordance with usual ETSI practices.

ETSI further noted that the same applies to any communications made by the two parties to the public. While ETSI encouraged both parties not to argue their case outside the process established with ETSI, such communications would remain their sole responsibility. For its part, ETSI would confine itself strictly to the file transmitted to the GA members together with the convocation.

Parties’ Statements for the Record

• ZTE requested that the minutes reflect its position that the disciplinary procedure should not have been initiated, on the grounds that the alleged breach is not “substantial” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Statutes and reserves the right to contest the disciplinary procedure. ZTE further asked that ETSI provides a flow chart of the proposed procedural steps.
• SAMSUNG requested that the minutes reflect that it referred the matter to ETSI without delay following the High Court’s decision of 26 June 2025, that it is suffering irreparable harm, and that it insists the question of ZTE’s exclusion be submitted to a GA vote as soon as possible.

ETSI took note of both parties’ requests and indicated that the Director General would inform them of his decision as soon as possible.

8.6. Meeting Minutes and Next Steps (12:43 – 12:45)

ETSI confirmed that draft minutes of this meeting will be circulated to both parties shortly for review. If no agreement can be reached on the minutes or timetable, the Director-General will make the final determination and notify the parties.

The meeting was then closed.

[/Zmepr-show]