ZTE, Samsung now awaiting four court rulings after recent trials: considerable risk of knockout punches; Samsung already trying to avoid costs in U.S.

1. Two potential injunctions in April

There are now two ZTE v. Samsung SEP enforcement actions under advisement:

• The Munich I Regional Court allowed post-trial briefing, which is not unheard of but happens in only a minority of cases. A decision will come down on April 15, 2026 (February 14, 2026 ip fray article). Germany alone is a huge market for Samsung.
• The UPC’s Mannheim LD will probably make its decision in April, too. If Samsung loses, it will be enjoined in a multiplicity of countries, including (but not limited to) Germany.

In both cases, there are reasons for which Samsung can hope to come away unscathed. But in probabilistic terms, Samsung faces considerable risk, even if ZTE, for now, cannot count on decisive near-term leverage. Even if we assumed for the sake of the argument (this is not an ip fray estimate) that Samsung has a 60% chance of defending in each case, that would mean ZTE has a chance of 64% of winning at least one of the two potential injunctions and Samsung only a 36% chance of defending against both. Should the chances be 60% for ZTE per case (this is not an ip fray estimate either), the likelihood of Samsung fending off both cases would be down to 16%.

2. Near-term counterleverage: limited opportunity

The situation in the European Patent Office (EPO) doomed the Samsung case the Mannheim LD was originally planning to hear this week. Samsung would very much have needed that leverage. ZTE’s exposure to patent assertions is far smaller in Germany than Samsung’s. With a multi-country injunction (or the possibility thereof), Samsung would still not have been able to make ZTE back down. But that would have been more meaningful.

The next opportunity for Samsung is a trial in the Munich I Regional Court on next week’s Wednesday (March 25, 2026). The best it can win there is a German injunction, which would be meaningful against Samsung (high sales volume and high margins in that market), but of limited impact on ZTE. And to get there it has to convince the court of FRAND positions that run counter to its own interests as an implementer.

Thereafter, the parties will square off in Munich again on April 30, 2026 with either party being a plaintiff in one case and a defendant in the other. Here, again, exposure in Germany is greatly asymmetrical. If both parties get Munich injunctions at around the same time, ZTE has more leverage.

3. Outstanding FRAND determinations in China and UK

A FRAND rate-setting decision in China is almost overdue, though there is no such things as hard deadline.

The High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) likes to render FRAND decisions rather swiftly, but it also depends on the objective urgency in a given dispute (useful purpose). Samsung may not have done itself a favor by running to courts in multiple countries to seek FRAND determinations.

Given that Samsung’s behavior in the U.S., which suggests that they see a considerable likelihood of the matter finally settling out in the next few months, there is a high risk that the UK court would draft a 150- or 200-page FRAND ruling that would never get published.

The Mannheim LD’s appetite for Samsung’s FRAND counterclaim is limited or, more realistically, non-existent. The UPC is obviously aware of the decision made by the Frankfurt Regional Court (by coincidence, a 40-minute train ride away from Mannheim).

4. U.S. court order (as discussed further above)

---

1. It’s an amazing company. Samsung’s contributions to innovation are often underestimated, considering that Samsung’s high-quality products have often been ahead of Apple’s in some ways or even in entire categories (phablets and foldables, for instance). Their world-class components power a substantial part of the Digital Economy, including AI infrastructure, which is why its market cap is now on the order of a trillion dollars, far larger than any European company. Samsung deservedly owns huge numbers of patents. But Samsung’s own patent enforcement actions in Mannheim look as if they were jinxed, and its scattershot FRAND strategy against ZTE has not worked out well. ↩︎
2. We watch many high-stakes disputes in the U.S. (or global patent disputes with a U.S. component), and parties that face a dismissal in U.S. district court that they believe they cannot overcome short of a successful appeal are normally interested in a stipulated final judgment. They can’t wait to get it. They may not accept the dismissal as the last word, but they need a final judgment so they can bring an appeal. For example, between Netflix and Broadcom this has already been done (LinkedIn post by ip fray of five months ago). Even twice in that dispute alone. Here, Samsung just remained silent, and at some point the district judge looked at her docket and was wondering what the next step should be. She wants to close the case. As long as there is no settlement in place or in sight, Samsung will likely reserve its rights to bring a U.S. appeal. By playing for time, Samsung increased the likelihood that the dispute would end before it would have to spend money on the preparation of an appeal. The initial notice of appeal, due 30 days after the final judgment by the trial court, is not the costliest part. The opening brief (due a few months later with a routine extension) is where it gets expensive. The likelihood of the dispute still being a live controversy before that future deadline is low. Samsung has until March 31, 2026, to give feedback to the district judge. Even if she entered judgment the next day, Samsung would have until May 1, 2026 to give notice of its appeal. Then it could seek an extension for the opening brief until the late summer. ↩︎