Breaking FRAND? Samsung pushes back on Wilus’s alleged “bad faith” tactics

Context:

• Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology is pursuing a series of standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas against multiple implementers, including Samsung Electronics and ASUS subsidiary Askey, in relation to Wi-Fi 6 technology. The dispute arises in the context of pool-based licensing arrangements administered by Sisvel, where SEP holders typically offer licenses on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) basis. For Wi-Fi, the term is RAND, but the omission of the F has no effect. Following the breakdown of licensing negotiations, Wilus initiated parallel proceedings against several defendants, with the cases subsequently consolidated for pre-trial purposes.
• In the build-up to trial, Wilus brought, among other things, a motion for partial summary judgment that the two implementers’ alleged bad-faith negotiations justify suspending Wilus’s RAND obligations vis-à-vis them (March 6, 2026 ip fray article). This is part of a broader set of pre-trial proceedings aimed at narrowing the issues to be decided at trial.

What’s new: Samsung is opposing Wilus’s motion on substantive grounds, arguing that FRAND obligations remain binding regardless of negotiation conduct, while Askey is challenging the motion on procedural grounds, contending that bad faith and FRAND suspension were neither pleaded nor relevant to the issues remaining for trial. Both defendants further arguing that the request is premature and inappropriate for resolution at the summary judgment stage.

Direct impact: The motion could significantly affect the remedies available at trial. If the court accepts Wilus’s position, FRAND commitments may no longer constrain the assessment of damages, potentially exposing implementers, particularly high-volume device maker Samsung Electronics to higher, uncapped patent damages. It may also strengthen Wilus’s position in seeking a permanent injunction against Askey, where the absence of FRAND constraints could make it easier to argue that monetary compensation is insufficient. Conversely, if the motion is rejected, FRAND obligations would continue to act as a limiting framework for both damages and injunctive relief.

Wider ramifications: The case highlights the central role of FRAND arguments when courts are asked to determine monetary and injunctive remedies. It also showcases, in the context of a multi-defendant proceeding, that a suspension of FRAND obligations may affect different types of implementers in different ways. It furthermore demonstrates that implementers must think about the consequences of rejecting bilateral and pool licensing offers.