BREAKING: Munich court bars Samsung from pursuing ETSI complaint over ZTE’s licensing practices; UK appeals court to review interim license

This is a screenshot of the header section (and slightly more):

Here’s the wording of the first and most important section of the operative part of the Munich injunction, first in German and then as an unofficial translation:

I. Der Antragsgegnerin wird im Wege der einstweiligen Verfügung unter Androhung eines für jeden Fall der Zuwiderhandlung festzusetzenden Ordnungsgeldes bis zu 250.000,00 EUR – ersatzweise Ordnungshaft – oder einer Ordnungshaft bis zu sechs Monaten, im Falle wiederholter Zuwiderhandlung bis zu insgesamt zwei Jahren, wobei die Ordnungshaft an den gesetzlichen Vertretern der Antragsgegnerin zu vollziehen ist,

untersagt,

1. eine Beschwerde gegen die Antragstellerin und/oder eines ihrer konzernverbundenen Unternehmen aufgrund eines angeblichen Verstoßes der Antragstellerin oder eines ihrer konzernverbundenen Unternehmen gegen ihre Obliegenheiten unter den Gesichtspunkten von Treu und Glauben gemäß Ziff. 6.1 der ETSIIPR Richtlinie (gemäß Anhang 6 der ETSI Rules of Procedure) und/oder der angeblichen Verletzung ihrer Obliegenheiten unter FRAND-Gesichtspunkten gemäß der ETSI IPR Richtlinie bei der Standardisierungsorganisation ETSI einzuleiten, die insbesondere darauf basiert, dass der UK High Court of Justice of England & Wales in der Entscheidung vom 25. Juni 2025 in der Rechtssache Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd & Anor v ZTE Corporation & Ors (Aktenzeichen HP-2024-000044) und/oder ein mit der Sache in öherer Instanz befasstes Gericht, festgestellt hat, dass die Antragstellerin ihre Obliegenheiten unter den Gesichtspunkten von Treu und Glauben gemäß Ziff. 6.1 des Anhangs 6 der ETSI IPR Richtlinie verletze und/oder die Antragstellerin ihre Obliegenheiten unter FRAND-Gesichtspunkten gemäß der ETSI IPR Richtlinie verletze und daher ein unwilliger Lizenzgeber und/oder ein unwilliger Lizenznehmer sei; wobei diese Unterlassungsverpflichtung insbesondere auch umfasst,
   
   ihre am 16.Juli 2025 bereits eingereichte, in der Eingabe zur Vorlage an die Generalversammlung von ETSI (inklusive Anlagen und Anhänge) vom 30. September 2025 konkretisierte Beschwerde bei der Standardisierungsorganisation ETSI innerhalb einer Frist von 24 Stunden nach der Zustellung dieses Verfügungsbeschlusses zurückzunehmen und darauf einzuwirken, dass die Standardisierungsorganisation ETSI das durch die Beschwerde eingeleitete Verfahren beendet;
   
2. die am 16. Juli 2025 eingereichte, in der Eingabe zur Vorlage an die Generalversammlung von ETSI (inklusive Anlagen und Anhänge) vom 30. September 2025 konkretisierte Beschwerde, außer zum Zweck ihrer Rücknahme, weiter zu betreiben;
   
3. gerichtliche oder behördliche Verfahren einzuleiten und/oder etwaige bereits eingeleitete Verfahren fortzuführen und/oder diese nicht zurückzunehmen, mit denen der Antragstellerin das Betreiben des vorliegenden Verfahrens oder die Durchsetzung eines in diesem Verfahren ausgesprochenen Unterlassungstitels verboten wird oder werden soll;

wobei die vorstehenden Untersagungen auch umfassen, auf konzernverbundene Gesellschaften der Antragsgegnerin unter Ausschöpfung konzernrechtliche Möglichkeiten entsprechend einzuwirken.

Unofficial translation:

I. The Respondent is hereby prohibited by way of an interim injunction, subject to a fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 for each infringement – or, alternatively, imprisonment – or imprisonment of up to six months, in the case of repeated infringements up to a total of two years, whereby the imprisonment is to be served on the Respondent’s legal representatives,

1. from initiating a complaint against the Applicant and/or one of its affiliated companies with the standardization organization ETSI based on an alleged breach by the Applicant or one of its affiliated companies of its obligations under the aspects of good faith pursuant to Section 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Directive (pursuant to Annex 6 of the ETSI Rules of Procedure) and/or the alleged breach of its obligations under FRAND aspects pursuant to the ETSI IPR Directive, which is based in particular on the fact that the UK High Court of Justice of England & Wales in the decision of 25 June 2025 in the case Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd & Anor v ZTE Corporation & Ors (case number HP-2024-000044) and/or a court hearing the case at a higher instance has found that the applicant is in breach of its obligations under the aspects of good faith and fair dealing under point 6.1 of Annex 6 to the ETSI IPR Directive and/or that the applicant is in breach of its obligations under the FRAND aspects of the ETSI IPR Directive and is therefore an unwilling licensor and/or an unwilling licensee; this obligation to refrain from any further action includes, in particular,
   
   withdrawing the complaint submitted to the ETSI Standardization Organization on July 16, 2025, and further specified in the submission for submission to the ETSI General Assembly (including annexes and attachments) dated September 30, 2025, within 24 hours of service of this injunction, and instigating the ETSI Standardization Organization to terminate the proceedings initiated by the complaint;
   
2. continuing to pursue the complaint submitted on July 16, 2025, and further specified in the submission for submission to the ETSI General Assembly (including annexes and attachments) dated September 30, 2025, except for the purpose of withdrawing it;
   
3. to initiate judicial or administrative proceedings and/or to continue any proceedings already initiated and/or not to withdraw them, which prohibit or are intended to prohibit the applicant from pursuing the present proceedings or from enforcing an injunction issued in these proceedings;

whereby the above prohibitions also include exerting corresponding influence on the respondent’s affiliated companies, exhausting all possibilities under corporate law.

The injunction is binding on Samsung, not ETSI. And with respect to Samsung, it does not relate to proceedings in any court of law.

The theoretical stakes of an ETSI disciplinary proceeding are high for ZTE and for the standards ecosystem. Being excluded from further standard-setting activities would deprive ZTE of the opportunity to influence standardization and to contribute its innovations to the process. For the standards ecosystem, the hypothetical risk is that further SEP disputes could be taken to ETSI and, theoretically, more innovators could be excluded. That could lead to a situation comparable to WiFi standard-setting at a time when the relevant standards development organization (IEEE) had policies in place that major innovators declined to adhere to. There would also be the risk of fragmentation: standardization could then increasingly take place outside of ETSI, probably on other continents.

Every ETSI member gets to participate in a vote by showing up at the General Assembly, but in the end it is just about a dozen companies that drive cellular standardization and even an astroturfing operation like ACT | The App Association is trying to become an ETSI member so it could participate in such votes as the one Samsung would like to take place in December (June 20, 2025 ip fray article). ACT’s membership should be the most controversial item on the agenda of the next ETSI General Assembly.

ETSI is bound by EU antitrust law, but not by a UK judge’s decision (which is under appeal anyway) regarding an entitlement to an interim license. The FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) promise is required by the European Commission’s (EC) Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP), which recognizes the benefits of standard-setting but wants to ensure that implementers have access to licenses.

The Munich I Regional Court apparently considered Samsung’s ETSI initiative a fundamental threat to its own proceedings, with ZTE potentially having to withdraw its German enforcement actions due to actual or potential developments at ETSI. While the court has not yet been able to confirm the issuance of the ETSI-related AASI to us, it has today thankfully informed us that two ZTE v. Samsung infringement trials are coming up soon: on next week’s Thursday (October 23, 2025), the court will hear case no. 7 O 64/25, and on December 17, 2025, a trial will be held in case no. 7 O 2750/25 am 17.12.2025.

ETSI’s role

In the aftermath of this groundbreaking court ruling, it is difficult to outline the best way forward for ETSI. But a discussion must be had, also given the EC’s efforts to strengthen implementers and weaken (particularly non-European) contributors to standards.

New acronym: AECI?

More and more acronyms have been coined in the SEP context: from ASIs all the way to AAAASIs, then AEILIs, and now there is an AASI related to ETSI proceedings, but given that ETSI is not a court, one might want to call this an AECI (anti-ETSI-complaint injunction).

Panel and counsel

Munich I Regional Court, 7th Civil Chamber: Presiding Judge Dr. Oliver Schoen (“Schön” in German), Judge Dr. Schweyer and Judge Tözsér.

Counsel for ZTE: Vossius & Partner’s Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh.

Counsel for Samsung: not named in the ETSI-related AASI, which issued ex parte. Normally, the same counsel who will represent Samsung next week will accept service of process.

In the UK proceedings, Samsung is represented by Kirkland & Ellis and ZTE by Powell Gilbert.