Here’s what’s REALLY going on in the ZTE-Samsung dispute: why a Samsung case is dead in the water and what hurdles ZTE must overcome today

Why Samsung’s assertion of EP4096288 is highly unlikely ever to be heard: “Mannheim Institute for Advanced Case Management Studies”

The Mannheim LD is impressively demonstrating how a court can optimize for judicial economy without deprioritizing the administration of justice. Instead of rigid and dogmatic docket management, the Mannheim LD is handling the delicate and complex situation in InterDigital v. Amazon (March 9, 2026 ip fray article), balancing speed and the avoidance (wherever possible) of interjurisdictional friction. They are also managing the ZTE-Samsung/Samsung-ZTE docket very efficiently.

Let’s now look at two publicly accessible documents. First, the negative non-binding preliminary opinion (NBPO) by the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (EPO):

That one came down earlier this year. The NBPO says the patent is invalid as granted, and the auxiliary requests presented up to that point were not patentable either. The hearing will be held next week (March 26, 2026), with a decision typically at the end of the hearing.

After the NBPO, Samsung presented additional auxiliary requests. Unsurprisingly, ZTE argued that they weren’t patentable either, raising issues with respect to sufficiency of disclosure, priority claim, novelty, and inventive step.

Contrary to what another publication says, it is actually clear what the EPO’s Opposition Division communicated and what it did not

There is no further opinion by the EPO’s Opposition Division in written form or any other form.

They will give their opinion on the additional auxiliary request at next week’s oppositon hearing. It is a bit puzzling that an article by another website today says they have “sources” according to which Samsung likely received unfavorable “indications” from the Opposition Division, but does not mention that

• there already has been an NPBO, based on the patent in its granted form and on the first set of auxiliary requests, which you can find further above, and
• the EPO has strict procedural rules safeguarding transparency and “equality of arms”, meaning they can’t just talk to one party separately. If anything, they can invite both parties to a joint meeting or call. The register provides no such indication, however.

The answer is in the pudding: the order to stay

There is a much better indication of what happened than speculation about informal communications that would have breached the EPO’s rules, and it is simply the way the Mannheim LD’s judge-rapporteur, Judge Tobias Sender, explained the basis for the stay:

There is no reference to an application to stay. If there had been such an application, its case number would be found in the header and the order would mention it. This tells us that there was some informal communication and, as explained further below, it means the court was inclined to stay even over Samsung’s objection. It is even a possibility (and more likely than not to have happened) that the court itself took the initiative and proposed a stay. We’ll get there in a moment.

So, instead of an application by one party, or a joint application, the parties granted their consent to a proposal by the court:

• You will hardly ever find an outlier case in which a defendant says “no, please rule and don’t stay”. It might happen in unusual procedural circumstances, but only every once in a while. Normally, a defendant will be happy. Time is on their side. They can keep selling. In a two-way dispute like this, they can make progress with their own enforcement actions. It is extremely hard to conceive of a situation in which they would rather get an infringement ruling.
• In this case, it’s important to consider that the stay is long-term. The Mannheim LD would have had various options. It could also have stayed just until there is a decision by the Opposition Division. But the chosen wording (“final conclusion of the opposition proceedings”) includes an appeal, and in this case you can be sure that the losing party (even if it surprisingly were ZTE) would appeal. That means the infringement case is on hold for a couple of years. It is rather unlikely that the dispute will not be settled in the meantime.
• That takes us to Samsung’s consent. Why would Samsung have agreed? Only from a position of extreme weakness.
• The Mannheim LD would have had less drastic case management options:
  • It could have posptoned the hearing just to know in the meantime what happenes at the opposition hearing.
  • It could have held the hearing but asked the parties to inform it of the outcome of the opposition hearing. That would have been during the decision-making period following the (now canceled) hearing.
  • They could have stayed the proceedings just until there is a written decision by the EPO. That would be a matter of months, not years.
• For Samsung, withholding its consent would have been futile because the court could have indicated that it was going to stay, and ZTE could have brought a motion, which the court would have granted.
• It would also have been a bad idea given that they were going to depend on that court’s decision in the ZTE v. Samsung case that is being heard today. This does not mean that the court would penalize Samsung for a lack of cooperation in a different case that is part of the dispute. But parties and their counsel don’t even want to take the slightest risk of a subconscious loss of goodwill.

There were some filings before the decision. There is no question that the panel knew the EPO’s NBPO. It then looked at the auxiliary requests and presumably wasn’t sold that those would salvage the patent at this procedural juncture.

The timing of this stay makes an initiative by the court particularly likely. It appears that the stay was put into place around the court’s preparations for this week’s hearings.

Samsung’s unlucky streak in Mannheim with respect to its own enforcement actions, which started at the Mannheim Regional Court in 2011, continues.

ZTE is mostly in good shape in the case being heard today, but there is at least one significant hurdle

Amazon deadline

Today Amazon has to respond to the UPC Mannheim LD regarding the implementation of a February 27, 2026 procedural agreement in an anti-interference injunction case brought by InterDigital. Some filings were already made last week, but we cannot see the content. We continue to follow that matter. Amazon will need to put a legally binding solution in place.

The Mannheim LD’s timing of that deadline is interesting. They originally gave Amazon approximately a week. Then they gave more time, presumably because the court was going to be in sessions these days due to the ZTE-Samsung cases.

Court and counsel

Panel:

• (both cases) Presiding Judge Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge Carine Gillet (Paris, France), and Technically Qualified Judge Klaus Loibner;
• (only for the stayed Samsung v. ZTE case) Judge-rapporteur Tobias Sender; and
• (only for the ZTE v. Samsung case heard today) Judge-rapporteur Dirk Boettcher (“Böttcher”).

Counsel for ZTE: Vossius & Partner’s Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh (UPC) and Dr. Thomas Schwarze (EPO); and Taliens’s Dr. Thomas Lynker.

Counsel for Samsung: A&O Shearman’s Dr. Jan Ebersohl (defensive case today), Rospatt’s Hetti Hilge (stayed case), and Zimmermann & Partner patent attorney Dr. Joel Naegerl (“Nägerl”), who represents Samsung more frequently than any other German legal professional.