Context:
- Last month, the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (LD) took the initiative to propose settlements for the standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing dispute between ZTE and Samsung (May 12, 2026 ip fray article). The Mannheim LD’s proposed terms ($640M for a license until the end of 2028, and $730M for a license until the end of 2029) were materially consistent with findings by the Chongqing Intermediate People’s Court (IPC) (May 11, 2026 ip fray article with English translation of judgment and detailed analysis), the Frankfurt Regional Court, and Rio de Janeiro State Court (February 4, 2026 ip fray article), as well as a settlement proposal by the Munich I Regional Court May 6, 2026 ip fray article).
- The Mannheim LD suggested mediation by the UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) in the alternative. The PMAC celebrated its inauguration this week (official PMAC news item).
- The court gave the parties until May 31, 2026 to comment on the proposal. That was last Sunday, so the deadline was automatically extended to Monday (June 1, 2026).
What’s new: Today the Mannheim LD issued an order on a motion Samsung brought on Monday (June 1, 2026), seeking a one-month extension. Judge-rapporteur Dirk Boettcher (“Böttcher”) granted-in-part and denied-in-part. Samsung gets two more weeks (June 15, 2026). But the glass is far from half-full for Samsung because the order comes with warnings that tell Samsung what consequences a delayed response may have in the future proceedings.
Direct impact: It would now be advisable for Samsung not to exhaust the extension, given that there is another pair of ZTE v. Samsung and Samsung v. ZTE cases pending in the Mannheim LD and the order says delays could affect the court’s (un)willingness determination. It’s also a clear indication that the Mannheim court believes enough guidance has been provided by courts at this point for Samsung to be able to take a position. There could also be cost applications in the event of a delayed settlement, but that is not going to be of practical concern to Samsung.
Wider ramifications: As discussed in a recent article (May 24, 2026 ip fray article), courts not only in East Asia but also in Western Europe have recently taken initiatives to mediate SEP licensing disputes in a way where a refusal to participate or to accept a court’s proposal can impact subsequent (un)willingness determinations, which is different from traditional Western mediation, which is characterized by no information on behavior during mediation being provided to the judge(s) deciding the related infringement case(s).
Here’s the key paragraph followed by the full Mannheim LD order:
Moreover, any inappropriate delay or evasive behaviour in responding to a proposal by the court for an amicable settlement/mediation may be taken into account when the court examines the behaviour of the parties with regard to their willingness in the licensing negotiations. This may especially be justified on the instant facts where the parties meanwhile received multiple court assessments in their global litigation as detailed in the order proposing to seriously engage in amicable dispute resolution.
In the wider ZTE-Samsung litigation, the next milestone is the Munich Higher Regional Court’s forthcoming decision (this month) on the security amount. In a different case involving non-SEPs, it became known that Samsung sought collateral to the tune of €295M ($350M) for enforcement of a patent injunction during an appeal. Chances are that Samsung is seeking a larger amount in this SEP case.
Court and counsel
Panel: Presiding Judge Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge-rapporteur Dirk Boettcher (“Böttcher”), Judge Carine Gillet (Paris, France), and Technically Qualified Judge Klaus Loibner.
Counsel for ZTE: On FRAND, Vossius & Partner’s Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh and Taliens’s Dr. Thomas Lynker (listed in the header of this order) collaborate. The technical merits in some cases are handled by Taliens, and in others by Vossius. The lead patent attorney on the ZTE cases where Vossius handles the technical merits is Dr. Christian Sandweg, and Dr. Thomas Schwarze for EPO proceedings.
Counsel for Samsung: A&O Shearman’s Dr. Jan Ebersohl (defensive case), Rospatt’s Thomas Musmann (listed in the header of this order) and Hetti Hilge (listed in the header of a decision on a stayed case), and Zimmermann & Partner patent attorney Dr. Joel Naegerl (“Nägerl”), who represents Samsung more frequently than any other German legal professional.