English High Court Orders Samsung to Pay ZTE $392 Million FRAND Lump Sum, Weighs US Export Controls as Non-FRAND Factor

The English High Court (Patents Court) ruled on May 1, 2026 that Samsung Electronics must pay ZTE Corporation a US$392 million lump sum balancing payment to renew the companies’ standard-essential patent (SEP) cross-license. Mr Justice Richard Meade delivered the judgment in Samsung Electronics Co. v. ZTE Corp., [2026] EWHC 999 (Pat), resolving the FRAND terms of a renewal cross-license between two of the world’s largest mobile-device players.

Samsung filed the action in London in December 2024, seeking a court determination of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms after the parties’ 2021 portfolio cross-license came up for renewal. Both sides agreed that a renewal license was warranted; they disagreed sharply on price. ZTE sought $731 million; Samsung argued the figure should not exceed $200 million.

How the court arrived at 2 million

Mr Justice Meade landed roughly midway between the parties’ positions, finding $392 million to be the FRAND balancing payment. Samsung emerged as the net payer because its mobile-phone unit sales dwarf ZTE’s, meaning the economic value Samsung extracts from the cross-license outweighs the value flowing in the opposite direction.

One of the most consequential aspects of the decision was the court’s treatment of so-called “non-FRAND factors.” Mr Justice Meade found that US export controls, which have effectively excluded ZTE from the US market, materially weaken ZTE’s commercial bargaining position. While the court treated the underlying SEP portfolio value as neutral, it concluded that national-security trade measures shape the dynamics of an arm’s-length negotiation between willing licensor and willing licensee — and used that reasoning, in part, to reject ZTE’s $731 million figure.

Parallel litigation and the reach of the UK judgment

Samsung and ZTE are engaged in parallel proceedings beyond London. ZTE has filed suit against Samsung in China, Germany, and Brazil, with infringement liability and royalty levels being assessed independently in each forum. Because the English court’s determination sets global FRAND terms for the renewal cross-license, its interaction with the parallel actions will be closely watched.

English courts have, since the UK Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Unwired Planet v. Huawei, exercised jurisdiction to set the global terms of a FRAND license. The Samsung-ZTE judgment continues that line and confirms London’s de facto role as an international forum for SEP licensing disputes.

The weight of non-FRAND factors

English FRAND decisions have traditionally turned on economic and technical indicators — comparable licenses, top-down portfolio valuations, and the relative strength of the SEP stack. Mr Justice Meade’s judgment incorporates those familiar tools but goes further, treating geopolitical risk and trade restrictions as independent inputs into the willing-licensor/willing-licensee bargain. That move adds a new variable to the FRAND calculus.

The framework is potentially unfavorable to SEP holders operating under export controls or restricted-entity designations. Huawei, ZTE, Xiaomi, and other Chinese patent owners can now expect implementers to argue, by analogy to Samsung v. ZTE, that geopolitical exposure should compress headline rates. Licensors will counter that such factors distort the technical-value-based logic of FRAND and inject extraneous political judgments into a commercial calculation. How the framework holds up on appeal — or in subsequent cases — will shape SEP licensing markets going forward.

Industry implications

ZTE recovered just over half of what it had sought, while Samsung will pay nearly twice its opening offer. Both parties retain the right to appeal, and an appellate challenge cannot be ruled out.

The $392 million figure is also a notable benchmark for global SEP portfolio valuations and is likely to prompt manufacturers to revisit their internal rate cards and licensing playbooks. The cohort affected goes beyond handsets: connected vehicles, IoT devices, and industrial equipment that embed 5G or LTE cellular connectivity will all look to the decision as a reference point.

The UK as international SEP forum

Where a SEP dispute is litigated has outsized influence on the outcome. The English courts have, since Unwired Planet v. Huawei, established themselves as a one-stop forum capable of setting global FRAND terms — a feature put to use in InterDigital v. Lenovo, Optis v. Apple, and Mitsubishi v. OPPO. Samsung v. ZTE continues that line.

Chinese courts have meanwhile asserted their own authority to set global FRAND terms, and the gap between English and Chinese rate determinations on overlapping portfolios is now a structural feature of the SEP landscape. Samsung sued in London while ZTE pursued parallel actions in China, Germany, and Brazil — a textbook example of the forum-selection chess match that defines modern SEP litigation.

What comes next

Neither Samsung nor ZTE has issued public comment on the ruling. The immediate question is whether either party files an appeal within the statutory deadline, and how the parallel actions in China, Germany, and Brazil will be reconciled with the English court’s global determination.

The decision adds another precedent to the growing body of English FRAND case law and squarely raises the question of how far courts can reach beyond purely technical and economic factors when setting royalty rates. Practitioners will be watching how the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and US district courts respond to — or distinguish — Mr Justice Meade’s approach in future SEP disputes.