Samsung Electronics Co Ltd & Anor v ZTE Corporation & Ors

Expedition of a FRAND trial may be ordered where threatened injunctions in other jurisdictions create a clear risk of substantial and irreparable harm to an implementer, particularly where the implementer has undertaken to accept the court-determined FRAND licence. The court should assess the real effects of the parties’ proceedings before the FRAND determination, rather than treating the existence of parallel litigation as creating symmetry or giving automatic priority to the first court seised. Expedition must also be assessed against the good administration of justice, prejudice to the parties and any special factors. The English court may accelerate its own proceedings without acting as a global FRAND policeman or criticising foreign courts.

Samsung and ZTE held substantial portfolios of cellular standard-essential patents. Their global cross-licence had expired, and negotiations for a replacement licence had failed. Samsung commenced proceedings in the Patents Court seeking, among other relief, declarations concerning essentiality, infringement, validity and global FRAND cross-licence terms. ZTE commenced parallel proceedings in China seeking determination of global FRAND terms and brought patent-infringement proceedings in several jurisdictions.

Samsung applied before the case management conference for an expedited FRAND trial. ZTE opposed expedition and proposed listing in April 2026. The central issue was whether the trial should be listed earlier, and if so when.

1. The application was granted in part. The FRAND trial was listed in the window commencing 12 January 2026, with an estimate of 10–15 sitting days. A December 2025 listing was unavailable because it would require other hearings to be displaced.

2. The applicable principles were those stated in WL Gore v Geox [2008] EWCA Civ 622: whether there was good reason for expedition, whether expedition would interfere with the good administration of justice, whether it would cause prejudice to the defendant, and whether there were other special factors.

3. There was good reason for expedition. Samsung faced a real risk of highly damaging injunctions in major markets before a FRAND determination. The prospect of irreparable commercial damage, the wasteful multiplicity of proceedings, and the risk that ZTE’s litigation campaign would undermine the English proceedings all supported expedition.

4. The existence of proceedings in other jurisdictions did not create relevant symmetry. The court considered the likely effects of those proceedings before a FRAND determination, not merely the number of actions brought by each party. Nor did the first court to determine FRAND terms automatically take precedence. Accelerating the English trial was not an attempt to control foreign proceedings or to act as a global FRAND policeman.

5. The authorities concerning expedited FRAND trials, including Panasonic v Xiaomi and OPPO [2023] EWHC 2872 (Pat), Lenovo v Ericsson [2024] EWHC 1734 (Pat), Alcatel/Nokia v Amazon [2024] EWHC 1921 (Pat) and Lenovo v InterDigital [2024] EWHC 1922 (Pat), provided useful but limited assistance because each application depended on its own facts.

6. Although preparation for a November 2025 trial would have been demanding, the parties were well resourced and experienced. Preparation for January 2026 presented only a slight risk of injustice. The timetable and case management directions were left for discussion before the case management conference.