INTRODUCTION

The SEP licensing and litigation landscape has continued to evolve in the latter half of 2025, shaped by several significant global trends:

• Regulatory initiatives – The European Commission confirmed the withdrawal of its proposed SEP Regulation in July. The UK has picked up the baton, publishing a wide-ranging consultation on possible ways to enhance the efficiency of SEP licensing and litigation.  Meanwhile, Brazil’s competition authority, CADE, released a report highlighting that, in the absence of formal SEP rules, any future regulations in the country should focus on compliance with FRAND obligations, restrict abusive injunctions, and encourage good-faith negotiations.
• Anti-competitive behavior – In India, the Supreme Court formally closed its long-running investigation into Ericsson, on account of the original complainants having settled out years ago. Brazil, however, opened a new investigation into Ericsson’s conduct regarding settlements with Motorola and Lenovo.  In the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ) raised antitrust concerns about the potential for anti-competitive harm by the solid-state storage standard-setting organization NVM Express.  The DOJ also weighed in on the eBay test for injunctive relief, contending that non-practicing entity Radian should have the opportunity to demonstrate irreparable harm when seeking injunctive relief against Samsung.
• Anti-suit injunctions (ASI) – The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against China’s anti-suit practices, finding that a blanket approach to ASIs may undermine patent holders’ rights. Separately, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) granted its second anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI), this time against Disney.  In parallel, the Munich Regional Court issued an ex-parte “anti-interim-license” injunction against Amazon, blocking Amazon from seeking UK declarations for interim licenses.  Shortly after, the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division also granted a similar ex parte “anti-interim-license” injunction.  Both courts explained they were motivated to safeguard InterDigital’s access to enforce its German or relevant European patents before German and UPC courts.
• Interim licenses – The UK continues to develop its interim license declaration regime, while recent guidance from Judge Schön of the District Court of Munich cautions that German courts may, in certain cases, consider anti-anti-suit injunctions in response to interim licenses being enforced.

These developments reflect the contentious but dynamic SEP environment, as jurisdictions around the world grapple with balancing innovation, competition, and the rights of patent holders.

United States

DOJ Files A Statement Of Interest Noting Potential Antitrust Concerns With Standards Development Organizations.  On June 24, 2025, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in a patent infringement case brought by Radian Memory Systems against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  Statement of Interest of the United States, Radian Memory Sys. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-1073 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 2025).  Radian, a non-practicing entity, filed suit alleging that Samsung infringed its patents related to flash solid-state drives.  Radian moved for a preliminary injunction, claiming that Samsung’s infringement causes it irreparable harm, including lost business and reduced reputation as a technology innovator.  Samsung argued that because Radian is a non-practicing entity, it can be compensated with monetary damages, has not suffered irreparable harm, and is not entitled to injunctive relief. 

Although Radian did not bring an antitrust claim against Samsung, the DOJ asserted the complaint implicitly raised antitrust concerns because of the “serious potential for anticompetitive harm’ inherent in these standards-development organizations” which “often have economic incentives to restrain competition.”  DOJ Statement at 1 (citation omitted).  While the DOJ Statement does not take a position on whether Radian has shown irreparable harm, it urged the court to consider the difficulty of calculating damages and loss of patent control, arguing that Radian’s status as a non-practicing entity should not preclude a finding of irreparable harm under the eBay standard for granting an injunction.  Id. at 5, 15. 

Deputy Assistant AG at DOJ Antitrust Discusses Importance of FRAND Licensing.  On June 24, 2025, Dina Kallay, Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the DOJ Antitrust Division, spoke at the U.S. Global Technological Leadership, IP Rights, and National Security Conference.  She emphasized that voluntary FRAND licensing and open standard innovation have fueled global innovation, stating that “[c]ollaborative standard development, backed up by FRAND commitments, has had an enormous success around the world and greatly benefitted consumers[.]” However, Ms. Kallay raised concerns about standards adopted without FRAND assurances, appearing to criticize the Alliance for Open Media’s royalty-free policy.  She warned of risks when developers misrepresent the accessibility of standards, whether open, proprietary, or royalty-free, particularly when dominant players use them to entrench market power.

The District of Massachusetts Dismisses Roku’s Global HEVC Rate-Setting Suit.  On July 22, 2025, the District of Massachusetts dismissed a complaint by Roku Inc. seeking a global FRAND royalty rate determination for High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) patents in Advance Access LLC’s patent pool.  Roku had filed suit in December 2024 against Access Advance and Dolby Laboratories Inc. and Sun Patent Trust (SPT), two individual pool licensors, seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement of certain Dolby’s and SPT’s patents, alleging breach of contract against Dolby and SPT for failing to license on FRAND terms, and declaratory judgment against Dolby, SPT, and Access Advance for the formation of a FRAND rate for the Access Advance HEVC pool. The defendants sought dismissal of Roku’s claims, arguing that (1) the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Dolby and SPT; (2) the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over Roku’s declaratory judgment claims, which are already pending in separate actions before the Unified Patent Court; (3) the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over Roku’s state law claims because it lacked jurisdiction over its federal claims; (4) the court lacked jurisdiction to declare a global FRAND rate over for the pool patents; and (5) the UPC is the proper forum to adjudicate the jurisdictional and royalty rate issues.  Roku Inc. v. Access Advance, No. 1:24-cv-13217-RGS, ECF No. 32 (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2025).

The court dismissed all claims against Dolby and SPT on July 21, 2025, for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the remaining claims against Access Advance on July 22, 2025.  In a one-paragraph order, the court noted that it “lack[ed] jurisdiction to determine the FRAND rate as request[ed]” because the U.S. patents are “only a fraction of the larger portfolio which includes hundreds of foreign patents, and the Court’s opinion on the royalty rate would be merely advisory.”  Roku filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit on August 11, 2025.

Central District of California Denies Disney’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and InterDigital’s Motion to Dismiss Disney’s RAND Counterclaims.  InterDigital filed a patent infringement action against Disney in the Central District of California and the next day filed patent infringement actions against Disney in Brazil and the Unified Patent Court asserting patents it claims are essential to the H.264 and H.265 video coding standards.  InterDigital, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., No. 2:25-CV-00895-WLH-BFM, 2025 WL 1712367, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 2025).  In response to InterDigital’s complaint, Disney filed counterclaims alleging that InterDigital breached its commitments to license its SEPs on RAND terms and Disney sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin InterDigital from enforcing any injunction that the Brazilian court might award InterDigital until the California court resolves Disney’s RAND licensing counterclaims. 

InterDigital moved to dismiss Disney’s counterclaims, arguing that (1) it was not required to license on RAND terms because Disney did not allege the patents were essential and (2) that Disney’s products failed to implement at least one of the relevant standards.  In response to InterDigital’s motion to dismiss, Disney argued that InterDigital was required to license the patents on RAND terms to Disney, which was a willing licensee.  Disney also argued that InterDigital’s infringement action relies entirely on allegations that Disney infringes by virtue of practicing the standards for which InterDigital claims the patents are essential.  The district court denied InterDigital’s motion, concluding that (1) Disney provided evidence that it makes or sells products relevant to the standards because it produces or delivers services that support the H.264 and H.265 standards; and (2) that it cannot determine at this stage if the patents at issue are essential to the standards.

The court dismissed Disney’s motion for a preliminary injunction because it found, at present, there was no risk of irreparable harm.  The court observed that “[n]o Brazilian court has issued a preliminary injunction” and Disney did not show that a preliminary injunction in the Brazilian litigation was likely to occur.  Id. at *7. 

Europe

Aftermath of EU SEP Regulation Withdrawal.  The European Commission confirmed the withdrawal of its proposed EU SEP Regulation on July 31, 2025.  The European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents did not oppose the withdrawal, despite objections from its Legal Affairs Committee (JURI).  While Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné had suggested that parts of the proposal may resurface in a different form, EU Member States and industry groups remain divided: certain countries, including France, Germany, and Italy, supported continued work on the proposal due to potential benefits for the automotive sector and SMEs, while other countries, including Finland and the Netherlands, backed withdrawal, citing complexity and lack of consensus.

European Commission Issues Informal Antitrust Guidance on Automotive Licensing Group.  On July 9, 2025, the European Commission issued its first two informal guidance letters under the 2022 Notice on Informal Guidance.  One of these notices concerns the creation of the Automotive Licensing Negotiation Group (ALNG).  The ALNG aims to negotiate licenses for SEP-covered technologies in the automotive sector.  The Commission found that the ALNG’s creation does not raise concerns under Article 101 TFEU, provided certain conditions are met – such as voluntary participation by SEP holders, openness to other industry players, and limits on information exchange.

While licensing negotiation groups are a new concept in EU law, the Commission noted that the ALNG resembles joint purchasing arrangements with IP-specific features.  The letter concluded that the ALNG is unlikely to restrict competition, citing its safeguards, the participants’ limited market share, and expected efficiency gains aligned with Europe’s Clean Industrial Deal.  The guidance is specific to the ALNG and does not apply to other groups, which must self-assess their compliance with Article 101 TFEU.  A non-confidential version of the letter will be published in the Commission’s public case register, under the case number AT.40979.

Unified Patent Court (UPC)

InterDigital Secures UPC AASI Against Disney.  On May 27, 2025, the Mannheim Local Division (Mannheim Division) issued its first AASI (and the UPC’s second) against Disney and its subsidiaries Hulu and ESPN+.  This decision relied on similar reasons as the ASSI decision in the Huawei v. Netgear case.  On the merits, the court found that InterDigital had “demonstrated with sufficient substance that there is a serious threat of infringement of their patent rights.”  As a condition of the injunction, InterDigital was ordered to pay a €400,000 security deposit within 20 days; failure to do so would allow Disney to request revocation of the AASI.  Following the Mannheim Division’s decision, Judge Wesley L. Hsu of the California court denied InterDigital’s motion to dismiss Disney’s FRAND counterclaims and also denied Disney’s motion for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) (see above for details).

InterDigital Secures Novel UPC Ex-Parte Anti-Interim License Injunction Against Amazon.  On September 30, 2025, the UPC’s Mannheim Division granted an ex parte anti-interim-license injunction.  The order bars Amazon from seeking interim license relief or equivalent measures in the UK as the Mannheim Division argues such measures might block UPC litigation.  The Mannheim Division criticized the granting of interim license declarations in the UK as a de facto litigation bar and warned of potential conflicts with EU law for two reasons: (1) EU courts must retain the ability to review FRAND compliance under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and (2) the UK courts’ use of the midpoint between the parties offers to determine the interim license rate may result in a determination not complying with EU law.  InterDigital was granted immediate enforceability subject to security being posted within 20 days from the order.  InterDigital must also file main proceedings within 31 days from the order.

Germany

District Court of Munich Issues Guidance on FRAND.  Judge Schön issued detailed written guidance on how the Chamber of the District Court of Munich interprets the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Huawei v. ZTE framework.  To recap, Huawei v ZTE provided guidance as to when SEP owners could seek an injunction given the competition law issues that arise in standardized technology.  The case sets out steps that, if followed, should provide a licensee with a competition law defense against an injunction.  These steps include: (i) infringement notification by the patent owner; (ii) declaration of the implementer’s willingness to license; (iii) a license offer by the patent owner; (iv) examination of the offer by the implementer, and if not acceptable, then submission of its own offer; and (v) if the patent holder rejects the counteroffer, the implementer must provide security for at least the “undisputed sum,” offer payment until appellate resolution, or justify why such payment is not made.

Judge Schön said that while these steps guide FRAND compliance, flexibility may apply depending on the parties’ negotiation history and conduct.  Notably, he considered the initial license offer need not be FRAND-compliant, allowing room for negotiation and potential discounts.  In assessing willingness, the court will consider negotiation behavior, the timing of security offers, and the transparency of both parties.  In evaluating licensing terms, Judge Schön emphasized that it is the patent holder’s responsibility to inform implementers of the need to conclude a license.  He endorsed a comparable license approach; supported high royalty rates to incentivize innovation; and expressed a preference for per-unit rates, noting that leeway in the amount of 15% should be applied when assessing settlement agreements.  Finally, Judge Schön addressed the UK’s interim license regime, stating it is unnecessary where parties are genuinely willing to license.  While voluntary arrangements are permissible, licensees should not demand interim licenses.  He saw no jurisdictional conflict with foreign rulings unless they interfere with German proceedings (i.e., if the interim license was enforced), in which case AASIs may be considered.

Munich Regional Court Issues Novel Ex-Parte Anti-Interim License Injunction Against Amazon.  On September 26, 2025, the court granted InterDigital, on an ex parte basis, an “anti-interim-license” injunction prohibiting Amazon from seeking declarations in the UK for interim licenses or that InterDigital is in breach of its RAND obligations for not granting such interim licenses.  The court concluded that seeking such declarations could neutralize German patent enforcement.  The court found a credible risk that these UK declarations could extend to InterDigital’s global portfolio, undermining InterDigital’s ability to enforce its German patents and pursue German proceedings by enabling Amazon to claim a license defense.  The court also reserved the right to treat seeking such declarations as evidence of unwillingness in future FRAND assessments.  A clarifying order narrowed the injunction to measures that actually prevent or aim to prevent German litigation.

United Kingdom

The UK Courts Issue Third Interim License Decision.  On June 25, 2025, Mr Justice Mellor granted Samsung’s application for a declaration that: (i) ZTE breached its good faith obligations under its FRAND commitments made to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI); (ii) a willing licensor and licensee would agree to an interim (cross-) license on terms set by the UK court, subject to adjustment after the final FRAND determination; and (iii) if ZTE refuses to offer Samsung such an interim license, it would be declared an unwilling licensor.

The court viewed ZTE’s push for proceedings before the Chongqing Intermediate People’s Court in China as a strategic attempt to pressure Samsung, rather than a genuine venue preference.  Mellor J described ZTE’s arguments as to why China is the preferred venue as “an afterthought” that was not properly supported by evidence and concluded that ZTE had breached its duty to negotiate FRAND terms in good faith.  Consistent with recent Court of Appeal decisions in Panasonic v. Xiaomi and Lenovo v. Ericsson (previously reported here), Mellor J held that granting the declarations on the terms of Samsung’s proposed interim license would serve a useful purpose — namely, that ZTE might reconsider its position in seeking injunctive relief elsewhere while the UK court resolves the licensing dispute.  Furthermore, despite parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions and that the Chinese courts were “well-equipped to engage in global FRAND rate-setting,” Mellor J found no conflict in issuing the declarations.  He concluded that granting the interim license “would promote comity.”

Tesla Granted Permission to Appeal to the UK Supreme Court in Dispute with InterDigital and Avanci.  On July 2, 2025, the UK Supreme Court granted Tesla permission to appeal on three of the four grounds it raised in its dispute with InterDigital and Avanci.  As discussed in our May 2025 newsletter, the Court of Appeal—by a majority decision (with Lord Justice Arnold dissenting) upheld the first-instance ruling that the UK courts lacked jurisdiction to set a global FRAND rate for the Avanci 5G pool, as there was no contractual basis to enforce the ETSI obligations on individual pool members.  Tesla sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the following four grounds:

1. Whether pool licenses are arguably required to be FRAND;
2. Whether procedural fairness unarguably requires the joinder of all members of the Avanci 5G platform;
3. Whether Tesla’s claim advances or embraces the possibility of a bilateral license from InterDigital; and
4. Procedural fairness to Tesla.

The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal on the first three grounds and a hearing is set for April 27, 2026.

The UK IPO Launches Consultation on SEPs.  On July 15, 2025, the UK IPO launched a consultation on SEPs – here – in which it proposes various measures for feedback that it considers could improve the efficiency of the SEPs ecosystem.  The consultation closed on October 7, 2025.  The UK IPO’s proposals were:

1. A new streamlined rate-determination procedure, or ‘track,’ within the existing court system (via the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court).
2. A mandatory obligation on SEP owners to provide information on their UK (both GB, and EP(UK)) patents declared as essential, including the technical specification to which a patent is declared. This information would be hosted on the IPO’s updated patent search tool.
3. Associated measures including consideration of a new SEP/FRAND specific Pre-Action Protocol (i.e., mandated steps parties must take before commencing litigation); an assessment of essentiality checking services, including the possibility of an IPO-led offering; and a review of existing alternative dispute resolution services.

There are also calls for evidence and open questions on injunctions in SEP cases, and particularly the misuse of injunctions and their threats.  The UK IPO’s response to the consultation is expected in early 2026.

UK Court Consolidates Actions Against Nokia.  On August 21, 2025, Mr Justice Mellor issued a case management decision consolidating parallel actions brought by Acer, Hisense, and ASUSTek against Nokia.  These actions concern the determination of a global RAND license for Nokia’s video coding SEPs.  The court scheduled a three-day hearing commencing on October 22, 2025, to address both Nokia’s jurisdictional challenges and the claimants’ applications for interim licenses.

During the case management conference, Acer and ASUSTek argued that an interim license is necessary to mitigate the risk of potential global injunctions sought by Nokia.  They further contended that the scope of any interim license should encompass both coding and decoding technologies, as their products rely on both functionalities.  Nokia maintains that the relevant standards pertain solely to decoding.  Mellor J deferred his ruling on the encoding issue and directed it be addressed at the October hearing.

Mellor J further emphasized the value of early disclosure in FRAND disputes, granting ASUSTek disclosure of comparable licenses (that were already produced in parallel U.S. International Trade Commission proceedings).  Nokia has sought permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal this decision.  The outcome of this application is pending.

China

The WTO Rules Against China’s ASI Practice.  On July 21, 2025, WTO-appointed arbitrators declared China’s use of ASIs in SEP disputes to be inconsistent with provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)—specifically Articles 1.1, 28.1, and 28.2.  The European Union complained that China’s ASI policy is a norm rather than the exception and unduly interfered with the exercise of IP rights in other countries.  Following a hearing held on June 4–5, 2025, attended by several third-party WTO members including the UK, U.S., Japan, and others, the arbitrators concluded that ASIs undermine the rights of patent holders, particularly in the context of FRAND licensing.  The WTO arbitrators held that “ASIs alters the process of [FRAND] negotiation in a fundamental way” and that the “ASI policy impacts the negotiating position of SEP holders.”  The decision requires China to dismantle its ASI policy and sets a significant precedent for global IP enforcement and cross-border litigation practices.

Japan

Tokyo Court Issues First SEP Injunction Against Google.  In a ruling on June 23, 2025, the Tokyo District Court granted an injunction against Google, following a 4G patent infringement suit filed by Pantech over Pixel 7 smartphone sales.  The court found Google to be an unwilling licensee due to its alleged lack of transparency in licensing negotiations in relation to its disclosure of Google’s sales figures and volume.  The decision marks a departure from the Japanese court’s 2014 precedent in Apple v. Samsung, which established that a patent owner that has made a FRAND declaration may not seek injunctive relief against a party that has an intention to be licensed under FRAND conditions.  Further, the decision contrasts with a recent ruling in Pantech v. Asus, where infringement was established and damages were awarded but Pantech’s request for injunctive relief was denied because the court found Asus had actively engaged in licensing negotiations.  Following the Tokyo District Court’s ruling, Pantech has filed similar injunction requests targeting eight additional Pixel models sold by Google.

India

Delhi High Court Orders Record Security Deposit in Patent Dispute.  In a decision dated July 1, 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered Ace Technology and its subsidiaries to pay Communication Components Antenna (CCA) approximately $35 million (which represents 25% of the damages claimed).  CCA initiated the action seeking a permanent injunction for alleged infringement of a SEP claimed to relate to antenna solutions and base station enhancement products.  The court held that CCA has established a prima facie case of infringement and faced a risk of irreparable harm, thereby justifying the substantial security order.

Supreme Court of India Dismisses Ericsson Antitrust Investigation.  On September 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) petition to reinstate its long-running antitrust investigation into Ericsson.  The inquiry, which spanned over 12 years, centered on allegations that Ericsson imposed excessive royalty rates on Indian smartphone manufacturers.  The investigation was originally prompted by complaints from Micromax, iBall, and Intex, following patent infringement actions initiated by Ericsson.  Two of the disputes were subsequently settled—iBall in 2015 and Micromax in 2018.  In its ruling, the court noted that “the original complainants/informants have nothing further to say in the matter,” and concluded that the court “should not interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court,” effectively bringing the matter to a close.

Brazil

Brazil Competition Authority, CADE, Release a Report on Essential Patents.  On August 6, 2025, Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) released a report examining the treatment of SEPs under Brazilian law.  The report explains that under Brazilian law there is no differentiation between SEPs and general patents pursuant to its Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996).  The report highlights Brazil’s historically “plaintiff-friendly” stance for SEPs, with courts frequently granting injunctive relief to SEP holders in cases such as Ericsson v. TCT (2012) and Nokia v. Amazon (2023).  However, the report observes that recent rulings like DivX v. Gorenje (2024) suggest a potential shift, with courts showing increased caution by suspending injunctions and emphasizing the importance of the “non-discriminatory” aspects of FRAND.

CADE’s report also reviews its own decisions, reaffirming that licensing disputes are primarily contractual and best resolved in court.  While the appeal of CADE’s 2024 decision in “Preparatory Procedure No. 08700.003442/2024-16 – Motorola, Lenovo and Ericsson” (where CADE rejected complaints by Motorola and Lenovo against Ericsson) was withdrawn following a global settlement, CADE later decided to pursue the matter further.  In April 2025, its tribunal launched a preliminary investigation into Ericsson, focusing on allegations that the company imposed abusive and unfair licensing terms on Motorola and Lenovo as part of the settlement.  This move signals CADE’s increasing scrutiny of SEP licensing practices, even in cases where disputes appear to have been resolved.  The report concludes by noting Brazil’s gradual alignment with global trends, including an emphasis on FRAND obligations, limiting abusive injunctions, and promoting good-faith negotiations.