Context: When we became aware of a press release by the Frankfurt Regional Court on an antitrust action by an implementer against a Chinese standard-essential patent (SEP) holder, the fact that Samsung had previously sued ZTE in the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) was the primary reason for which we were unsure that this was a Samsung v. ZTE case. Samsung’s German subsidiary is based in the Frankfurt area, but it appeared counterintuitive that someone would bring two FRAND cases against the same defendant in parallel. A visit to the courthouse, however, confirmed that it was indeed Samsung v. ZTE.
背景：当我们得知法兰克福地区法院就一家标准必要专利实施方针对一家中国标准必要专利（SEP）持有人提起的反垄断诉讼发布的一份新闻稿时，我们之所以不确定这是否是三星与中兴通讯之间的案件，主要原因在于三星此前已在英格兰及威尔士高等法院（EWHC）起诉了中兴通讯。三星的德国子公司位于法兰克福地区，但有人会同时针对同一被告提起两起与FRAND原则相关的案件，这似乎有悖常理。然而，前往法院进行了解后证实，这确实是三星诉中兴通讯的案件。
What’s new: Even more surprisingly, a third such lawsuit became discoverable in the Northern District of California last week. Samsung brought claims under antitrust as well as contract law, accusing ZTE of having violated its FRAND licensing obligations and seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction of rather broad scope.
新情况：更令人惊讶的是，上周在加利福尼亚北区又发现了第三起类似诉讼。三星依据反垄断法以及合同法提出了诉求，指控中兴通讯违反了其FRAND许可义务，并寻求范围相当广泛的初步禁令和永久禁令。
Direct impact: Theoretically, multiple bites at the apple increases the likelihood of obtaining at least one favorable decision. In this case, however, it is not a given that Samsung is going to get a better result as a result of bringing an unprecedented number of parallel FRAND claims in three countries on two continents. For the reasons discussed in this article, it could also prove counterproductive. It could make each of the three courts wonder why it should move quickly when there are related cases pending in other venues.
直接影响：从理论上讲，多次尝试会增加至少获得一项有利裁决的可能性。然而在本案中，三星史无前例地在两大洲的三个国家同时提起多起FRAND相关诉讼，这并不一定就意味着三星会因此获得更好的结果。正如本文所讨论的原因，这样做也可能适得其反。这可能会让三个法院中的每一家都产生疑问，即当其他地区还有相关案件悬而未决时，自己为何要迅速做出裁决呢。
Wider ramifications: The degree to which this dispute has escalated at an early stage is unusual. Normally, both Samsung and ZTE resolve disagreements on licensing terms without having to resort to litigation. Also, two of the arguments Samsung makes in its new U.S. complaint are inconsistent with certain positions it took in past disputes with Apple and Ericsson.
更广泛的影响：这场纠纷在早期阶段的升级程度非同寻常。通常情况下，三星和中兴通讯在解决许可条款方面的分歧时，无需诉诸法律诉讼。此外，三星在其新提交的美国诉讼中提出的两项主张，与其在过去与苹果和爱立信的纠纷中所采取的某些立场不一致。
Both Samsung and ZTE are major wireless innovators. Recently, Samsung may have lost market share, which some attribute to the fact that Google increasingly tries to sell its own Pixel products (reportedly also because of dissatisfaction with Samsung’s efforts to compete with Apple, particularly in the U.S. market) and others to the fact that certain competitors in the Android device market may have been ahead in the incorporation of AI functionality. But Samsung still has an estimated global smartphone market share of more than 20%.
三星和中兴通讯都是无线领域的重要创新企业。最近，三星可能已经失去了一些市场份额，有人将其归因于谷歌越来越多地尝试推销自家的Pixel产品（据说也是因为对三星与苹果竞争的表现不满，尤其是在美国市场），还有人认为是因为安卓设备市场的某些竞争对手可能在融入人工智能功能方面走在了前面。不过，据估计三星在全球智能手机市场中仍占有超过20%的份额。
More than a decade ago, ZTE defended itself against SEP assertions from Huawei that led to the famous Huawei v. ZTE ruling by the European Court of Justice, while Samsung was investigated by competition watchdogs over its alleged abuse of SEPs against Apple.
十多年前，中兴通讯曾就华为的SEP主张进行了自我辩护，这一事件最终导致了欧洲法院对著名的“华为诉中兴”案作出了裁决。与此同时，三星因涉嫌滥用针对苹果的SEP而受到了竞争监管机构的调查。
Samsung’s U.S. complaint does not mention the Frankfurt action. It does, however, seek to distinguish itself from the UK FRAND case Samsung brought last year (prior to the expiration of their previous license agreement and, therefore, prior to any enforcement action by ZTE).
三星在美国提起的诉讼并未提及法兰克福的那起诉讼案。不过，该诉讼试图将自身与三星去年在英国提起的FRAND相关诉讼区分开来（那起英国诉讼是在双方之前的许可协议到期前提起的，因此也是在中兴通讯采取任何强制执行行动之前） 。
We are unaware of any other dispute in which an implementer brought proactive FRAND claims against the same party (thus over essentially the same question) in two, let alone three jurisdictions.
我们不知道还有其他任何一起纠纷，其中一家标准必要专利实施方会在两个司法管辖区（更不用说三个司法管辖区了）针对同一方主动提起与FRAND原则相关的诉求（而且基本上是围绕同一个问题）。
Here’s the U.S. complaint, followed by further analysis.The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in San Francisco.
以下是美国方面的诉讼内容，随后是进一步的分析。此案已被指派给旧金山的美国地区法官Araceli Martínez-Olguín审理。
In at least two respects, Samsung’s new U.S. complaint reminds of earlier SEP disputes to which Samsung was a party:
三星新提交的这起美国诉讼案在至少两个方面让人联想到三星此前曾参与的SEP纠纷：
-
The antitrust claim is based on allegations of bad faith when ZTE made its FRAND pledge to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Apple tried something similar against Samsung. While the 2012 “Appsung” trial was generally a huge loss for Samsung (a jury awarded Apple more than a billion dollars in damages), Samsung’s successful defense against Apple’s SEP abuse claims was actually its only significant accomplishment. That particular part of the case was won by David Hecht, who later (2023) settled a patent dispute with Samsung on behalf of another company, and other (then-)Quinn Emanuel lawyers.
①反垄断诉求是基于中兴通讯向欧洲电信标准协会（ETSI）作出FRAND承诺时存在恶意这一指控。苹果公司曾对三星采取过类似的举措。尽管2012年的“苹果与三星（Appsung）” 诉讼案总体上对三星来说是一场巨大的失败（陪审团判定三星需向苹果赔偿超过10亿美元的损失），但三星成功抗辩了苹果关于其滥用SEP的指控，这实际上是三星在该案中唯一取得的重大成果。这起案件的这一特定部分是由David Hecht主办胜诉的，他后来（2023年）代表另一家公司与三星解决了一起专利纠纷，当时参与的还有昆鹰律所的其他律师。
-
Samsung faults ZTE for seeking a FRAND determination from a Chinese court. But Samsung itself actually went to a Chinese court in late 2020 for the same purpose, and even obtained a Chinese antisuit injuntion against Ericsson. Ericsson then won an anti-antisuit injunction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the dispute settled a little later.
②三星指责中兴通讯向中国法院寻求关于FRAND原则的判定。但实际上，三星自己在2020年末也出于同样的目的向中国法院提起了诉讼，甚至还从中国法院获得了针对爱立信的禁诉令。随后，爱立信在美国德克萨斯州东区地方法院赢得了一项反禁诉令，不久之后这起纠纷便达成了和解。
Based on what we learned from the U.S. complaint, a press release by the Frankfurt Regional Court and can reasonably infer from the overall situation, it appears that the three Samsung FRAND actions have the following objectives:
基于我们从三星在美国的诉讼文书、法兰克福地区法院的新闻稿中所了解到的情况，以及从整体形势中合理推断出的内容，三星发起的这三起FRAND相关诉讼似乎有以下目标：
-
In the U.S., Samsung alleges violations of contract law, federal antitrust law (Sherman Act) and California unfair competition law (Section 172000). It claims that ZTE is abusing its SEPs by enforcing them in various other jurisdictions and seeks damages as well as a preliminary and permanent injunction. Samsung is trying to leverage geopolitics.
①在美国，三星指控中兴通讯违反了合同法、美国联邦反垄断法（《谢尔曼法案》）以及加利福尼亚州的不正当竞争法（第172000条）。三星称，中兴通讯通过在其他多个司法管辖区强制执行其SEP的方式滥用了这些专利，并要求获得损害赔偿以及申请初步禁令和永久禁令。三星正试图利用地缘政治因素。
-
In the UK, Samsung wants (quoting from the U.S. complaint now) “a neutral determination of FRAND terms through rate setting by the [EWHC]” while leaving to the U.S. court the question of “redress for the harm suffered by Samsung as a result of ZTE’s non-FRAND conduct.” It would be the normal course of business there, even more so after last Friday’s new appellate decision in Lenovo v. Ericsson , for Samsung to seek an interim license, which could serve merely declaratory purposes or be tantamount to an antisuit injunction. Lenovo wants a cross-license. Samsung also has SEPs of its own (in fact, far more than Lenovo), but we don’t know yet whether Samsung is seeking a one-way or a two-way license in the UK.
②在英国，三星希望（引用自三星在美国的诉讼文书）“通过由英格兰及威尔士高等法院（EWHC）设定费率来对FRAND条款作出中立的判定”，同时将“因中兴通讯的非FRAND行为给三星造成的损害应如何赔偿”这一问题交由美国法院处理。在英国，寻求临时许可属于正常的商业流程，尤其是在上周五联想诉爱立信案的最新上诉判决出炉后更是如此，这种临时许可可能仅起到声明的作用，或者等同于禁诉令。联想希望获得交叉许可。三星自身也拥有SEP（事实上，其拥有的标准必要专利数量远多于联想），但我们目前尚不清楚三星在英国是在寻求单向许可还是双向许可。
-
As for Germany, we just know that Samsung alleges an antitrust violation by ZTE with respect to its cellular SEPs. The fact that Samsung’s U.S. complaint fails to mention the German action suggests that the two could overlap. All that Samsung could gain in Germany, but not in the U.S. or UK, is a decision of res iudicata (“adjudged matter”) effect with a view to the SEP infringement actions ZTE brought in Germany and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). However, there is no guarantee that the Frankfurt court, which to our knowledge has never dealt with SEPs, will hand down an antitrust ruling before ZTE’s patent infringement actions give rise to injunctions. The courts hearing the infringement cases do not have to await the outcome of the Frankfurt case, and ZTE could appeal any adverse ruling there at any rate.
③至于德国方面，我们只知道三星指控中兴通讯在其蜂窝SEP方面存在违反反垄断法的行为。三星在美国的诉讼文书未提及德国的这起诉讼，这表明两者可能存在重叠之处。三星在德国有可能获得，但在美国或英国却无法获得的是一项具有既判力（“已判决事项”）的裁决，这是针对中兴通讯在德国以及统一专利法院（UPC）提起的SEP侵权诉讼而言的。然而，据我们所知，法兰克福法院从未处理过SEP相关案件，因此无法保证它会在中兴通讯的专利侵权诉讼导致禁令产生之前就作出反垄断裁决。审理侵权案件的法院无需等待法兰克福这起案件的结果，而且无论如何，中兴通讯都可以对法兰克福法院作出的任何不利裁决提起上诉。
Other deep-pocketed implementers, such as Apple (which is actually far richer than Samsung), previously avoided scattershot FRAND litigation. That makes Samsung’s brute-force FRAND strategy unconventional. Others presumably refrained from it for the following reasons:
其他财力雄厚的标准必要专利实施方，比如苹果公司（实际上苹果比三星要富有得多），此前都避免了采取随意的FRAND相关诉讼行动。这使得三星的“强硬”FRAND策略显得不同寻常。其他公司大概出于以下原因而没有采取这种策略：
①如果一方在同一情况下向多个法院求助，那么每个法院可能都会不紧不慢，指望着其他法院迅速采取行动。
-
A party making such a massive investment in FRAND litigation may be perceived as an unwilling licensee, particularly by the judges deciding the infringement cases. They would not formally base an unwillingness finding on parallel FRAND litigation, but the way they perceive that litigation strategy could be disadvantageous.
②在FRAND相关诉讼中投入如此巨大的一方，可能会被视为不愿意接受许可的一方，尤其是在那些审理侵权案件的法官眼中。他们不会正式地将对该方“不愿意接受许可”的认定建立在其同时进行多起FRAND诉讼这一事实上，但他们对这种诉讼策略的看法可能会对该方不利。
③从心理层面来讲，这种行动方式可能会给人留下这样的印象：作为一家资金充裕的标准必要专利实施方，更愿意把钱花在FRAND相关诉讼上，而非获取专利许可。
We will keep an eye on further filings in the U.S. case. Given that Samsung is seeking a preliminary injunction in the U.S., it presumably won’t take long before something happens, though Judge Martínez-Olguín routinely scheduled the initial case management conference for June 2, 2025.
我们会持续关注这起美国案件的后续相关文件提交情况。鉴于三星正在美国申请初步禁令，尽管Martínez-Olguín法官按惯例将初始案件管理会议安排在了2025年6月2日，但想必不久就会有新的进展。