FRAND litigation in the US: Jurisdiction following Samsung v ZTE

A FRAND claim in the US may fail before the court has even assessed a single licence offer. In Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 3:25-cv-02000-AMO, the Northern District of California granted the motion to dismiss on 30 January 2026 on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, with an opportunity to amend the complaint. The decision, published on 10 February, does not, however, constitute a substantive dismissal of the FRAND or competition law allegations.

This distinction is crucial for strategic planning: the economic significance of the US market does not answer the question of whether the specific SEP holder can be sued in a US court on the basis of the specific conduct alleged.

Not „any US connection“, but the connection to the claim being asserted

In relation to the Sherman Act claim, the court examined contacts with the entire United States, not merely with California. On this basis, too, Samsung’s submissions were insufficient. The inclusion of US patents in licence negotiations conducted outside the US, together with the other US connections put forward, did not, in the circumstances of the case, establish sufficient jurisdiction.

The underlying distinction is set out in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014): what is decisive are the links established by the defendant with the forum. The claimant’s contacts and any economic losses suffered there do not replace these links. The injured party must not be the sole link between the defendant and the forum.

For a European group of companies, this gives rise to a specific task for examination: the US turnover of the distribution company and the extent to which it is affected by a global licence claim should not be equated with the patent holder’s US activities that form the basis of the claim. Rather, the analysis of jurisdiction should document which company negotiated with whom, to whom specific claims were addressed, and which conduct is alleged to constitute the breach of contract or competition law.

The choice of law is not the same as the choice of jurisdiction

A clause providing for the application of Californian or New York law is also no substitute for a sound basis for jurisdiction. That said, the opposing view – that choice-of-law clauses are, in principle, irrelevant – would also go too far.

According to Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), a choice-of-law clause does not, in itself, establish personal jurisdiction. However, in the context of an ongoing contractual relationship deliberately established with the forum, it may carry considerable weight. What is decisive is the overall relationship, not the isolated label „US law“.

When reviewing existing licence agreements, the applicable law, the jurisdiction clause and the actual performance of the contract should therefore be assessed separately. Negotiating powers, agreed contractual obligations and the actual decision-making structure may be particularly relevant. An older licence agreement designating US law should not be treated, without scrutiny, as the procedural basis for a subsequent FRAND dispute of a different nature.

Arguments regarding jurisdiction belong in the main text

A noteworthy detail from Samsung v ZTE: a separate argument concerning Californian contacts appeared only in a footnote. The court did not take it into account, citing its Standing Order and the rules on the late or inadequate raising of arguments.

When preparing a claim, it is therefore advisable to draw up a separate jurisdiction matrix alongside the substantive FRAND analysis. This matrix should map each claim to the relevant company, the alleged conduct, the choice of forum and the available evidence. Alternative grounds for jurisdiction should be set out explicitly and in full.

The practical implication is this: before deciding to bring a US FRAND claim, one should not merely ask whether the US court would be able to carry out an appropriate licence valuation. First and foremost, it must be demonstrated on sound grounds why this particular court is entitled to adjudicate against this particular defendant in respect of this specific conduct.

Legal notice

These articles are provided for information purposes only and do not constitute individual legal advice. They may contain errors or omissions and reflect the situation as at the date stated. We do not guarantee that they will be kept up to date. Use of this information does not create a client-solicitor relationship.