FRAND Lawsuits in the U.S.: Jurisdiction Under Samsung v. ZTE

A FRAND lawsuit in the U.S. can fail before the court even evaluates a single licensing 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 for lack of personal jurisdiction on January 30, 2026, with an opportunity to amend. The decision, published on February 10, does not contain any substantive dismissal of the FRAND or antitrust allegations.

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

Not „just any connection to the U.S.,“ but the connection to the asserted claim

With regard to the Sherman Act claim, the court examined contacts with the entire United States, not merely with California. On this basis as well, Samsung’s arguments were insufficient. The inclusion of U.S. patents in licensing negotiations conducted outside the United States and the other alleged U.S. connections did not establish sufficient jurisdiction under the circumstances of the case.

The underlying distinction is well established in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014): What matters are the ties to the forum established by the defendant. The plaintiff’s contacts with the forum and any economic harm suffered there do not substitute for these ties. The injured party must not be the sole link between the defendant and the forum.

For a European corporate group, this gives rise to a specific task: The U.S. sales of the distribution company and the extent to which they are affected by a global license claim should not be equated with the patent holder’s U.S. activities that form the basis of the claim. Rather, the jurisdiction analysis should document which company negotiated with whom, to whom specific claims were directed, and what conduct is alleged to constitute the alleged breach of contract or antitrust law.

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

A clause designating California or New York law is also no substitute for a sound basis for jurisdiction. However, the opposing view—that choice-of-law clauses are fundamentally irrelevant—would also be too broad.

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

When reviewing existing license agreements, the applicable law, the jurisdiction clause, and the actual performance of the agreement should therefore be evaluated separately. Negotiation authority, agreed-upon performance obligations, and the actual decision-making structure may be particularly relevant. An older license agreement that designates U.S. law should not be treated, without review, as the procedural basis for a subsequent FRAND dispute involving different circumstances.

Arguments regarding jurisdiction belong in the main text

A notable detail from Samsung v. ZTE: A separate argument regarding California contacts appeared only in a footnote. The court did not take it into account, citing its Standing Order and the rules governing the late or insufficient assertion of arguments.

When preparing a lawsuit, it is therefore advisable to create a separate jurisdiction matrix in addition to the substantive FRAND analysis. This matrix should map each claim to the relevant company, the alleged conduct, the forum connection, and the available evidence. Alternative grounds for jurisdiction should be explicitly and fully articulated.

The practical implication: Before deciding to file a U.S. FRAND lawsuit, one should not merely ask whether a U.S. court could conduct an appropriate license valuation. First, a solid rationale must be established as to why this particular court has jurisdiction to adjudicate against this particular defendant for this specific conduct.

Legal Notice

These articles are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute individual legal advice. They may contain errors or omissions and reflect the status as of the date indicated. We do not guarantee that they will be updated on an ongoing basis. Use of these articles does not create an attorney-client relationship.