Recently, the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals in Brazil issued a pivotal ruling in the 5G standard essential patent (SEP) dispute between ZTE and Samsung: reinstating the preliminary injunction (PI) against Samsung's 5G mobile devices. This decision overturns the previous suspension of the injunction granted upon Samsung's appeal, marking the reinstatement of the judicial restriction's legal validity in Brazil.
The core dispute centers on licensing for standard essential patents in 5G technology. The patent in question, BR112015017291-1, protects a core 5G network processing technology—the 256 QAM modulation method. ZTE alleges Samsung sold a large volume of 5G communication products infringing on its patent in the Brazilian market without obtaining the necessary licenses. Previously, while a lower court had granted ZTE a preliminary injunction requiring Samsung to immediately cease distributing, selling, and importing all infringing 5G smartphones in Brazil, the appellate court had suspended enforcement of the injunction following Samsung's appeal. In the latest ruling, the court overturned this suspension, stating that Samsung should not be permitted to continue using ZTE's 5G technology without paying patent licensing fees.
In this ruling, the appeals court found Samsung had demonstrated clear signs of delaying tactics during patent licensing negotiations—exploiting its market position to postpone payment of reasonable licensing fees while continuing to profit from infringing technology. The court explicitly stated in its judgment that law cannot grant any company the right to freely use another's patents without payment, as this directly harms the legitimate interests of patent holders and undermines the technological innovation ecosystem.
Furthermore, the court rejected Samsung's defense that the injunction would harm Brazilian consumers or disrupt the local telecommunications market. It emphasized that upholding the integrity of patent law and adhering to the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) principle are cornerstones of industry development, and no company should be permitted to evade legal responsibility based on its market scale. Notably, the court also adjusted the daily penalty for the preliminary injunction, reducing it from R$50,000 to approximately R$25,000 to better align with the principle of proportionality.
Case Background
The global patent dispute between ZTE and Samsung Electronics originated from the failure to renew their global patent licensing agreement after its expiration in 2021.
On December 19, 2024, Samsung initiated proceedings against ZTE in a UK court, seeking a determination of the FRAND royalty rate for ZTE's global cellular patent portfolio. The following day, Samsung filed an antitrust lawsuit against ZTE in the Frankfurt Regional Court, Germany, alleging abuse of market dominance by refusing to license its patents under FRAND terms.
In response, ZTE filed a lawsuit with the First Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing Municipality, China, in December 2024, seeking confirmation of the terms of the parties' global FRAND cross-licensing agreement covering standard-essential patents for wireless communications.
In early January 2025, ZTE initiated lawsuits against Samsung in the Munich Regional Court and the Mannheim Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Germany (On February 28, 2025, Samsung filed a counterclaim against ZTE in the same court, alleging infringement of its wireless communication-related patents);
On January 15, 2025, ZTE sued Samsung for infringement in the State Court of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The following day, ZTE filed two infringement lawsuits in Hangzhou;
On January 23, 2025, the judicial authorities of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil, granted ZTE Communications a preliminary injunction regarding Brazilian patents. Samsung has the opportunity to appeal the preliminary injunction, but will face a daily fine of 50,000 Brazilian reais (approximately $8,600) for any continued violation of the injunction;
February 2025: Samsung filed a lawsuit against ZTE in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of antitrust and contract laws and seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions;
On June 25, 2025, the UK High Court ruled in favor of Samsung's application for an interim license, finding ZTE breached its good faith negotiation obligations regarding standard essential patent licensing;
In October 2025, the Munich Regional Court in Germany issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Samsung from filing complaints with ETSI alleging ZTE violated ETSI's intellectual property policy, based on the UK court's interim license decision and subsequent appeal outcomes;
On November 1, 2025, the UK Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's finding that ZTE was a non-good-faith holder, revoked multiple lower court decisions including the interim license declaration, and ruled that ZTE's conduct complied with FRAND principles;
On January 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Samsung's contractual claims based on FRAND principles and related antitrust claims.
February 4, 2026: The Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals in Brazil revoked its prior stay of execution on the preliminary injunction, reinstating the legal effect of ZTE's preliminary injunction against Samsung's SEPs and adjusting the daily penalty to approximately R$25,000.
Attached: Original Judgment Text
