Recently, ZTE Corporation responded to Samsung's lawsuit in the United States by filing a motion requesting Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to immediately dismiss the case and to stay the discovery process in the meantime. ZTE raised both jurisdictional and substantive arguments in its motion. According to the motion's annex, Samsung raised a provisional licensing claim during the amendment of its case issues in the U.K. proceedings.
(1) Jurisdictional Argument
ZTE questioned whether the District Court has jurisdiction over the case, given that it has ceased business operations in the U.S. While some of ZTE’s U.S.-based employees may have participated in 3GPP/ETSI standardization activities (held in France), the core dispute lies in the patent royalty rates proposed by ZTE—rates which were neither negotiated nor set in the United States. General jurisdiction over ZTE by the U.S. District Court would require ZTE to have a substantial presence in the district. However, since 2018, personnel responsible for ZTE’s licensing operations have not resided in the United States.
Regarding specific jurisdiction, ZTE noted that relevant meetings did not take place in the U.S., and that negotiations between the parties primarily occurred in China and South Korea. ZTE cited a key precedent—Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., in which a company used Schwarzenegger’s image without permission to promote car sales in another U.S. district. In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals established several criteria, one of which emphasized whether the conduct specifically targeted the state of California.
ZTE argued that even if the circumstances in the current case do not absolutely mandate dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the court still can—and should—decline jurisdiction because its exercise would be unreasonable. This issue is also linked to ZTE’s forced exit from the U.S. market due to geopolitical reasons, and the fact that Samsung has already filed lawsuits in the U.K. and Germany. Moreover, Samsung’s prior positions undermine its current claims—for example, in its 2021 dispute with Ericsson, Samsung argued that China was the ideal forum for FRAND rate determinations.
(2) Substantive Argument
ZTE asked the court to dismiss the entire lawsuit, including Samsung’s breach of contract and California unfair competition claims. Even if Samsung overcomes the jurisdictional hurdle, it must still defend its federal antitrust claims (under the Sherman Act) against ZTE’s motion to dismiss. U.S. courts have repeatedly dismissed antitrust claims related to patent licensing. In fact, since the Broadcom v. Qualcomm case roughly two decades ago, no substantial progress has been made in such claims. In another case where Samsung faced accusations from Apple, it argued that behavior in standard-setting organizations should be distinguished from later disputes over licensing rates.
In its motion, ZTE emphasized that although the Broadcom case involved specific antitrust violations (unlike Samsung’s current claims), its decision was neither adopted by the Ninth Circuit nor upheld in other jurisdictions.
ZTE argued that if Samsung clears the initial jurisdictional bar but loses on substantive grounds, the court would lose subject-matter jurisdiction due to the lack of diversity jurisdiction—which requires that the parties be from different states and that the amount in controversy meets a legal threshold. Only the Sherman Act claim arises under federal law, unlike Samsung’s contract and state law claims.
ZTE also pointed out that Samsung is seeking a FRAND rate determination in the U.K., while its subsidiary SEG has applied to a German court to compel ZTE to accept a license agreement (submitted as an annex to the German complaint), which Samsung asserts complies with FRAND terms. If those claims are upheld, they would render Samsung’s claims in the U.S. meaningless. Conversely, if the U.S. court grants Samsung’s requests for “specific performance” and “injunctive relief,” the relief Samsung seeks in the U.K. and Germany would be nullified.
ZTE also informed the U.S. court of developments in the U.K. case: Judge James Mellor has scheduled the FRAND rate determination hearing for January 2026. Although this timing is later than Samsung’s preferred expedited schedule, the case once again shows that the High Court of England and Wales (EWHC) has approved fast-track procedures even in highly complex cases.
