Part one of this article explored key developments in remedies and procedure in the SEP/FRAND space. This second part examines some of the fundamental features of the 'FRANDscape' as the jurisprudence in this area continues to develop.
The past six years have witnessed a remarkable development in how the UK court approaches questions of FRAND, including the approach to determining appropriate royalty rates and dealing with valuation methodologies. These developments have both refined the Unwired Planet framework and, in certain respects, reshaped the strategic calculus for both SEP holders and implementers.
Key developments in the FRAND landscape
Jurisdiction to set global FRAND terms affirmed
The UK Supreme Court's decision in Unwired Planet confirmed that the UK court can determine global FRAND terms. This offers implementers found to have infringed UK patents a choice between accepting an injunction covering the UK market or a court-determined global licence. The Supreme Court affirmed that this approach was grounded in, and gave effect to, ETSI's contractual framework. This decision has played a major part in establishing the UK as a leading forum for global FRAND determinations.
The UK court has since granted a newer form of relief, known as interim licence declarations, discussed in greater detail in part one of this article.
Valuation methodologies
To date, the three UK rate-setting judgments (Unwired Planet, InterDigital v Lenovo and Optis v Apple) have consistently relied on comparable licences, in an exercise involving identifying the most relevant licences and 'un-packing' and 're-packing' them to adjust for the particular circumstances. Comparable licences have generally been used as the primary valuation methodology with the 'top-down' approach, where an aggregate royalty is apportioned based on a SEP holder's share of the total royalty stack, being used as a cross-check.
These cases have all concerned the valuation of cellular SEPs in end-user devices where there has been long-established industry practice of bilateral licensing and a large number of licence agreements under consideration. Different approaches may be taken by the courts to cases involving different standards or businesses.
Contract versus competition law
The UK court approaches FRAND as a matter of contract law, focusing on licensing terms, whereas other European jurisdictions (particularly Germany) typically apply a procedural framework based on the 2015 CJEU decision, Huawei v ZTE, to assess anti-competitive behaviour. The UK court treats Huawei v ZTE as a behavioural standard rather than a rigid procedural framework, with only the first step – prior notice before seeking injunctive relief – typically considered as mandatory. To date, no UK court has found abuse of dominance or implementer unwillingness, instead focusing on the contractual aspects of FRAND. In essence, the UK court's approach has been to say that a party committing to a FRAND determination by the UK court is willing to enter into a FRAND licence, and the behavioural aspects have ultimately played a limited role. This contractual approach has contributed to a notable divergence between the UK and Germany.
FRAND is a range
The UK court recognises that multiple FRAND solutions may exist, with the patentee "entitled to the top of that range" (Optis, [2025] EWCA Civ 552, §143). This built on the Court of Appeal's finding in Unwired Planet that it was "unreal" that two parties, acting fairly and reasonably, would arrive at precisely the same set of licence terms as two other parties in the same set of circumstances ([2018] EWCA Civ 2344, §121).
More recently, in Samsung v ZTE, the UK court accepted the possibility that parallel UK and Chinese proceedings may yield different FRAND determinations, though the implications of such an outcome remain untested ([2025] EWHC 1432 (Pat), §139).
New entrants in the FRAND landscape
From mobile phone manufacturers, to video streamers, to IoT manufacturers, the UK court has seen a variety of parties involved in SEP/FRAND litigation.
- Streamers and gamers: Beyond traditional cellular technology cases, a recent influx of video codec/HEVC disputes have brought streaming businesses such as Amazon, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount and Disney, into the courts. The gaming industry is also a player in this area. The Acer and ASUS cases against Nokia, for example cover, among other things, gaming laptops and desktops.
- Patent pools: An alternative strategy for pursuing FRAND litigation was adopted in Tesla v InterDigital & Avanci, when Tesla sued both InterDigital and the patent licensing platform, Avanci. Tesla was seeking determination of the terms of a FRAND licence to Avanci's 5G patent pool, that would include rights to InterDigital's technology as a member of the pool. At first instance and in the Court of Appeal, the courts declined jurisdiction to set FRAND terms for a patent pool licence, as Avanci was not a patent holder itself and had not provided any undertaking to ETSI to license the platform's technology on FRAND terms. With Arnold LJ dissenting, the Court of Appeal emphasised the bilateral nature of licensing negotiations and the fact that there was "no such thing as a free-standing FRAND claim" ([2025] EWCA Civ 193, §236). The Supreme Court is due to hear the appeal in April 2026.
- Chipset manufacturers: In response to Huawei's lawsuit against MediaTek in Shenzhen, China in 2024, MediaTek brought proceedings in the UK the same year. This was one of the few instances of a chipset manufacturer (rather than a downstream original equipment manufacturer (or OEM)) bringing proceedings against a SEP holder. The case settled shortly after the court accepted jurisdiction to hear MediaTek's claim in the UK.
- IoT manufacturers: TP-Link, an IoT manufacturer of Wi-Fi repeaters and router-type products, has this year also commenced proceedings in the UK against Huawei in response to Huawei's lawsuits in China, Germany and the UPC. It was, however, Huawei who sought an interim licence against TP-Link. As such, the case is notable as the first instance of a SEP holder (as opposed to an implementer) successfully invoking the UK interim licence regime to secure an interim payment; determined as the mid-point between TP-Link's offer and Huawei's rack-rate approach.
Government policy initiatives
Governmental developments are also key to consider. In the last few years the UK Government has introduced the UKIPO's SEP Resource Hub, launched in 2024 as a 'one-stop-shop' for businesses seeking guidance on navigating the SEP landscape. It also launched a consultation in July 2025 seeking industry input on proposals addressing dispute resolution and licensing efficiency, including a specialist rate determination track, pre-action protocols and alternative dispute resolution measures. The outcome is still to be seen.
