The court clearly stated that the infringement of the simplified procedure is questionable and should give priority to explaining it in the direction of favoring the patentee. Following the California court's formal dismissal of Samsung Electronics' antitrust and FRAND contract lawsuit against ZTE, ZTE has achieved another key victory in its global patent war with Samsung.

February 3, 2026, Civil Tribunal No. 14 of the Court of Appeal of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, issued a second-instance judgment, upholding the preliminary injunction (PI) previously issued by the local court, ordering Samsung Communications to stop infringing ZTE's Brazilian patent BR112015017291-1, which relates to 5G digital modulation technology 256-QAM.

Presiding Judge Adolpho Mello Junior emphasized the following key points in his ruling:

The need for injunctive relief: The court held that in patent infringement cases, subsequent damages are not enough to compensate for the losses suffered by the patentee, and a temporary injunction is the correct legal means to protect the patentee's legitimate rights and interests.

No substitute for injunctive relief can be made with a guarantee: The court retrial cannot replace the injunction by providing financial security or bond by the parties. Preventive relief cannot simply be converted into monetary compensation without weakening the exclusivity of patent rights.

Samsung's defense is logically contradictory: Samsung held different positions during the trial. On the one hand, it insisted that it had not implemented the patented technology in question, but on the other hand, it emphasized that the patent was highly technically complex and belonged to the 5G Standard Essential Patent (SEP), which should be subject to the FRAND principle and require in-depth technical appraisal. The judge held that Samsung The contradictory statements that both deny the use and emphasize that the technology is “necessary” for the standard further confirm Samsung's potential infringement The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary measures to ensure that all children, regardless of their age, have access to adequate health care and adequate housing. At the same time, since Samsung believes that its products do not use the technology involved in the case, the issuance of the ban only involves the fulfillment of “inaction” obligations and will not cause substantial “reverse damage” to its operations, so the ban should not be refused on this basis.

“Doubtful benefit to patentee”: The court held that although the evidence in the case file still contained technical disputes, combined with the patent ownership certificate and preliminary infringement analysis submitted by ZTE, it was sufficient to determine that ZTE had Be prepared “possibility of winning the case”. In the easy process Order (Summary Proceedings) stage, method The court shall make an interpretation in favor of the patentee. (Samsung's requirements “Extensive and in-depth expert identification” can take years)

Reject Samsung's defense involving SEP and FRAND: The court held that declaring a patent a standard essential patent does not deprive the patentee of the right to seek injunctive relief. There is no evidence that ZTE abused its rights, refused to license the patent based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination (FRAND), or that it acted contrary to good faith in the licensing negotiations. Samsung also did not provide any evidence to prove that it had attempted to negotiate on the FRAND principle.

In the end, the judge slightly adjusted the number of fines for violating the ban, reducing the daily fine from R$50,000 to 25,000 reais (about $4,800), the court held that this amount was sufficient to create a legal deterrent.

The multinational patent dispute stems from the signing of a global patent cross-licensing agreement between ZTE and Samsung in 2021 covering the 4G asset portfolio and early standard essential patents. The agreement expires at the end of 2023 and contains a clause “no lawsuit can be filed before December 31, 2024”. However, during the renewal negotiations, the two sides had serious disagreements over FRAND license rates.

On December 19, 2024, Samsung took the lead in filing a lawsuit against ZTE in the UK, and subsequently filed FR in Germany, the European Unified Patent Court, the United States and other jurisdictions AND litigation.

To date, ZTE has won cases in the U.S. Federal District Court, the U.K. Court of Appeal, China's State Intellectual Property Office and the Brazilian Court of Appeal, further consolidating its advantages in the field of 5G standard essential patents.

In this case, Rob Rodrigues, Partner at RNA Law Firm in Brazil Representing the intellectual property frontier: This is a landmark ruling at the beginning of this year. While the results are highly favorable to patentees, they also provide important guidance for technology implementers —— i.e., how to construct and respond to FRAND defenses in the future. This ruling is likely to trigger in-depth industry discussion on the “FRAND defense threshold”, especially when it comes to emergency rights protection procedures such as preliminary injunctions.

‍

‍