Q1 2026 FRAND Rate Roundup: Key Decisions Across Jurisdictions

The first quarter of 2026 was notably active for FRAND and SEP practitioners. Germany's courts issued three decisions in seven weeks — two injunctions and a royalty corridor — all involving H.265/HEVC video codec patents. Korea's KFTC signaled tighter enforcement of antitrust obligations in technology sectors, including a proposal for new penalties for non-compliance with investigations. China continued its push to become the world's preferred forum for IP dispute resolution. And the US Federal Circuit lowered the bar for ITC exclusion orders in a ruling with implications for SEP enforcement leverage.

This article summarizes what happened, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, drawing on court decisions and regulatory developments tracked by PatentPulse's monitoring engine from January through March 2026.

Q1 2026 at a Glance

Germany: Three HEVC Decisions in Seven Weeks

Germany produced the quarter's most concrete rate-setting activity, with Munich's courts and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) all issuing rulings on H.265/HEVC standard-essential patents between January 22 and February 5.

Munich Regional Court — 7 O 4102/25 (January 22, 2026)

The Munich Regional Court (Landgericht München) rejected an implementer's FRAND defense and granted an injunction in a case involving H.265/HEVC video codec SEPs. The court found the implementer's conduct in licensing negotiations insufficient to trigger FRAND protection under the Huawei v. ZTE framework.

The key issue was procedural: the implementer had made a conditional licensing offer rather than the unconditional commitment the Munich court requires. Under Munich practice, a FRAND defense requires the implementer to (a) make an unconditional offer to take a license on FRAND terms, and (b) provide adequate security — typically by depositing funds. Partial or conditional offers are rejected. The court's willingness to grant the injunction without engaging in its own rate analysis signals that implementer negotiation conduct remains the primary battleground in German FRAND litigation.

HMD Global v. VoiceAge EVS — BGH (January 27, 2026)

Five days later, the German Federal Court of Justice affirmed a lower court's FRAND injunction in HMD Global v. VoiceAge EVS, a case involving audio codec SEPs. The BGH confirmed the Munich standard: an implementer must make a clear, unequivocal commitment to license on FRAND terms and must act diligently throughout negotiations.

This BGH affirmation matters because it signals that the high German standard for FRAND defenses is not softening. HMD Global — a Finnish phone manufacturer — was found to have failed the diligence requirement. The decision reinforces that in Germany, the burden on the implementer to prove FRAND compliance is substantial and procedurally strict.

Munich Regional Court — 7 O 7655/25 (February 5, 2026)

Two weeks after the BGH decision, a different Munich panel issued a complementary ruling: rather than simply granting or denying an injunction, the court determined a FRAND royalty corridor using the comparable licenses methodology. The court surveyed existing H.265/HEVC licenses in the market and established upper and lower bounds for FRAND rates — a range within which the parties must negotiate rather than a single point rate.

The royalty corridor approach is notable because it avoids the binary outcome of grant/deny and instead creates a structured framework for settlement. It also reflects a growing trend in German courts toward using market data — existing licensing agreements — as the primary anchor for FRAND rate determinations, rather than top-down patent counting exercises.

South Korea: KFTC Enforcement Signals for SEP Holders

No new Korean court-determined FRAND rates emerged in Q1 2026, but the regulatory environment shifted in ways that matter for SEP practitioners with Korean market exposure.

Proposed Penalties for Non-Compliance with Antitrust Investigations

In January 2026, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) proposed legislative amendments that would introduce formal penalties for companies that fail to comply with antitrust investigations. Currently, non-cooperation carries limited direct financial consequences. The proposed changes would make non-compliance with KFTC information requests and investigative demands explicitly sanctionable.

For SEP holders and implementers active in the Korean market, this matters because the KFTC has historically been willing to investigate licensing practices in technology markets — most notably in the landmark KFTC v. Qualcomm case (2016), which resulted in a KRW 1.03 trillion fine. A tougher investigation compliance regime increases the risk profile for companies that receive KFTC inquiries about their FRAND licensing conduct.

Platform Fairness Act: Asymmetric Burden Concerns

Korea's proposed Online Platform Fairness Act drew criticism from US trade policy analysts (including ITIF) who argued the legislation could disproportionately burden foreign — particularly American — technology companies. While the Act is primarily a platform regulation measure, its intersection with IP licensing conduct is worth monitoring: if platform-adjacent licensing practices are scrutinized under a fairness framework, this could affect how SEP holders structure their licensing programs for Korean implementers.

The broader signal from Korea in Q1 2026 is a tightening enforcement posture. Companies engaged in or anticipating KFTC scrutiny of SEP licensing practices should reassess their compliance protocols.

China: Consolidating the Global IP Forum

China's IP courts reported an increase in foreign-related cases in Q1 2026, consistent with CNIPA's stated policy of positioning Chinese courts as a preferred global destination for IP dispute resolution.

Foreign-Related Cases and Equal Protection

CNIPA's February 2026 reporting highlighted growing foreign litigant participation in Chinese IP proceedings, with the agency emphasizing equal protection principles for domestic and international parties. For SEP practitioners, this continues a trend that has been building since the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court asserted jurisdiction over global FRAND rates in Huawei v. Conversant (2018) and OPPO v. Sharp (2020).

Chinese courts offer patent holders specific structural advantages: they can move quickly to injunction, they are willing to set global FRAND rates, and injunctions carry significant commercial weight given China's manufacturing base. Implementers who ignore Chinese proceedings risk having a global rate determination issued in their absence.

Supreme People's Court: IP and Public Interest

The Supreme People's Court reiterated its framework of balancing rigorous IP enforcement with public interest considerations — a principle central to Chinese FRAND adjudication. This approach has practical consequences: Chinese courts have historically been more willing than US courts to consider the public interest implications of granting injunctions in SEP cases, and more willing to engage directly with the question of whether a patent holder's licensing demands are genuinely FRAND-compliant.

Patent Commercialization and SEP Pool Formation

CNIPA completed a nationwide screening of patents held by Chinese universities and research institutions in March 2026, identifying high-value assets for commercialization. While primarily a technology transfer initiative, this screening has downstream SEP implications: state-funded research institutions hold a significant and growing share of Chinese 5G SEP declarations. Improved commercialization infrastructure for these patents could accelerate the formation of Chinese-controlled SEP pools or licensing programs — a development worth watching for any company that licenses or implements 5G standards.

United States: Federal Circuit Expands ITC Domestic Industry

In late March 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Apple v. ITC that has implications for SEP enforcement strategy at the International Trade Commission.

The court affirmed an ITC exclusion order, holding that iterative prototypes and circumstantial evidence can satisfy the domestic industry requirement for an ITC proceeding. Previously, the domestic industry threshold was understood to require more substantial domestic commercial exploitation. The Federal Circuit's expansion of what counts toward domestic industry means patent holders can more readily establish ITC standing — including SEP holders who might not themselves be large-scale manufacturers.

This matters for FRAND negotiations because the ITC's exclusion order remedy is a powerful and fast-moving threat. A patent holder who can establish domestic industry more easily gains leverage in licensing negotiations that would not be available in district court (where FRAND defenses and royalty-only remedies are more firmly established). Implementers should expect to see more ITC filings from SEP holders who previously could not satisfy domestic industry requirements.

What Q1 2026 Means for Practitioners

Three patterns stand out from the quarter:

• Germany remains the most active rate-setting jurisdiction. Three decisions in seven weeks — all H.265/HEVC — underscore that Munich is the world's busiest FRAND litigation venue. The royalty corridor approach, if it persists, would represent a methodological evolution worth tracking closely in Q2.
• Regulatory risk is growing in Korea and China. Neither jurisdiction produced court-determined FRAND rates in Q1, but both signaled tighter enforcement environments. Companies licensing SEPs in Korea or China should treat regulatory compliance as a core part of their FRAND strategy, not an afterthought.
• The ITC is becoming a more accessible forum for SEP holders. The Federal Circuit's domestic industry ruling, combined with the ITC's ability to move quickly toward exclusion orders, increases the credibility of ITC threats in SEP licensing negotiations. Implementers who receive ITC complaints should not assume a FRAND defense will neutralize the proceeding.

The UPC — conspicuously absent from this quarter's developments — remains the forum most likely to reshape FRAND practice in 2026. Its first full FRAND rate determination, when it comes, will carry pan-European effect and will likely trigger a new round of forum shopping across European jurisdictions.