FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape – March 2026

Why It Matters

The rulings tighten the legal framework for SEP licensing, raising compliance costs and strategic uncertainty for global tech firms. Policymakers and litigants must now navigate a fragmented landscape where national courts increasingly assert authority over cross‑border licensing disputes.

Key Takeaways

• US courts assert jurisdiction over RAND commitments despite foreign patents
• UPC and German courts enforce anti‑interim‑license injunctions, penalizing Amazon $55M
• DOJ warns against collusive licensing groups as antitrust violations
• EU Parliament sues Commission over withdrawn SEP regulation, citing overreach
• German courts grant first SEP preliminary injunctions, reshaping enforcement landscape

Pulse Analysis

The surge of anti‑suit and anti‑interim‑license injunctions across multiple jurisdictions reflects a broader shift toward national courts protecting their own FRAND rate‑setting authority. In the United States, the Gilstrap decision reinforces that IEEE‑based RAND obligations fall under U.S. law, even when patents originate abroad, curbing attempts to sidestep domestic jurisdiction. This stance dovetails with the Department of Justice’s recent warnings about collusive licensing negotiation groups, signaling a tougher antitrust environment for SEP aggregators and prompting the USPTO to launch a dedicated SEP Working Group aimed at restoring predictability for innovators.

Across the Atlantic, the European Parliament’s lawsuit against the European Commission underscores the political stakes of SEP regulation. By challenging the withdrawal of a harmonized SEP framework, legislators aim to prevent a regulatory vacuum that could embolden fragmented national approaches. Simultaneously, the Unified Patent Court’s enforcement of a €50 million ($55 million) daily‑rate penalty against Amazon demonstrates the UPC’s willingness to impose heavy sanctions for non‑compliance, reinforcing its role as a central arbiter for European SEP disputes. These developments pressure multinational firms to align licensing strategies with both EU and national court expectations.

German courts are setting new precedents that could reshape the entire SEP enforcement landscape. The Munich Regional Court’s issuance of the first SEP‑based preliminary injunction in Europe, along with its refined “willingness” test, signals a more proactive stance toward urgent relief. Coupled with the BGH’s affirmation of the Munich approach and the recent Wilus v. ASUS judgment, German jurisprudence is moving toward tighter scrutiny of licensing conduct and security deposits. Collectively, these trends suggest that companies must adopt more coordinated, globally aware licensing negotiations to mitigate the risk of costly injunctions and fragmented legal outcomes.