FRAND compliance and conditional injunctions: key lessons from China’s VoiceAge v. HMD SEP decision

Case background and conditional injunctions

A recent ruling by the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court has drawn significant attention to China’s evolving approach to standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes. On June 19, 2025, the Court handed down its decision in two infringement cases (Nos. (2023) Min 01 Min Chu 311 & 312) initiated by VoiceAge EVS LLC against HMD Global Oy, the manufacturer of Nokia-branded devices. The Court confirmed that 67 smartphone models infringed two of VoiceAge’s SEPs reading on the 3GPP Enhanced Voice Services (EVS) standard and, significantly, held that HMD had violated its FRAND obligations during licensing negotiations.

The Court’s analysis emphasized HMD’s failure to engage constructively in the negotiation process, which directly contributed to the impasse. As a remedy, it issued injunctions that prohibit HMD from manufacturing and selling the implicated devices in China, unless the parties finalize a license within two months after the judgment becomes effective. This aligns with China’s judicial approach to SEP disputes, where courts evaluate whether both parties negotiated in good faith, as seen in earlier cases such as Huawei v. Samsung and IWNCOMM v. Sony. Should HMD file an appeal before July 28, 2025, the injunctions will be suspended pending the outcome at the Supreme People’s Court.

As of the current date, no public reports indicate whether HMD has filed an appeal or explicitly waived its right to do so. Consequently, the status of the injunctions—whether they have taken effect or remain subject to appellate review—is uncertain. This lack of public information highlights the importance of closely monitoring further developments in this case to assess the practical impact on HMD’s operations in the Chinese market and the broader enforcement of FRAND-based injunctions.

Global context and strategic lessons

The Fuzhou cases are part of a broader international dispute between VoiceAge and HMD, which has spanned jurisdictions such as Germany and Brazil since 2019. VoiceAge previously obtained injunctions against HMD in Germany, where courts emphasized similar FRAND compliance principles. The Fuzhou Court’s decision reinforces China’s role as a critical jurisdiction for SEP litigation, reflecting its commitment to rigorously enforcing FRAND principles.

The decision offers several important takeaways for practitioners and enterprises involved in SEP licensing:

• First, it reinforces that Chinese courts will closely scrutinize the negotiation behavior of both parties, particularly the implementer’s willingness to comply with FRAND principles. An implementer’s inaction or obstructive tactics can now more readily lead to injunctive relief. Both SEP holders and implementers must demonstrate good faith, transparency, and flexibility during licensing talks.
• Second, the conditional nature of the injunction, coupled with the automatic stay upon appeal, reflects a balanced judicial approach. It protects patent owners against hold-out behaviors while granting implementers a reasonable opportunity to comply or contest the ruling.
• Finally, the case illustrates China’s integration into global SEP enforcement paradigms. As more courts worldwide cite and align with foreign jurisprudence, SEP strategies must account for parallel litigation across multiple jurisdictions, including China.

Conclusion

The ruling underscores the maturation of China’s SEP jurisprudence, highlighting its assertive role in enforcing global FRAND standards. It provides clarity and confidence to both patent holders and implementers, reinforcing the necessity of good-faith negotiation and setting a benchmark for future cross-jurisdictional SEP disputes.

← Back to News