Japan Introduces New Guidelines for Global SEP Licensing Disputes

Japan's refined approach aims to provide a clearer framework for resolving global SEP disputes, offering an alternative to the diverging methods seen in European courts. For streaming and device manufacturers, this could mean new pathways for licensing negotiations, but also increased pressure to demonstrate good faith and data transparency in court-supervised processes. The effectiveness of these guidelines will hinge on whether they can achieve consensus on global FRAND rates and attract participation from involved parties, warranting close observation of initial case outcomes.

The Tokyo District Court's initiatives in January 2026 build upon a complex global landscape for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). European courts have recently shown diverging paths in FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) litigation. As reported by Cleary Gottlieb in May 2026, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its first-ever settlement proposal in a Samsung-ZTE cellular SEP dispute, recommending two alternative cross-license structures. This followed a Munich Regional Court decision that, while not setting a global FRAND rate, found ZTE's offer to be within the FRAND corridor and granted an injunction against Samsung. These European developments highlighted a significant difference from the English High Court's FRAND rate determinations in the same dispute, with the UK emerging as a more implementer-friendly jurisdiction.

Separately, Lexology noted in January 2025 that the UPC in a Panasonic v. OPPO case dismissed OPPO's FRAND defense, finding OPPO had not behaved in a FRAND-compliant manner and was not acting as a willing licensee. This suggests the UPC under some circumstances may favor SEP holders more than the UK courts. Japan's renewed focus, especially the emphasis on implementer willingness and data transparency, contrasts with the prior decade of dormant SEP litigation following the 2014 Apple v. Samsung decision, where Japanese courts previously held that an injunction for SEP infringement was an abuse of right if the implementer was willing to license on FRAND terms. The explicit inclusion of comparable license approaches in Japan's new guidelines also marks an evolution from the earlier reliance on top-down methodologies in cases like Apple v. Samsung, potentially aligning Japan more closely with some international practices in royalty rate determination.