Recently, the two giants in the global consumer electronics and communication technology fields, Xiaomi and Asus, have sparked a legal storm worldwide due to patent licensing issues. The core of this storm is the intense game surrounding the "fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory" (FRAND) licensing fee for standard essential patents (SEPs).
Event Tracing: From Defendant to Plaintiff, Xiaomi's' Counter Strike '
The trigger for this dispute was Asus' patent lawsuit against Xiaomi and OPPO in Europe. In June of this year, Asus filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Xiaomi at the European Unified Patent Court (UPC), accusing Xiaomi of infringing on its European patent EP3346616 titled "Method and Device for Beam Management in Wireless Communication Systems".
This is not Asus' first 'challenge'. As early as February this year, Asus and its affiliated company Innovative Sonic sued Xiaomi in the Munich Regional Court in Germany, accusing it of infringing another patent EP2802185.
Faced with litigation pressure, Xiaomi did not choose to settle passively, but adopted an active "counterattack" strategy. On September 8, 2025, Xiaomi officially filed a lawsuit with the UK High Court (EWHC), accusing Asus of failing to reach an agreement on reasonable rates during license negotiations, and requesting the court to make a temporary license ruling or directly determine patent license rates that comply with FRAND principles.
Strategic significance: Why choose the British court?
Xiaomi's choice of the UK High Court as the main battlefield for "counterattack" is not accidental. The UK High Court Patent Court has long been regarded as the "preferred" place for global patent litigation, especially when dealing with cases involving FRAND rate rulings, its trial experience and case law system are widely recognized.
More importantly, the UK court's' interim license 'mechanism provides strong operational protection for implementers facing the risk of injunctions. According to the rules established in previous cases such as Panasonic v. Xiaomi, as long as the defendant is willing to accept and pay the FRAND rate ultimately determined by the court, it is considered a "willing licensee", and the patent owner will find it difficult to use injunctions as a means of pressure.
Xiaomi is using this institutional advantage to try to shift the battlefield from Germany's "ban threat" to the UK's "rate ruling", in order to take the initiative in negotiations and offset Asus' pressure to seek bans in German courts and the UPC system.
Core dispute: Who the final say the FRAND rate?
The core dispute of standard essential patent licensing lies in the determination of fees. Enterprises holding SEPs usually need to authorize other implementers in accordance with the FRAND principle to ensure the widespread promotion of technical standards; And the licensee shall obtain the right to use it for a reasonable consideration.
However, the specific calculation of FRAND rates involves multiple factors such as technological contribution, market size, and cross licensing, and negotiations between the two parties often reach a deadlock due to differences in positions.
In this case, Xiaomi pointed out that Asus' proposed licensing fee was significantly higher than the average level of similar transactions in the industry, and did not reasonably consider Xiaomi's research and development investment and patent contributions in the field of communication technology. Asus may argue that its rates fully reflect the value of technology and comply with market practices.
How the British court will make a ruling in this "rate dispute" will undoubtedly become a focus of attention for the global communication industry and provide important references for the handling of similar cases in the future.
Global Game: A 'Jurisdiction Competition' and Strategic Coordination
This legal battle has evolved into a transnational jurisdictional competition. Asus relies on the German court to quickly issue an injunction to force the implementing party to enter negotiations, while Xiaomi uses the prudent pricing system of the British court as a bargaining chip for pricing and time, and through the game of time and procedure, weakens the other party's strategy of using the injunction to obtain high licensing fees.
It is worth noting that Xiaomi has demonstrated increasingly mature global litigation and negotiation capabilities in dealing with this global lawsuit. It not only filed a "FRAND rate ruling lawsuit" in the UK, but also accused Asus of infringing its own patents and extended legal action to its distributors and partners in Europe. This means that the war has extended from technology licensing to supply chain ports, and once distribution channels are involved in litigation, Asus' sales system in the European market will face a chain reaction.
Industry Insights: From "Defense" to "Initiative", Chinese Enterprises' Intellectual Property Awakening
Xiaomi's proactive move this time marks the gradual shift of Chinese enterprises from defense to initiative in the international patent game. It is no longer just a "implementer" passively accepting licensing conditions, but a "gamer" actively using international rules to fight for its own rights and interests.
This lawsuit is not only a commercial dispute between Xiaomi and Asus, but also a microcosm of the global shift in the technology industry structure. As profits flow from hardware manufacturing to patented technology itself, patents are becoming a new commercial currency and a yardstick for measuring the boundaries between technology and strategy.
For Chinese enterprises, finding a reasonable boundary between actively advocating for rights and maintaining market trust, and utilizing international rules to protect their own rights and interests, will be the key to achieving success in the global market in the future.
Conclusion
At present, the global patent litigation dispute between Xiaomi and Asus is still ongoing. The ultimate outcome of this game will not only affect the future development of the two companies, but also have a profound impact on the patent licensing landscape of the global communication industry.
We will also continue to monitor the progress of this case and provide you with the latest interpretation and analysis.