NPE litigation activity between January 2025 and May 2026 was concentrated in a few key technology areas. Wireless Communication & Network Technologies accounted for 1,199 litigation records, making it the most targeted domain during the period.
The analysis covers 2,590 U.S. NPE litigation records associated with more than 800 products. Torus Ventures filed the highest number of cases, followed by Patent Armory and Headwater Research. Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T were among the most frequently targeted companies. The Eastern District of Texas handled the largest NPE litigation of cases, followed by the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware.
The data shows that NPE activity remained focused on a relatively small group of technologies, companies, and venues. For IP teams, the data provides a practical view of where NPE activity is concentrated across technologies, defendants, and filing venues.
For readers looking at NPE activity in the context of the overall enforcement landscape, our broader analysis of US patent litigation trends explains how patent cases across NPEs and operating companies have evolved in US courts over the last five years.
Why NPE Risk Often Follows Common Product Features
NPE risk often increases when a product feature has three qualities:
- It is used by many companies.
- It is important to the product.
- It can be linked to patents across many products or companies.
This is why risk may not always come from a company’s most advanced invention. It may come from common features such as wireless connection, login systems, cloud access, remote monitoring, payments, data sharing, or device control.
These features are attractive in NPE campaigns because they are repeatable. A patent claim mapped to a common feature can potentially be asserted across multiple defendants, products, and industries. That makes the litigation campaign easier to scale.
A company may face NPE risk not because its product is unusual, but because it uses a feature that many other companies also use.
Which Technology Areas Are Facing the Most NPE Suits?
The dataset shows that NPE cases are concentrated in three major technology areas.
Wireless Communication & Network Tech leads with 1199 cases, followed by Computing & Digital Tech with 614 cases. and Enterprise software and Digital Business System with 342 cases.
Together, these two areas account for 1813 of the 2,590 litigation records, or roughly 68% of the dataset. That is the more important signal. NPE activity is not just high in these categories; it is heavily concentrated around enabling technologies used across many product markets.
These are not narrow technology areas. They support features used across phones, apps, cloud platforms, payment systems, smart TVs, connected cars and industrial tools.
This means companies should not look at NPE risk only by industry. They should also look at the product features they use.
For example, a clean-tech company may not see itself as a software or telecom company. But if it uses cloud access, remote monitoring, user login, wireless communication, or data analytics, it may still overlap with areas where NPE activity is high.
This is important for companies working on EV charging, battery systems, smart grids, connected sensors, and industrial IoT products.
The risk often follows scale. When a feature becomes common and valuable across many products, it becomes more attractive for patent assertion.
Decision signal: Products with connectivity, authentication, cloud access, remote control, data processing, or device-level analytics should be screened for NPE exposure even if the company’s primary industry is not software, telecom, or electronics.
Assess your feature-level NPE exposure: GreyB can map recent NPE litigation trends against your product features and technology stack to identify early-warning signals before disputes arise.
Which NPEs Are Filing the Most US Litigation Cases?
A small group of NPEs accounts for a large number of filings.
Torus Ventures LLC leads with 91 cases, followed by Patent Armory Inc. with 78 cases and Headwater Research LLC with 61 cases. Other active NPEs include Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. with 60 cases and VDPP LLC with 56 cases.
For patent teams, these names are important because repeated filings may show a wider campaign. An NPE may be using the same patents, similar arguments, or similar product targets across many companies.
A recent Headwater Research case shows why these filing patterns matter. In June 2025, a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded Headwater Research LLC $278.8 million in damages against Samsung after finding that Samsung infringed patents related to wireless communication technology used in smartphones and tablets.
This shows that active NPE campaigns should not be viewed only as filing-volume signals. Some campaigns may remain low-value or settlement-driven, but others can create high financial exposure when the asserted patents are tied to commercially central product functions such as wireless connectivity, device performance, and battery efficiency.
Decision signal: Repeated filings by the same NPE should trigger a campaign-level review: asserted patents, claim language, defendant similarity, product-function overlap, venue pattern, damages history, and settlement behaviour.
Which Law Firms Are Most Active in US NPE Litigation?
The data also shows that some law firms appear often in NPE cases.
Rabicoff Law Llc appears in 939 cases, followed by Ramey Llp with 232 cases, Rozier Hardt Mcdonough Pllc with 131 cases, and Silverman Mcdonald & Friedman with 108 cases.
This should be read carefully. A high case count does not mean every case is strong. But it can still be a useful signal.
If the same law firm appears again and again with the same NPE, patents, court, or type of product, it may suggest a more organized filing pattern. For companies, this can help show whether a case is isolated or part of a larger wave.
Law firm activity is especially useful when it is connected with plaintiff behaviour. A law firm appearing across many unrelated cases may not tell much on its own. But repeated appearances with the same plaintiff, same patent families, same court, and similar product targets can indicate a coordinated assertion strategy.
Decision signal: Law firm repetition is useful only when paired with plaintiff, patent family, venue, and product-function overlap. On its own, it is a weak signal. Combined with those other factors, it can help identify whether a company is facing an isolated dispute or part of a broader campaign.
Which Companies Are Targeted Most by US NPE Litigation?
Large technology and telecom companies appear most often in the dataset.
Apple had 39 cases, followed by Samsung with 32, Amazon with 24, and Google with 22. Telecom companies also appear often, including Verizon with 21 cases, T-Mobile with 19 cases, and AT&T with 19 cases.
This pattern shows that NPE risk often follows companies with large product reach, big customer bases, and widely used technology features.
But this is not only a big-tech issue.
Apple, Samsung, Amazon, and Google together account for 117 cases, which is only a small portion of the 2,590-record dataset. That means the defendant base is broader than the largest technology companies. The more important pattern is not company size alone. It is product reach combined with repeatable technical functionality.
As more industries become connected and software-enabled, similar risks can appear in clean-tech, mobility, energy, industrial automation, and infrastructure. An EV charging network, smart meter system, fleet platform, or energy analytics tool may use many of the same features seen in NPE cases: login, connectivity, cloud communication, data processing, dashboards, and remote control.
So companies should not ask only whether their core invention is protected. They should also ask whether the digital features around the product create patent risk.
Decision signal: Companies outside traditional technology sectors should review NPE exposure at the feature level, especially where their products depend on connectivity, software control, data exchange, cloud platforms, or customer-facing digital interfaces.
Which Courts Handle the Most NPE Cases?
NPE cases are also concentrated in a few courts.
The Eastern District of Texas handled 1,271 cases, making it the leading court in the dataset. It is followed by the Western District of Texas with 469 cases and the District of Delaware with 252 cases.
This matters because the court can affect cost, timing, pressure, and settlement decisions.
For patent and business teams, venue should not be treated as a small legal detail. If many similar cases are being filed in certain courts, companies should understand what that means for possible litigation planning.
Court concentration shows not only where cases are filed. It also shows where legal pressure is most likely to appear.
Decision signal: Venue concentration should be part of pre-litigation planning, especially for companies with national sales, connected products, cloud services, or exposure to technical features frequently asserted in EDTX, WDTX, and Delaware.
What This Means for IP, R&D, and Business Teams
The main lesson is that NPE litigation data should not be used only after a lawsuit arrives. It can help companies prepare earlier.
For IP teams, it can show which NPEs, patents, courts, and technology areas need closer monitoring.
For R&D teams, it can show which product features may carry hidden patent risk.
For innovation teams, it can support design choices, patent planning, and defensive strategy.
For business teams, it can help with product launches, supplier decisions, market entry, partnerships, and acquisitions.
This is especially important for clean-tech and industrial companies. As their products become more connected, data-driven, and software-based, they may face risks that were once seen mainly in telecom, software, and electronics.
The key takeaway is simple:
NPE risk often follows features that are widely used, commercially important, and repeated across many products.
Companies that understand this pattern can use NPE litigation data as an early-warning tool, not just a legal record.
Conclusion
NPE litigation is not only a record of past disputes. It can show where patent assertion economics are forming.
The 2025–2026 dataset shows that NPE activity is concentrated around common technology features, active plaintiffs, experienced law firms, major defendants, and preferred courts. But the stronger insight is that these signals are connected. Widely used product functions create repeatable assertion opportunities. Active NPEs and law firms turn those opportunities into campaigns. Venue concentration then shapes where legal pressure is most likely to appear.
For IP and R&D teams, this makes NPE data useful before litigation begins. It can help identify which product functions deserve freedom-to-operate review, which patent families need monitoring, and where product design, supplier contracts, and defensive filings may need stronger alignment.
The companies that benefit most will be the ones that use NPE litigation data early – as a map of technology risk, not just as a record of legal disputes.
Get a full litigation-risk map for your portfolio: GreyB helps IP, R&D, and business teams identify high-risk product functions, active plaintiffs, and vulnerable technology areas to mitigate NPE risk before litigation escalates.