The courtroom is becoming the new battleground for innovation. In the first half of 2025, the US patent litigation landscape is seeing clashes that could shape the future of entire industries. From heated battles over AI-powered technologies to intense disputes in the semiconductor world, these legal cases would determine who will dominate the next wave of technological advancement.
For many, patent disputes are a distant concern, but patent litigators, IP attorneys and patent portfolio managers, these cases are vital to understanding where the industry is headed. Each lawsuit reveals critical insights into risk, opportunity and industry direction. With millions of dollars on the line, these verdicts provide a window into how businesses should approach patent strategy in the years ahead.
This article uncovers the patent litigation cases in the United States from January to June 2025, based on the case verdict dates, offering a closer look at how they’ll shape innovation moving forward. If you’re navigating the world of technology, patents or IP strategy, these cases will offer crucial lessons on what to expect next and how to stay ahead.
Note: The dataset considered for this article includes only the patent litigation cases excluding the IPR, PGR and Ex-parte Re-examination or any other form of patent prosecution. This report is intended solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your circumstances, please consult a qualified attorney.
Patent Litigation Cases in the US (January to March)
| Case Number | Plaintiff | Defendant | Tech Area |
| 1-21-cv-00339 | Fundamental Innovation Systems International Llc | Anker Innovations Ltd | Fantasia Trading Llc | Consumer Electronics and PCs |
| 2-22-cv-00460 | Force MOS Technology Co Ltd | Asus | Semiconductors |
| 1-19-cv-01293 | CHERVON | One World Technologies Inc | Techtronic Industries Co Ltd | Tti Outdoor Power Equipment Inc | Consumer Products |
| 6-21-cv-00457 | Via Transportation Inc | RideCo | E-commerce and Software |
| 2-23-cv-00059 | Touchstream | Charter Communications | Spectrum Gulf Coast Llc | Spectrum Management Holding Company Llc | Digital Media Infrastructure / Software & Hardware |
| 6-21-cv-00128 | WSOU | Cisco | Networking |
| 2-22-cv-00422 | Headwater Research Llc | Samsung Electronics America Inc | Mobile Communications and Devices |
Patent Litigation Cases in the US (April to June)
| Case Number | Plaintiff | Defendant | Tech Area |
| 1-19-cv-00977 | Vlsi Technology Llc | Intel Corporation | Semiconductors |
| 2-23-cv-00103 | Headwater Research Llc | Samsung Display Co Ltd | Samsung Electronics America Inc | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Consumer Electronics and PCs |
| 5-23-cv-00092 | Maxell Ltd | Samsung Electronics America Inc | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Consumer Electronics and PCs |
| 1-21-cv-01302 | Tot Power Control Sl | Apple Inc | Networking |
| 2-23-cv-00427 | Empire Technology Development Llc | Samsung Electronics America Inc | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Mobile Communications and Devices |
| 1-21-cv-00053 | Roger P Jackson | Nuvasive Inc | Healthcare / Medical Devices |
| 2-23-cv-00158 | General Access Solutions Ltd | Ericsson Inc | T-Mobile Usa Inc | Networking |
| 2-22-cv-00494 | Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd | Lg Electronics Inc | Lg Electronics Usa Inc | Media & Entertainment |
| 1-18-cv-01477 | Cosmokey Solutions Gmbh & Co Kg | Cisco Systems Inc | Duo Security Llc | Information Technology |
| 2-21-cv-00799 | Utherverse Gaming Llc | Epic Games Inc | Gary And Brian Shuster | Digital Media Infrastructure |
| 3-23-cv-05261 | Omnitracs Llc | Smartdrive Systems Inc | Xrs Corporation | Motive Technologies Inc | Industrial Automation |
Are You Keeping Track of the Latest US Patent Litigation Cases?
The stakes are higher than ever in patent litigation this year. In first quarter, Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC is battling Anker Innovations Ltd over key consumer electronics patents—$27.27 million at risk. But that’s just the beginning. In second quarter, VLSI Technology LLC is taking Intel Corporation to court over semiconductor patents, with an eye-popping $948.76 million at stake!
Want to see the same detailed insights for every case in the article? We’ve tracked each patent litigation, and the data could drastically shift your IP strategy. Don’t miss out on critical information that could shape your legal moves.
Fill out the form below to get access to exclusive information and stay ahead of the game!
Which GAUs Handled Most US Patents Involved In Litigation?
This table presents the number of patents handled by various GAU (Group Art Units) in US Patent Litigation Cases from January to June. It reflects that multiple patents may be involved in disputes, with the understanding that a single case might have involved multiple GAUs, as each patent may be categorized under GAUs depending on the technology or function disclosed in the patent.
| Group Art Unit (GAU) | GAU Definition | Number of Patents |
| 3671 | Road structure, process, or apparatus | 8 |
| 1645 | Drug, bio-affecting and body treating compositions | 7 |
| 3661 | Data processing: vehicles, navigation, and relative location | 4 |
| 2484 | Motion video signal processing for recording or reproducing | 4 |
| 3667 | Data processing: vehicles, navigation, and relative location | 3 |
| 2171 | Data processing: presentation processing of document, operator interface processing, and screen saver display processing | 3 |
| 2421 | Interactive video distribution systems | 3 |
| 2425 | Interactive video distribution systems | 3 |
| 3663 | Data processing: vehicles, navigation, and relative location | 3 |
| 2426 | Interactive video distribution systems | 3 |
Navigating Litigation Risk: Strategic Considerations for IP Teams
The current litigation landscape underscores the importance of taking a proactive and informed approach to risk mitigation. For in-house legal departments and IP teams, several key questions are worth exploring in light of recent verdicts and enforcement trends.
How closely does the company’s portfolio intersect with the GAUs and technologies most frequently litigated this year? Has the team reviewed existing license agreements that could serve as benchmarks—or liabilities—in future damages arguments? Prior license terms have been repeatedly referenced in damages assessments, as seen in recent decisions and litigation guidance issued by firms such as Caldwell Law.
Beyond portfolio overlap, the timing and structure of licensing engagements are increasingly crucial. Several rulings in H1 2025 suggest that courts remain responsive to arguments grounded in comparability of past licenses, especially in sectors with rapid innovation cycles like semiconductors and AI-driven hardware. This lends weight to the idea that a well-structured, early-stage licensing program is not just a monetization channel, but also a strategic shield in the event of litigation.
In-house teams may also need to reassess their monitoring mechanisms. Are dockets and USPTO data streams being tracked in real time? Are systems in place to flag GAU or competitor overlaps before the litigation stage? Such questions—routinely asked by top-performing IP departments—should form the backbone of any mid-year strategy session.
Licensing and Monetization: From Passive Revenue to Litigation Strategy
The link between litigation trends and licensing behavior is no longer speculative. Several recent decisions show that patent owners who entered into well-documented, arms-length license agreements were better positioned to demonstrate reasonable royalty baselines, particularly when those agreements involved similar technology and market conditions.
This evolution is mirrored in a 2025 working paper by the Wharton School’s Mack Institute, which found a statistically significant correlation between patent litigation intensity and firms’ shift toward proactive licensing and patent acquisition behaviors. The implies that monetization strategies now need to be calibrated not only for revenue yield but also for enforceability, credibility in court and alignment with litigation precedents.
Implications for International IP Strategy
Although this article focuses on US patent litigation cases, the ripple effects extend well beyond domestic borders. For counsel operating in Europe, Asia and other jurisdictions, US verdicts often set benchmarks for licensing negotiations and valuation models globally.
Multinationals frequently reference US damage awards and litigation posture during global cross-licensing discussions, especially in tech-heavy industries. Additionally, non-US implementers whose products enter the US market, either directly or through supply chains, may find themselves exposed to US enforcement actions, even when primary operations remain abroad.
For this reason, global IP strategy cannot ignore US litigation trends. Aligning domestic and US enforcement posture, mapping portfolio exposure across jurisdictions and understanding how US verdicts affect royalty stacking and standard-essential licensing abroad are becoming essential steps for internationally active IP holders.
Want to Explore Patent Litigation in Your Tech Domain?
Looking for in-depth insights on US patent litigation cases in your specific area of expertise? Fill out the form to gain access to comprehensive case details that could refine your legal strategy and give you a competitive edge!
