The Patent Litigation Process

The diagram below illustrates the principal stages of a patent dispute from the initial identification of potential infringement through to final resolution.

Landmark Disputes in Patent Litigation

1. AI-Driven Patent Disputes

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence has introduced a distinct and emerging category of patent disputes. Companies now seek protection not only for AI-enabled products and processes, but increasingly for algorithms, machine-learning architectures, and, in some cases, inventions generated autonomously by AI systems without direct human input.

These disputes extend beyond conventional questions of infringement. They raise fundamental issues concerning who qualifies as a legal inventor, what constitutes a patentable contribution in AI-assisted research, and how existing legal frameworks should adapt to technologies that were not contemplated when those frameworks were created.

Recentive Analytics Inc. filed proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company LLC, and Fox Sports Productions LLC, asserting infringement of four patents relating to the use of machine learning to optimize the scheduling of live events and to generate network maps determining broadcast content across geographic markets.

Fox moved to dismiss on the ground that the patents were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The district court granted the motion. On 18 April 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming the dismissal, holding that patents which do no more than apply generic machine-learning techniques to a new data environment — without disclosing improvements to the machine-learning process itself — are patent ineligible under Section 101.

The court reasoned that iterative training of a machine-learning model on new data is merely incidental to the nature of machine learning and does not constitute a technological improvement. This represents the Federal Circuit's first precedential ruling on the patent eligibility of machine-learning inventions, with far-reaching implications for how AI-related patents are drafted, asserted, and challenged.

2. Patent Disputes in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Sectors

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries continue to generate some of the most high-value and impactful patent litigation worldwide. Patents in these sectors protect not only commercial products but also technologies with direct implications for public health — including life-saving medicines, gene therapies, vaccine platforms, and advanced drug-delivery systems. Recent litigation has focused on mRNA vaccine technologies, CRISPR-based gene-editing tools, biosimilar market entry, and next-generation biologics.

BioNTech filed an action before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on 19 February 2026, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,133,899 relating to a streamlined mRNA vaccine design, following Moderna's launch of mNEXSPIKE, its next-generation COVID-19 vaccine.

The dispute forms part of a broader pattern of multi-directional litigation between the two companies. In August 2022, Moderna had itself commenced proceedings against Pfizer and BioNTech, alleging infringement of three foundational mRNA patents. In March 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held two of those three patents invalid on grounds of obviousness, a determination presently under appeal before the Federal Circuit. BioNTech's 2026 action represents a strategic escalation, with both parties now asserting competing rights over successive generations of mRNA technology.

Moderna has projected that mNEXSPIKE will account for approximately 55% of its COVID-19 vaccine revenue during the 2025 to 2026 respiratory season. The dispute also raises the unresolved question of whether a company's pandemic-era pledge not to enforce its intellectual property may give rise to an implied license under U.S. patent law — an issue courts in multiple jurisdictions are now being called upon to address.

3. Patent Infringement Litigation

Patent infringement litigation arises when an entity is alleged to have made, used, sold, or otherwise commercialized a patented invention without authorization. Software and digital technology patents have become a particularly active area of infringement litigation in recent years, reflecting continuing uncertainty regarding the scope of patent-eligible subject matter and the interpretation of software-related claims.

Express Mobile Inc. filed proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in October 2019, alleging that GoDaddy's Website Builder and Managed WordPress tools infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168, both relating to technology for building and rendering websites through runtime files and database-driven webpage generation.

The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of GoDaddy following a narrow construction of the term 'runtime engine.' On 2 April 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed that construction and vacated the summary judgment. The dispute then proceeded to a jury trial. On 6 November 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Express Mobile and awarded total damages of USD 170 million, also finding GoDaddy's infringement to be willful. GoDaddy has indicated its intention to challenge the verdict through post-trial motions and appellate proceedings.

The case illustrates the continuing enforceability of foundational software patents and the decisive role that appellate review of claim construction can play in altering the trajectory of a dispute.

4. Patent Licensing and FRAND Disputes

Standard Essential Patents cover technologies indispensable to recognized technical standards such as mobile communications, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. SEP holders are generally required to license these patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. Disputes arise when parties cannot agree on FRAND-compliant royalty terms or when either party is alleged to have failed to negotiate in good faith.

This dispute concerned patents declared essential to the 5G wireless communications standard. Both parties had undertaken FRAND commitments but were unable to agree on royalty terms for a global cross-license, leading to parallel proceedings across the United Kingdom, Brazil, Colombia, the US International Trade Commission, and the Eastern District of North Carolina.

On 24 October 2024, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's denial of anti-suit relief sought by Lenovo, holding that a SEP holder's FRAND commitment may preclude it from seeking injunctive relief where good-faith negotiation obligations remain unfulfilled. The parties entered a global patent cross-license on 3 April 2025, with remaining elements referred to binding arbitration.

The case is significant for clarifying the relationship between SEP enforcement, injunctive relief, and good-faith negotiation obligations under US law, and for demonstrating the growing role of US courts in resolving multinational FRAND disputes.

5. Patent Ownership Disputes

Patent ownership disputes frequently arise in employment and collaborative research contexts. Where inventions are developed in the course of employment or funded research, questions often emerge regarding who holds the right to apply for and enforce patent protection. The validity and precision of assignment agreements are central to resolving such disputes.

In October 2020, Rasmussen Instruments LLC filed proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of two patents covering instruments used during surgical installation of knee replacement implants. The inventor, Dr. G. Lynn Rasmussen, had assigned all his intellectual property rights in the invention to Wright Medical in 2006. When the parties ended their business relationship in 2013, neither the settlement agreement nor the related license agreement contained any express reassignment of those patent rights. He nonetheless purported to assign the patents to Rasmussen Instruments LLC in 2020, which then brought infringement action.

On 6 October 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that Rasmussen Instruments never owned the patents at the time of filing. The court held that the 2006 assignment had transferred ownership to Wright Medical and that an express written reassignment was required to restore those rights.

Landmark Cases at a Glance

The following table summarizes the five landmark disputes examined in this article, their categories, and their principal legal significance.

Technology-Wise Patent Disputes: A Decade in Review (2015–2025)

Over the past decade, patent disputes have concentrated heavily in sectors central to digital infrastructure, life sciences, and emerging technologies. The analysis below provides a sector-by-sector view of dispute intensity based on commonly reported litigation hotspots, the commercial stakes typically involved, and the frequency with which these technologies appear in major disputes.

Methodological note: Dispute intensity labels are qualitative descriptors reflecting recurring venue patterns, typical remedy exposure, and observed clustering around standards or platform features. For publication-grade statistics, this analysis should be paired with a defined dataset and an explicit counting methodology.

The data reveals a clear hierarchy of litigation intensity. Semiconductors and mobile communications — the twin pillars of modern digital infrastructure — generate the highest volume and monetary value of patent disputes. Life sciences, including biopharmaceuticals and biotechnology, account for a substantial share of global cases, driven by biosimilar competition and the growing commercialization of gene-editing technologies.

Artificial intelligence and software patents are rapidly increasing in importance as early AI-focused patent portfolios begin to be asserted in courts worldwide. Electric vehicles and digital media currently represent a smaller share of overall litigation but are growing steadily as their commercial importance rises.

Country-Wise Patent Disputes: Global Enforcement Landscape

The volume and character of patent disputes vary considerably across jurisdictions. Each country's litigation landscape is shaped by its legal infrastructure, the maturity of its patent courts, the strength of domestic innovation industries, and its broader approach to balancing intellectual property protection with the public interest.

United States

The United States is widely regarded as the most active jurisdiction for patent litigation worldwide. Cases are concentrated in the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Texas, and the District of Delaware. Non-Practicing Entities account for a substantial share of patent litigation and frequently initiate proceedings against technology companies. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board provides an important forum for reviewing patent validity through Inter Partes Review proceedings, which have become a core element of patent enforcement strategy.

China

China is the largest patent filing jurisdiction in the world and has increasingly emerged as a major forum for patent litigation. The China National Intellectual Property Administration receives more than one million patent applications each year. Specialized intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou adjudicate a wide range of disputes, including standard essential patent conflicts and technology infringement claims involving both domestic and foreign parties.

Germany

Germany is one of Europe's leading patent litigation jurisdictions. Its specialized courts in Munich, Düsseldorf, and Mannheim are widely known for their technical expertise and procedural efficiency. Germany is frequently chosen as a forum for disputes in the automotive, industrial machinery, and telecommunications sectors and has played a prominent role in standard essential patent litigation. The introduction of the Unified Patent Court in 2023 has further strengthened Germany's position as a key Centre for patent enforcement in Europe.

European Union — Unified Patent Court

The Unified Patent Court commenced operations in 2023, introducing a coordinated framework for patent enforcement across participating EU member states with the authority to grant injunctions and revocation decisions with effect across multiple jurisdictions. Early cases have included several standard essential patent disputes, suggesting growing reliance on the system by both patent holders and implementers.

Japan

Patent disputes in Japan are primarily resolved through the Tokyo District Court and the Intellectual Property High Court. Japanese patent holders have traditionally favored negotiation and licensing over litigation. However, increased competition in semiconductors, automotive manufacturing, and robotics has contributed to a gradual rise in contested patent proceedings.

South Korea

South Korea occupies a significant position in the global patent landscape, supported by a high volume of filings handled by the Korea Intellectual Property Office. The country is home to major corporate patent holders, including Samsung Electronics. South Korean courts regularly hear disputes involving semiconductors, display technologies, and wireless communications, and the LG Energy Solution v. SK Innovation dispute highlighted the commercial importance of battery technology patents.

India

India has increasingly come to be viewed as an important patent litigation jurisdiction, reflecting developments in judicial practice and the country's expanding role in innovation-led markets. The Delhi High Court serves as the principal forum for complex patent disputes. Notable matters include Bristol Myers Squibb v. Zydus Lifesciences, the Philips SEP litigation, RxPrism Health Systems v. Canva, and Nippon Steel Corporation v. Controller of Patents. Indian courts frequently balance patent enforcement against public interest considerations, particularly in cases involving pharmaceuticals and access to medicines.

Conclusion

Patent litigation today is more complex, more consequential, and more globally interconnected than ever before. It operates at the intersection of law, technology, commerce, and public policy — serving not only as a mechanism for resolving disputes but also as a strategic instrument through which market positions are established, competitors are constrained, licensing markets are shaped, and societies balance the need to reward innovation with the need to ensure access.

The technology-specific analysis in this article shows that litigation is concentrated in a small number of high-value sectors including semiconductors, mobile communications, biopharmaceuticals, and increasingly artificial intelligence. The rise of AI-related litigation is especially significant as AI moves from research into commercial application, raising questions around inventorship and patentability that existing frameworks are still evolving to address.

The country-specific analysis shows that the global enforcement landscape is becoming more distributed. The United States remains the leading jurisdiction in terms of volume and financial scale, while China, India, South Korea, and the European Union are taking on increasingly prominent roles. Cross-border disputes involving parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions are now common in major technology conflicts, increasing both the complexity and the cost of litigation.

For innovators, businesses, and legal practitioners, understanding these evolving trends across technologies and jurisdictions is no longer optional. It is a core part of effective intellectual property strategy and risk management in a competitive and innovation-driven global economy.

References

1. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 23-2437, Federal Circuit Opinion (Apr. 18, 2025)
2. Recentive Analytics, Inc., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court No. 25-505 (Oct. 21, 2025)
3. Pharmaceutical Executive, BioNTech Files Suit Against Moderna for Patent Infringement (Feb. 20, 2026)
4. Patent Docs, BioNTech Sues Moderna over mRNA Vaccine Technology (Feb. 26, 2026)
5. Bloomberg Law, GoDaddy Owes $170 Million in Express Mobile Patent Verdict (Nov. 7, 2025)
6. Ericsson Press Release, Ericsson and Lenovo settle patent litigation (Apr. 3, 2025)
7. Rasmussen Instruments, LLC v. DePuy Synthes Products, Inc., No. 23-1855, Federal Circuit Opinion (Oct. 6, 2025)
8. IPWatchdog, Federal Circuit Vacates $20 Million Damages Award for Rasmussen Instruments Over Patent Ownership (Oct. 7, 2025)
9. Justia, Rasmussen Instruments, LLC v. DePuy Synthes Products, Inc., No. 23-1855 (Fed. Cir. 2025)