Litigation News

Adeia filed two lawsuits against AMD in Texas federal court alleging infringement of ten patents related to semiconductor manufacturing technology. The suits target AMD processors with 3D V-Cache technology used in desktops, laptops, servers, and AI chips. Adeia claims its predecessor Tessera pioneered hybrid bonding and advanced process nodes that AMD uses without authorization. Adeia seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to stop AMD's use of the patented technology.

Nokia filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Warner Bros Discovery in Delaware federal court, alleging Warner's streaming services violate 13 Nokia patents for video encoding and decoding technology. Nokia claims its patented technology enables compression of raw video files for high-definition streaming. The companies have been unable to reach licensing agreement since Nokia notified Warner in 2023. Nokia seeks unspecified monetary damages. This follows similar Nokia patent suits against Paramount, Acer, and others over video-streaming capabilities.

Comcast filed a Federal Circuit mandamus petition challenging the Eastern District of Texas's application of patent venue law to method claims. In Sandpiper CDN v. Comcast, Judge Gilstrap ruled that performing one step of a multi-step method in the district establishes venue. District courts are split between the "one-step rule" and requiring all steps be performed locally. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports Comcast's position, arguing the current approach enables forum shopping by NPEs.

Adeia filed two patent infringement lawsuits against AMD in US District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging unauthorized use of ten semiconductor patents including seven hybrid bonding patents used in AMD's 3D V-Cache processors and three advanced process technology patents. Adeia claims years of unsuccessful licensing negotiations preceded the litigation. The company seeks licensing fees that could impact AMD's 3D-stacked packaging products and long-term roadmap. AMD has not yet responded publicly.

Samsung Electronics lost an OLED patent infringement lawsuit in Texas federal court, ordered to pay $191.4 million in damages to Pictiva Display. The jury found Samsung infringed two patents related to OLED display resolution, brightness, and power efficiency in Galaxy smartphones, TVs, PCs, and wearables. Pictiva, a subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations holding patents from early 2000s Osram technology, filed suit in 2023. Samsung plans to appeal and is pursuing patent invalidation proceedings at the USPTO.

Texas federal jury ordered Samsung Electronics to pay $191.4 million to Pictiva Displays for willfully infringing two OLED technology patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,314,547 and 11,828,425). Samsung must pay $98.8 million for the '547 patent and $92.6 million for the '425 patent. The jury found willful infringement, potentially enabling enhanced damages, but cleared Samsung on three other patents in the case.

INTOCELL's patent dispute over its core Nexatecan3 ADC technology was resolved when Samsung Bioepis signed an exclusive license agreement with Chinese biotech Frontline Biopharma. The deal addressed patent overlap concerns that had created market uncertainty and led to Abybel Bio terminating its licensing agreement with INTOCELL in July. The resolution cleared patent risks and reinforced INTOCELL's partnership with Samsung Bioepis for developing ADC candidates.

Supreme Court ruled that IP infringement suits involving continuing violations are exempt from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Danish manufacturer Novenco Building sued former distributor Xero Energy Engineering Solutions and Aeronaut Fans Industry for patent and design infringement. Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the plaint for non-compliance with mediation requirements, but Supreme Court reversed, holding continuing infringement creates inherent urgency that bypasses mediation mandates.

NCLAT ruled that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) lacks jurisdiction to examine disputes involving patented products, stating patent holders have rights to restrain infringement and impose reasonable conditions. The appellate tribunal clarified the boundaries between competition law enforcement and patent rights, limiting CCI's authority over patent-related matters and affirming patent holders' exclusive rights to control their intellectual property through infringement actions.

NCLAT ruled CCI lacks jurisdiction to investigate patented product disputes, holding Patent Act prevails over Competition Act. The tribunal dismissed an appeal by Swapan Dey challenging CCI's closure of a complaint against Swiss pharma Vifor International regarding Ferric Carboxymaltose injection pricing. NCLAT cited Delhi High Court's Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson decision and Supreme Court confirmation that patent rights override competition law. Vifor's FCM patent expired October 2023, but jurisdiction question remained central to ruling.