The case stems from a patent licensing agreement signed in 2019 between LG Electronics and several entities under IV. LG agreed to pay US$12.8 million in licence fees to ensure that LG and its customers would be protected from infringement litigation when using the relevant technology. The parties agreed that damages for breach of contract would be limited to the licence fees paid by LG. However, IV subsequently sued LG’s customers, General Motors and Toyota Motor Corporation, in a US federal court in Texas, resulting in LG facing claims totalling approximately US$17.2 million. LG consequently filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Superior Court in November 2022, alleging that IV had breached the contract.

The case centres on Dyson’s European patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to an attachment structure for a handheld hair styling device. The core of the invention lies in a specific airflow outlet design that directs airflow along the outer surface of the attachment, thereby achieving an automatic curling effect. Dyson argued that its Airwrap product was developed based on this technology, and that ZuiMi’s “Dazzle Hair Styler” and its curling attachment fell within the scope of protection of claims 1 and 11 of the patent in question, constituting direct or equivalent infringement.

This case originated from a lawsuit filed by Cellspin Soft in October 2023 in the Western District of Texas against TikTok for infringing seven of its patents. TikTok subsequently filed IPR petitions with the PTAB, seeking to have the patents declared invalid. Cellspin filed a motion to terminate the IPR, citing two grounds: firstly, that TikTok is controlled by a foreign government, and pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s Return Mail precedent, foreign governments lack the authority to initiate IPR proceedings; and secondly, that TikTok had failed to disclose all actual interested parties and beneficial owners as required.

This Brazilian litigation is merely one part of InterDigital’s global patent enforcement campaign against Transsion; InterDigital has simultaneously filed lawsuits against Transsion in multiple jurisdictions worldwide.

This preliminary injunction stems from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the medical technology company Abbott. Abbott alleges that Sanuo and Menarini’s GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring products infringe its EP 4344633 patent (hereinafter “EP 633”) and EP 3988471 patent (hereinafter “EP 471”). In mid-October 2024, the District Court of The Hague issued a preliminary injunction regarding the EP 633 patent but dismissed Abbott’s application based on the other patent, EP 471. Abbott subsequently filed an appeal regarding the EP 471 patent; that appeal was heard in February 2026, and a ruling has not yet been issued.

The case centered on Nike’s Flyknit knitted upper technology. Nike asserted that its U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 protects a technical solution for forming an upper structure through a specific knitting method. This solution achieves a differentiated distribution of support and elasticity across different areas of a single-layer knitted material, thereby enhancing the upper’s fit and athletic performance. Based on this, Nike alleged that lululemon’s Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel series of athletic shoes utilized the same or substantially the same knitted structure and manufacturing approach, constituting patent infringement.

On March 30 local time, Maren Wade, a singer and columnist from Las Vegas, filed a lawsuit against renowned singer Taylor Swift in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the promotion and merchandising of Swift’s latest album, *The Life of a Showgirl*, infringed upon the plaintiff’s “Showgirl” trademark rights, which she has held for over a decade.

This case centers on a portfolio of SEPs related to video codecs held by both parties. Acer argues that the royalty rates and terms proposed by Nokia deviate from comparable industry transactions and violate FRAND obligations, requesting the court to conduct a substantive review. Nokia, however, invokes the arbitration clause in the confidentiality agreement previously signed by both parties, asserting that the dispute should be excluded from court jurisdiction.

The Munich Regional Court, First Instance, found that OPPO and its affiliate OnePlus infringed on ISC’s EP2802185 patent (“Method and Apparatus for Adding Service Cells in a Wireless Communication System”), which covers multi-mode dual-connectivity technology and qualifies as a 5G standard essential patent. Based on this finding, the court issued an injunction prohibiting the sale of the infringing devices in the German market.

The central issue in this case was whether an internet service provider constitutes “contributory infringement” if it fails to take effective measures, such as terminating service, after becoming aware that its users are committing copyright infringement through its network. Major music rights holders, including Sony Music, argued that after receiving over 160,000 infringement notices, Cox merely issued warnings and implemented temporary suspensions without actually terminating the accounts of numerous repeat infringers. They contended that Cox should therefore bear liability for contributory infringement and sought a record $1 billion in damages. The jury and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted this view, holding Cox liable.