Issue No. 1
Four campaigns filed, and three decisions from the Federal Circuit.
01 Cases Filed
New patent complaints, reported from the complaints as filed — parties, counsel of record, asserted patents, accused products, and the relief sought.
E.D. Tex. — Marshall Division2:26-cv-00584-RWSFiled July 16, 2026
Crestone IP Management, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III · Claims: Infringement
Defendant(s)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea)Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York corp.)Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (California corp.)
Plaintiff
Crestone IP Management, LLC — Delaware LLC, 401 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL
Plaintiff's counsel
Devlin Law Firm LLC — C. Chad Henson (TX Bar No. 24087711), sole counsel of record
Asserted patents (4)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,771,012 | Jason Sachs | Hybrid RC/crystal oscillator | Sept. 8, 2020 |
| 8,261,072 | Kerry D. Maletsky; Nathanael J. Bohlmann | Method and system for secure external TPM password generation and use | Sept. 4, 2012 |
| 9,288,534 | Gene Sheridan; Hooman Kashef Hamadani; Ramanathan Subramaniam | Systems and methods for operating media devices | Mar. 15, 2016 |
| 7,599,231 | Marco Passerini; Stefano Sivero; Andrea Sacco; Monica Marziani | Adaptive regulator for idle state in a charge pump circuit of a memory device | Oct. 7, 2009 |
Summary
The complaint states the asserted patents originate from a portfolio developed by Microchip Technology Incorporated and its affiliates, including Microchip Technology Ireland Limited, Atmel Corporation, Silicon Storage Technology, and Microsemi Corporation. Crestone pleads it acquired the patents by assignment and holds all substantial rights, including the right to collect past damages. No assignment dates or reel/frame data are recited.
Accused products
Samsung smartphones, tablets, laptops, and solid-state hard drives. The claim chart for the '231 patent (Ex. H) uses the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra as the exemplar.
Theories pleaded
Direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, on all four counts. No §271(b) inducement or §271(c) contributory count is pleaded. Willfulness alleged from actual pre-suit notice on or about May 29, 2026 as to the '231 patent; §285 exceptional case alleged.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 et seq.; damages to be proven at trial including supplemental post-verdict damages and not less than a reasonable royalty; a permanent injunction under §283; an accounting; enhanced damages for willfulness; costs and attorneys' fees under §285; pre- and post-judgment interest; and other relief. Jury trial demanded.
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a); venue under §§1391 and 1400 based on a regular and established place of business at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, TX, and prior venue concessions by Samsung in this District.
Noted in the complaintInternal inconsistency in the complaint: the caption and Count III plead U.S. Patent No. 9,288,534, while the patent-section heading reads 9,228,534.
E.D. Tex. — Marshall Division2:26-cv-00586-RWSFiled July 16, 2026
Crestone IP Management, LLC v. HP Inc.
District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III · Claims: Infringement
Defendant(s)
HP Inc. (Delaware corp., Palo Alto, CA)
Plaintiff
Crestone IP Management, LLC — Delaware LLC, 401 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL
Plaintiff's counsel
Devlin Law Firm LLC — C. Chad Henson (TX Bar No. 24087711), sole counsel of record
Asserted patents (4)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,771,012 | Jason Sachs | Hybrid RC/crystal oscillator | Sept. 8, 2020 |
| 8,261,072 | Kerry D. Maletsky; Nathanael J. Bohlmann | Method and system for secure external TPM password generation and use | Sept. 4, 2012 |
| 9,288,534 | Gene Sheridan; Hooman Kashef Hamadani; Ramanathan Subramaniam | Systems and methods for operating media devices | Mar. 15, 2016 |
| 7,599,231 | Marco Passerini; Stefano Sivero; Andrea Sacco; Monica Marziani | Adaptive regulator for idle state in a charge pump circuit of a memory device | Oct. 7, 2009 |
Summary
The complaint states the asserted patents originate from a portfolio developed by Microchip Technology Incorporated and its affiliates, including Microchip Technology Ireland Limited, Atmel Corporation, Silicon Storage Technology, and Microsemi Corporation. Crestone pleads it acquired the patents by assignment and holds all substantial rights, including the right to collect past damages. No assignment dates or reel/frame data are recited.
Accused products
HP desktop computers, laptops, and Chromebooks. By patent: '012 — HP ENVY, Pavilion, Slim and OMEN 35L desktops and OMEN Gaming Laptop 16t-am000 (exemplar); '072 — laptops with a trusted platform module including the EliteBook Ultra G1i, ZBook X G1i, Elite x360 1040 G11, ZBook 8 G1i, ProBook 4 G1i and ZBook Fury G1i (exemplar: EliteBook Ultra G1i); '534 — Chromebook models including Fortis G1i, Elite c640 G3 and Chromebook Plus (exemplar: Chromebook 14a-nf0050nr); '231 — computers using TLC 3D NAND flash memory (exemplar: OMEN Gaming Laptop 16t-am000).
Theories pleaded
Direct infringement under §271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, on all four counts. No inducement or contributory count. Willfulness alleged from actual notice on or about July 29, 2025 ('012), March 26, 2026 ('534) and June 26, 2026 ('231), with follow-up correspondence in December 2025 and February 2026; §285 exceptional case alleged.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 et seq.; damages to be proven at trial including supplemental post-verdict damages and not less than a reasonable royalty; a permanent injunction under §283; an accounting; enhanced damages for willfulness; costs and attorneys' fees under §285; pre- and post-judgment interest; and other relief. Jury trial demanded.
Jurisdiction & venue
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a); venue under §§1391 and 1400 based on a regular and established place of business at 6901 Windcrest Dr., Plano, TX, supported by Collin County tax records and HP's prior non-contest of venue in this District.
Noted in the complaintInternal inconsistency in the complaint: the caption and Count III plead U.S. Patent No. 9,288,534, while the patent-section heading reads 9,228,534.
W.D. Tex. — Austin Division1:26-cv-01976Filed July 16, 2026
Crestone IP Management, LLC v. Apple Inc.
Not yet assigned on the docket · Claims: Infringement
Defendant(s)
Apple Inc. (California corp., Cupertino, CA)
Plaintiff
Crestone IP Management, LLC — Delaware LLC, 401 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL
Plaintiff's counsel
Devlin Law Firm LLC — C. Chad Henson (TX Bar No. 24087711), sole counsel of record
Asserted patents (4)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,771,012 | Jason Sachs | Hybrid RC/crystal oscillator | Sept. 8, 2020 |
| 8,261,072 | Kerry D. Maletsky; Nathanael J. Bohlmann | Method and system for secure external TPM password generation and use | Sept. 4, 2012 |
| 9,288,534 | Gene Sheridan; Hooman Kashef Hamadani; Ramanathan Subramaniam | Systems and methods for operating media devices | Mar. 15, 2016 |
| 7,599,231 | Marco Passerini; Stefano Sivero; Andrea Sacco; Monica Marziani | Adaptive regulator for idle state in a charge pump circuit of a memory device | Oct. 7, 2009 |
Summary
The complaint states the asserted patents originate from a portfolio developed by Microchip Technology Incorporated and its affiliates, including Microchip Technology Ireland Limited, Atmel Corporation, Silicon Storage Technology, and Microsemi Corporation. Crestone pleads it acquired the patents by assignment and holds all substantial rights, including the right to collect past damages. No assignment dates or reel/frame data are recited.
Accused products
Apple mobile phones, iPads and MacBooks. By patent: '012 — smartphones using a hybrid RC/crystal oscillator (exemplar: iPhone 16e); '072 — devices using Secure Enclave for biometric security across the iPhone 14–17 lines, iPad 11/Pro/Air/Mini, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and iMac (exemplar: MacBook Pro 14"); '534 — devices acting as a remote controller between a media source and media player, across the same iPhone, iPad and Mac lines (exemplar: iPhone 16 Pro); '231 — iPhones using TLC 3D NAND flash memory, identified as Kioxia 2yy NAND (exemplar: iPhone 17).
Theories pleaded
Direct infringement under §271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, on all four counts. No inducement or contributory count. Willfulness alleged from actual notice on or about July 17, 2025 ('012, '072, '534) with follow-up correspondence August 26, 2025, and June 25, 2026 ('231); §285 exceptional case alleged.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 et seq.; damages to be proven at trial including supplemental post-verdict damages and not less than a reasonable royalty; a permanent injunction under §283; an accounting; enhanced damages for willfulness; costs and attorneys' fees under §285; pre- and post-judgment interest; and other relief. Jury trial demanded.
Jurisdiction & venue
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a); venue under §§1391 and 1400 based on Apple's Austin campuses at 12545 Riata Vista Circle and 6900 W Parmer Lane, an engineering center in West Lake Hills, and Texas retail locations, together with the transfer denial affirmed in In re Apple, No. 2024-111 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2024).
Noted in the complaintInternal inconsistency in the complaint: the caption and Count III plead U.S. Patent No. 9,288,534, while the patent-section heading reads 9,228,534.
D. Delaware1:26-cv-00868Filed July 16, 2026
VB Assets, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation
Unassigned (1:26-cv-00868-UNA) · Claims: Infringement
Defendant(s)
International Business Machines Corporation (New York corp., Armonk, NY)
Plaintiff
VB Assets, LLC (“VoiceBox”) — Delaware LLC, principal place of business Bellevue, WA
Plaintiff's counsel
Farnan LLP — Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan (Delaware local counsel); Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP — David J. Lender, Rocco J. Recce, Stephanie L. Lee, Gabriel S. Gross, Christopher W. Henry, Bryce Bing Liu (pro hac vice forthcoming); Greenbaum Law LLC — David Greenbaum (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Asserted patents (8)
| Patent | Inventor(s) | Title | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8,073,681 | Larry Baldwin; Tom Freeman; Michael Tjalve; Blane Ebersold; Chris Weider | System and Method for a Cooperative Conversational Voice User Interface | Dec. 6, 2011 |
| 10,755,699 | Baldwin; Freeman; Tjalve; Ebersold; Weider | System and Method for a Cooperative Conversational Voice User Interface | Aug. 25, 2020 |
| 10,510,341 | Baldwin; Freeman; Tjalve; Ebersold; Weider | System and Method for a Cooperative Conversational Voice User Interface | Dec. 17, 2019 |
| 10,515,628 | Baldwin; Freeman; Tjalve; Ebersold; Weider | System and Method for a Cooperative Conversational Voice User Interface | Dec. 24, 2019 |
| 7,818,176 | Tom Freeman; Mike Kennewick | System and Method for Selecting and Presenting Advertisements Based on Natural Language Processing of Voice-Based Input | Oct. 19, 2010 |
| 9,269,097 | Tom Freeman; Mike Kennewick | System and Method for Delivering Targeted Advertisements and/or Providing Natural Language Processing Based on Advertisements | Feb. 23, 2016 |
| 8,145,489 | Tom Freeman; Mike Kennewick | System and Method for Selecting and Presenting Advertisements Based on Natural Language Processing of Voice-Based Input | Mar. 27, 2012 |
| 8,527,274 | Tom Freeman; Mike Kennewick | System and Method for Delivering Targeted Advertisements and Tracking Advertisement Interactions in Voice Recognition Contexts | Sept. 3, 2013 |
Summary
VB Assets pleads it is assignee of the entire right, title and interest in each patent, acting through predecessors VoiceBox Technologies Corporation and VoiceBox Technologies, Inc., founded in 2001 by Mike, Rich and Bob Kennewick. The complaint recites an IBM–VoiceBox relationship dating to at least 2003 memorialized in multiple agreements, and references VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN (D. Del.), which asserted a number of the same patents.
Accused products
IBM Watson products and services comprising voice assistants, voice-based AI systems and voice-recognition technologies, specifically Watson Assistant, watsonx Assistant, Watson Assistant for Voice Interaction, watsonx Orchestrate, and Voice Agent with Watson, together with the software and hardware implementing them. Claim charts are attached as Exhibits I–P.
Theories pleaded
Direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, on all eight counts; the complaint cites §271 generally rather than by subsection. Divided infringement is pleaded on a direction-and-control theory attributing user-device steps to IBM. Inducement is pleaded. No contributory-infringement count. Willfulness is pleaded on every count based on alleged pre-suit knowledge — the parties’ relationship dating to 2003, IBM’s citation of the ’681 and ’274 patents in its own IDS filings, and the 2019 Amazon action — with treble damages sought under §284 and fees under §285.
Relief requested
Plaintiff seeks judgment of direct and indirect infringement of all eight patents; damages adequate to compensate including post-trial acts under §284; a finding of willfulness with damages increased up to three times; a declaration that the case is exceptional with fees under §285; pre- and post-judgment interest; and costs. Jury trial demanded. Notably, no injunction is requested.
Jurisdiction & venue
Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a); venue under §1400(b) based on regular and established places of business at 1001 N. Jefferson St., Wilmington, DE and 540 S. College Ave., Newark, DE, and IBM’s venue admissions in prior Delaware actions.
Noted in the complaintThe complaint pleads validity expressly under 35 U.S.C. §§101, 102, 103 and 112, with dedicated §101-directed sections for both patent families.
02 From the Federal Circuit
Decisions read in full this cycle — posture, what the court decided, and the disposition.
Fed. Cir.No. 2024-2174Decided July 10, 2026Precedential
Intellectual Pixels Limited v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
Before Dyk, Stoll and Stark, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Dyk.
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2021-00237, taken under 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(4)(A). This is Intellectual Pixels' appeal from the Board's SECOND final written decision, entered after the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the first one in Sony Interactive Ent. LLC v. Intellectual Pixels Ltd., No. 2022-2118, 2023 WL 6773879 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023).
Patents and claims at issue
U.S. Patent No. 10,681,109, directed to methods of generating digital images using an external visual server. Claims 1–12 were at issue (Sony petitioned on claims 1–18; Intellectual Pixels statutorily disclaimed 13–18). Claims 1 and 8 are exemplary. The prior art was Wiltshire (U.S. 6,409,602), Saha (U.S. 6,404,817) and the Chen ADSL article: claims 1 and 3–12 obvious over Wiltshire and Saha, claim 2 over Wiltshire, Saha and Chen.
What the court decided
Two issues, both resolved against the patent owner. FIRST, the mandate rule did not bar the Board on remand from making findings about the origin of Wiltshire's compressed MPEG stream. The first final written decision rested solely on the “generating” limitation; the Board's passing observation that Wiltshire was silent as to the content or origin of that stream was not the basis of the first judgment, was not appealable, and was not decided on appeal. The court reviews judgments, not opinions, and only issues “actually decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication” are foreclosed on remand — so the point remained open. The panel added that the finding had been implicitly rejected in the first appeal, and distinguished Bitmanagement IV, 124 F.4th 1368, where the findings at issue fell within the scope of the first appealed judgment. SECOND, substantial evidence supported the Board's finding on the compressing limitation: Sony's petition combined Wiltshire's compressed MPEG stream with Saha's MPEG standards, and the Board credited expert testimony that a skilled artisan would have combined the two.
AFFIRMED. Costs to Sony.
Fed. Cir.No. 2025-1254Decided July 13, 2026Precedential
Ridge Corp. and Cold Chain, LLC v. Kirk NationaLease Co., Truck & Trailer Parts Solutions, Inc. and Altum LLC
Before Dyk, Mayer and Taranto, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Mayer.
Procedural posture
Interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(c)(1) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, No. 2:23-cv-03012-ALM-KAJ, Judge Algenon L. Marbley. Plaintiffs Ridge Corp. and Cold Chain held the preliminary injunction — the second one, granted in November 2024 after Ridge amended to add patent owner Cold Chain. The first injunction, from November 2023, had been vacated by the Federal Circuit for lack of standing, No. 2024-1138, 2024 WL 3617130 (Aug. 1, 2024). Defendants Kirk NationaLease, TTPS and Altum appealed.
Patents and claims at issue
U.S. Patent No. 9,151,084, directed to an insulated overhead door. Owned by Cold Chain, with Ridge the exclusive licensee as of February 2023. Claims 1, 12 and 17 asserted; the analysis turns on claim 1. Unasserted dependent claim 9 was also discussed.
What the court decided
Applying Sixth Circuit law to the injunction factors and Federal Circuit law to likelihood of success, the court held that defendants raised a substantial question of noninfringement on three separate limitations. (1) “Panel being flexible along the entire length” — the accused sandwich panel is rigid and made traversable only by routed compression gaps, leaving rigid sections between them; the prosecution history, in which Cold Chain distinguished art “rather than relying on multiple rigid hinged sections,” confirms the entire panel must be flexible. (2) “Foam insulating material forming the second outermost surface” — both outermost surfaces of the accused door are thermoplastic membranes, and Cold Chain had distinguished Rauenbusch's sandwich structure on exactly that ground; unasserted dependent claim 9 cannot broaden an otherwise clear independent claim. (3) “Insulated overhead door” — construed from the specification and expert testimony as a door with insulating properties suitable for cold storage, though the court declined to read in a specific R-value. The court also rejected irreparable harm: the price-erosion theory lacked a causal nexus (Ridge had sold no single-panel roll-up doors before the first injunction and then had the field to itself for a year), and the false-marking and tortious-interference conduct was past conduct with no credible evidence of recurrence, citing Murthy v. Missouri and Hess v. Oakland County. Granting the injunction was an abuse of discretion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. Costs to the Kirk NationaLease defendants.
Fed. Cir.No. 2024-1996Decided July 16, 2026Precedential · COPYRIGHT under 28 U.S.C. §1498(b) — no patents at issue
4DD Holdings, LLC and T4 Data Group, LLC v. United States (Immix Technology, Inc., third-party defendant)
Before Prost, Hughes and Stark, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Hughes.
Procedural posture
Appeal from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 1:15-cv-00945-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink, from a judgment awarding 4DD $12,683,065.86, taken under 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(3). The claim is government infringement of 4DD's TETRA® software under 28 U.S.C. §1498(b). The trial court found the government exceeded its Federator license by 290,334 cores and its Studio license by 171,421 seats. NOTE: this is a copyright case, included here only because the damages holdings on the hypothetical negotiation and the book of wisdom bear directly on reasonable-royalty practice.
What the court decided
Affirmed in part and vacated in part on damages. HYPOTHETICAL NEGOTIATION (affirmed): neither §1498(b) nor the case law compels a court to adopt the rates in the parties' own license — here the SEWP $24,000/core and $6,000/seat rates, or the negotiated $10,447/core rates. Past licenses “must always take account of economically relevant differences” (Gaylord III), and where the licensed use is not analogous to the infringing use a hypothetical negotiation is proper; Polar Bear, Szekely and Thoroughbred Software announce no per se rule to the contrary. BOOK OF WISDOM (legal error): the doctrine (Sinclair Refining, 289 U.S. 689) permits considering later-arising facts — including the details of the adaptation process and the number and type of copies made — but only “to bring out and expose to light the elements of value that were there from the beginning.” It may not be used to impute knowledge of later, unforeseeable events affecting the license's value; the trial court's reliance on a change in government leadership and the resulting cancellation of TETRA before implementation, to find 4DD's bargaining position weakened and to conclude the parties would have negotiated only development licenses, was legal error and not harmless. RHAPSODY (affirmed): no formal finding of full substitutability is required; it was within discretion to weigh a similar, cheaper product that performed at least some of TETRA's functions. STATUTORY DAMAGES (legal error): the $150,000 Studio award, set as the equivalent of enhanced statutory damages for willfulness, was impermissible — §1498(b) allows only “reasonable and entire compensation,” including the MINIMUM statutory damages under §504(c); non-compensatory or punitive damages are unavailable against the government (Gaylord II). The court also rejected the argument that unused Studio copies had to be separately valued (Bitmanagement II: damages need not be per-copy), and affirmed as not clearly erroneous the findings that development licenses could have been negotiated though none then existed and that a volume discount applied.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED. No costs.
03 Monetization & Market
Reporting on the funding, brokerage, and policy developments that shape how patents are put to work.
Bloomberg LawJul 20, 2026
Investors Cut Out Litigation Funders to Bankroll Cases
Investors are increasingly financing law firms and case portfolios directly rather than committing capital as limited partners in funds managed by litigation funders. Westfleet Advisors data cited in the report shows funders committed $2.8 billion to commercial legal deals in 2025, up from $2.3 billion in 2024, though total commitments remain below 2022 levels. Court filings this year show HPS Investment Partners advancing funds against a judgment in a Florida case, and JPMorgan Asset Management advancing two firms money tied to expected attorneys' fees.
WilmerHale (JD Supra)Jul 14, 2026
Trends in Third-Party Litigation Funding: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis
A survey of third-party funding regulation across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, and the Unified Patent Court, citing government estimates that roughly 20% of litigation funding capital is committed to patent litigation — the largest single category of commercial funding. At least five bills addressing funding transparency are pending in Congress, and the Advisory Committee is considering a funding-disclosure provision in FRCP Rule 26(a)(1)(A), changes to Rule 16 case management, and a Rule 7 disclosure modeled on D.N.J. Local Rule 7.1.1. The ITC has proposed funding disclosure rules for Section 337 investigations; the U.K., Germany, China, and the UPC have not adopted comparable requirements.
IPWatchdogJul 14, 2026
Tillis Signals Willingness to Tweak PERA Amid Gene Patenting Concerns
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a full-committee hearing on July 14, “From Genes to Machines: the Patent Eligibility Debate,” with witnesses including former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, Dr. Debra Leonard of the University of Vermont, Sue Peschin of the Alliance for Aging Research, and J. John Lee of the Computer & Communications Industry Association. Testimony addressed the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025, which would abrogate Mayo and Alice and limit eligibility exclusions to five categories, and whether its “unmodified human gene” language codifies or reopens Myriad. Chairman Thom Tillis asked stakeholders to propose revised statutory language.
Mintz (JD Supra)Jul 17, 2026
Reexams Are an Alternative, Not a Fallback: Presentation, Without Consideration, Still Counts Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
The USPTO denied an ex parte reexamination request against a Fractus-owned patent (Reexam Control No. 90/015,984) under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), finding the same requester had previously presented the same prior art in a failed IPR covering 18 of the 19 challenged claims. The denial treats art as “previously presented” even where the IPR was denied on discretionary grounds and the merits were never reached. Quarterly ex parte reexamination filings, which ran roughly 70 to 100 per quarter from 2021 through 2024, rose to about 275 in Q1 2026 and remained above 250 in Q2 2026.
ReutersJul 16, 2026
Kioxia owes Viasat $229 million for infringing flash-memory patents, US jury says
A federal jury in Waco, Texas returned a verdict on July 16 finding that Kioxia owes Viasat $229 million for infringing a patent covering flash-memory technology that reduces power consumption and improves device reliability and longevity. Viasat states it developed the improvements while designing error-correction systems for satellites, and alleged that Kioxia's flash-memory devices use error-correction technology operating the same way; Kioxia denied infringement and asserted the patent was invalid. The verdict form describes the award as a running royalty compensating past infringement through March 30, 2026. Viasat has a separate, still-pending action asserting similar allegations against Western Digital.
Arbutus BiopharmaJul 16, 2026
Arbutus initiates international patent enforcement against Pfizer and BioNTech, and receives first payment under the Moderna settlement
Arbutus Biopharma and its exclusive licensee Genevant Sciences filed three actions over lipid nanoparticle patents against Pfizer, BioNTech and affiliates: one in the Federal Court of Canada (No. T-3200-26, Canadian Patent No. 2,721,333) and two at the Unified Patent Court (PR-UPC-CFI-0002562/2026 and PR-UPC-CFI-0002566/2026, asserting EP 4 241 767 and EP 4 495 237) covering 20 UPC member states, seeking permanent injunctions and damages or an accounting of profits. Arbutus separately disclosed receiving approximately $178 million from Moderna on July 8, 2026 as its share of the noncontingent payment under the March 2026 settlement resolving global LNP patent litigation, and said it intends to repurchase up to approximately $230 million of its common shares.
NetlistJul 16, 2026
ITC institutes a second investigation on Netlist's complaint against Samsung
The International Trade Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1511 on Netlist's complaint filed June 16, 2026, naming Samsung together with Google, Supermicro, Nvidia and Broadcom as respondents. The investigation covers U.S. Patent Nos. 12,646,537 and 12,650,937, which Netlist states read on Samsung high-bandwidth memory products and Samsung DDR5 RDIMMs and MRDIMMs; Netlist seeks exclusion and cease and desist orders barring importation. This is Netlist's second ITC action against Samsung; the first, filed September 30, 2025, asserts six patents and has an evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin in November 2026.
About Patent Pulse. Each issue is assembled from the complaints, opinions, and dockets themselves
(CourtListener / RECAP) and from published reporting, and is reviewed by a K2K attorney before publication.
Case facts are drawn from the complaints as filed — allegations are allegations, not findings. Nothing
here is legal advice or a characterization of any court’s holding beyond the cited opinion; follow the
source links for the primary materials.