Big companies that have sued for intellectual property — who, why, and how each case unfolded

Intellectual property (IP) disputes are a defining feature of the modern technology, media and telecommunications landscape. From blockbuster patent suits between smartphone makers to copyright fights over music and movies, big companies that have sued for intellectual property have reshaped entire industries and sometimes the law itself. Below, I walk you through a selection of high-profile cases, explaining who sued whom, why the suit was brought, and how each fight played out and was resolved. These cases span patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks and standards-essential patents (SEPs), showing the range of legal strategies used by big companies that have sued for intellectual property to gain or maintain competitive advantage in the market.

1. Apple v. Samsung — design and utility patents, trade dress (smartphone wars)

Who: Apple Inc. (plaintiff) vs. Samsung Electronics Co. (defendant), among other related suits and countersuits.
Why: Apple accused Samsung of “slavishly” copying the iPhone’s look, feel and several patented software features; Apple sought damages and injunctive relief.

How it happened and outcome: The legal battle between Apple and Samsung unfolded when Apple sued Samsung in 2011 for infringing upon its design and application patents. At the heart of this infringement lawsuit was the design of the iPhone that Apple claimed Samsung used for its Galaxy model, among other user interface similarities. What followed was a series of litigations in jurisdictions worldwide. Samsung also countersued Apple for infringing upon its patents and asked for compensation.

What is interesting about this case is that there is no clear winner between the two. Although Apple was successful in banning Samsung’s infringing products from some markets, like the US and Germany but it was only for a short period of time. That ban was soon lifted after Samsung’s counter appeals. In fact, in many jurisdictions like Japan and South Korea, the infringement claims were quashed in favour of Samsung. In the United States, though, a 2012 U.S. jury found Samsung liable for infringing several Apple patents and trade dress, awarding Apple over $1 billion (later reduced and modified through appeals and retrials). This case finally concluded in 2018 with an out-of-court settlement between both parties, details of which are not in the public domain.

2. Google (Android) v. Oracle — copyrightability of APIs and fair use

Who: Oracle America (plaintiff) vs. Google LLC (defendant).
Why: Oracle claimed Google infringed Oracle’s copyrights and patents by copying Java SE API declarations and some code when Google implemented the Java APIs in Android. Oracle sought billions in damages and an injunction against the use of the Java APIs.

How it happened and the outcome: In 2010, after acquiring Sun Microsystems, which had developed Java, Oracle sued Google with a copyright infringement case over using the Java API in Android without acquiring a license. In the lawsuit that followed, initially, the district court ruled that API are just operational and hence do not come under copyright, giving its verdict in favour of Google.
But Oracle challenged the verdict in the appellate court, which reversed it, saying that the structure, sequence and organisation of an API is copyrightable. Now the question that remained was of fair use.

The Federal Circuit at one point ruled that Google’s use was not fair. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2021 ruled that Google’s copying of certain Java API elements was a fair use under copyright law. It was a major win for Google and for software developers who rely on interoperability and reuse of APIs to develop code. The decision reshaped expectations about software interoperability and copyright’s reach in API re-implementation.

3. Waymo v. Uber — trade secrets in autonomous driving

Who: Waymo LLC (Alphabet/Google’s self-driving unit) vs. Uber Technologies (and former Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski).
Why: Waymo alleged that a group of former employees led by Levandowski downloaded thousands of confidential files before leaving to form or join competing autonomous-vehicle efforts; Waymo claimed Uber obtained trade secrets that gave it an unfair advantage.

How it happened and the outcome: Waymo filed a lawsuit in 2017. The case produced explosive discovery (including allegations about stolen LIDAR designs and internal memos), and raised questions about how tech talent movement can lead to IP risks. Before a full trial, Uber agreed to a settlement in early 2018 in which Uber committed not to use Waymo’s proprietary hardware and paid Waymo (reports at the time suggested Uber gave Waymo equity worth around $245 million, and later related civil judgments were directed at Levandowski personally). The suit produced later prosecutions and bankruptcy litigation for Levandowski. The Waymo-Uber fight highlighted trade-secret risk in the race for self-driving cars. [1]

4. Viacom (and media majors) v. YouTube/Google — copyright on user-uploaded videos

Who: Viacom International (and other media companies) vs. Google/YouTube.
Why: Viacom alleged that YouTube hosted and streamed thousands of copyrighted TV clips and movies without a license, and that YouTube deliberately facilitated infringement. Viacom sought damages and injunctive relief.

How it happened and outcome: In 2007, Viacom sued Google, the owner of YouTube, claiming that YouTube allowed its users to upload Viacom-owned content on a massive scale, giving rise to brazen copyright infringement and sought $ 1 billion in damages. It was a high-profile case that was litigated for almost a decade. In this case, the key legal question revolved around the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the provision of safe-harbour protection provided by it to online platforms: can a hosting service be shielded from copyright liability for user uploads if it responds to takedown notices? District courts initially found in favour of YouTube (safe harbour applies), a ruling that Viacom appealed. Over the years, the courts parsed whether YouTube had knowledge of specific infringements or actively encouraged them. Ultimately, courts largely upheld protections for platforms under the DMCA, and many claims were dismissed or narrowed. The final settlement was reached out of court in 2014, the details of which are not in the public domain.

This case was important in terms of the effect it had on shaping the process by which content platforms moderate uploads and respond to takedown notices.

5. Apple v. Qualcomm — patent licensing, royalties and antitrust undertones

Who: Qualcomm Inc. vs. Apple Inc. (multiple suits worldwide; Apple also sued Qualcomm).
Why: The dispute centred on Qualcomm’s licensing practices for cellular standards-essential patents (SEPs) and Apple’s claim that Qualcomm withheld patent rebates and charged excessive royalties. Qualcomm, in turn, sued Apple for patent infringement and unpaid royalties.

How it happened and outcome: In 2017, Apple sued Qualcomm for charging high licensing fees for the cellular standards-essential patents (SEPs) owned by it. Qualcomm answered by countersuing Apple for infringing on its patents. Between 2017 and 2019, the companies exchanged lawsuits across jurisdictions (U.S., China, Europe). The litigation threatened supply chains (Qualcomm’s modem chips are essential to smartphone 3G/4G/5G radios). In April 2019, the companies reached a surprise settlement that included a multi-year chipset supply agreement and payment from Apple to Qualcomm; the deal also led to the dismissal of many cases. Parallel regulatory and antitrust actions against Qualcomm continued in some jurisdictions.

The case illustrated how SEP licensing and chip supply relationships can create high-stakes litigation between manufacturer and supplier.

6. Microsoft v. Motorola — FRAND and standard-essential patents

Who: Microsoft Corporation (plaintiff) vs. Motorola Mobility (defendant).
Why: Microsoft challenged Motorola’s licensing demands for patents that Motorola had declared essential to standards (e.g., Wi-Fi 802.11 and H.264), arguing that Motorola violated its commitments to license those SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and that Motorola sought unreasonable royalties.

How it happened and outcome: Like the Apple Vs Qualcomm case, this case also revolved around SEP(Standard Essential Patents) and the reasonable licensing terms to use them. In this case, Motorola had the patents which were essential for the implementation of 802.11 and H.264 industry standards. Motorola had agreed with the standard-setting authorities like ITU and IEEE to license them under FRAND terms, that is, under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to third parties, such as Microsoft.

But in 2010, Microsoft sued Motorola on the grounds of violating its FRAND agreement with the standard-setting authorities, of which it was a third-party beneficiary. U.S. courts ultimately held that Motorola’s initial royalty demands were unreasonable and that FRAND commitments can limit a SEP holder’s ability to injunct implementers — a key precedent showing courts will police licensing offers when standards commitments exist. The dispute produced rulings about calculating RAND rates and the interplay between national injunctions and global FRAND promises. Microsoft won key rulings that shaped SEP jurisprudence.

7. Cisco v. Arista — alleged copying of networking software

Who: Cisco Systems (plaintiff) vs. Arista Networks (defendant).
Why: Cisco accused Arista (founded by former Cisco engineers) of copying code, user interfaces and command-line behaviour — essentially saying Arista had cloned Cisco’s software behaviour and infringed copyrights and patents.

How it happened and outcome: In 2014, CISCO filed a lawsuit against Arista claiming that it infringed on its intellectual property. According to Cisco, its patents and copyrights were brazenly infringed upon by Arista. Both Cisco and Arista are key players in the networking infrastructure and data centre deployment in the world. Cisco has been in the market longer than Arista, but Arista has been able to carve its own niche for low-latency networking needs, such as for trading platforms.

Cisco claimed via its lawsuit that the interface or software that Arista used had similarities with its own command line interface. It even moved to the International Trade Commission to obtain an order in effect to stop or ban the infringing products from the market. It also became successful at this when, in 2016, ITC essentially ruled in favour of Cisco. After this, in 2018, an out-of-court settlement took place between the two parties. Accordingly, Arista paid Cisco $ 400 million as compensation, and it was agreed that neither party could file an infringement lawsuit against the other for the next five years.
This case has many similarities with the Oracle vs Google (Android) case, as the infringement took place mainly through the lines of code. But here Cisco was able to turn things in its favour, and it was a win for Arista as well, whose shares rose significantly after the settlement was reached.

The case shows how cloning of software behaviour and developer interfaces can become a major IP fight in enterprise hardware and software markets.

8. Tiffany v. eBay — trademark and counterfeit goods on marketplaces

Who: Tiffany & Co. (plaintiff) vs. eBay, Inc. (defendant).
Why: Tiffany alleged eBay was liable for contributory trademark infringement because sellers were offering counterfeit Tiffany jewellery on eBay’s marketplace, and eBay did not do enough to prevent those sales. Tiffany sought damages and asked the court to hold eBay responsible.

How it happened and the outcome: Tiffany sued in 2004 for infringing on its intellectual property and appealed through the federal courts. In 2010, the Second Circuit ruled that eBay was not liable for contributory trademark infringement absent specific knowledge of particular infringing listings and that eBay’s general awareness of counterfeits did not automatically create liability. The decision shaped marketplace liability law: platforms must respond to specific notices and take reasonable measures, but they are not automatically responsible for every counterfeit sale occurring on their systems.

9. RIAA v. Napster — music industry vs. peer-to-peer sharing

Who: Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and major record labels vs. Napster (and later, other P2P services).
Why: Napster enabled free file-sharing of copyrighted music at scale; the RIAA argued that Napster induced and facilitated massive copyright infringement.

How it happened and outcome: Napster was a peer-to-peer music sharing service which was highly popular at the time. It enabled free sharing of music over its peer network. The Recording Industry Association of America(RIAA) filed suit in 1999–2000 against Napster for infringing upon copyrights and enabling widespread copyright infringement through its platform. Courts ultimately held Napster liable for contributory and vicarious infringement; a 2001 injunction forced Napster to block infringing activity, and the service shuttered in its original form, followed by bankruptcy and a later rebirth as a licensed music service. The litigation launched the record industry’s years-long enforcement campaign against file sharing and catalysed licensed music streaming services as an alternative business model. WIRED

10. MGM v. Grokster — inducement and secondary liability for file-sharing tools

Who: Motion Picture studios (MGM and others) vs. Grokster, StreamCast and other peer-to-peer software makers.
Why: Similar to Napster, studios argued Grokster and others intentionally induced infringement by providing tools designed (or marketed) to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted movies and music without licenses.

How it happened and outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 unanimously held that a company can be liable if it actively induces infringement — even if the software has non-infringing uses — when the company’s actions encourage infringement. This ruling was significant as it defied the previous ruling in Sony Corp. vs Universal City Studios, which provided a safe harbour to technology providers and platforms if the said platform or service’s use as an infringement tool is not obvious and if it provides other non-infringing use cases as well.

The ruling in the MGM vs. Grokster clarified and extended secondary liability doctrines, and it curtailed a class of peer-to-peer services that relied on the argument that the technology had lawful uses.

11. Ericsson (and other SEP holders) v. various smartphone makers — FRAND enforcement and injunctions

Who: Large telecom patent holders (Ericsson, Nokia, InterDigital, etc.) vs. makers of phones and network equipment (various defendants such as Samsung, Xiaomi and Apple in different suits).
Why: Disputes over licensing rates for patents declared essential to standards (SEPs) — these suits often alleged licensees refused to accept FRAND terms or that implementers were not negotiating in good faith.

How it happened and outcome: SEP litigation has been a recurring theme over the last decade: Ericsson sued Samsung and later Xiaomi in multiple jurisdictions seeking injunctive relief and royalty payments; courts and regulators have grappled with whether injunctions are appropriate when SEP holders have promised to license on FRAND terms. Some suits resulted in import bans or negotiated settlements; others advanced principles about cross-border enforcement and anti-suit injunctions. SEP litigation remains a key area where big companies litigate IP intensely.

Patterns, lessons and why big companies sue over IP

Reading these headline cases together shows both legal and business logic behind major IP litigation:

• Market protection and leverage. Suits often aim to block rivals’ products (injunctions) or extract licensing fees that serve as a revenue stream (e.g., SEP licensing). Apple’s suits sought both to protect market share and to deter copying; Qualcomm’s suits protected its licensing model and chip business.
• Toolbox of IP claims. Big companies deploy patents, copyrights, trade-secret claims and trademarks depending on the assets at issue. The choice of cause of action reflects the company’s assets (e.g., software code → copyright; product design → design patent; confidential datasets or know-how → trade secret). Waymo’s suit used trade-secret law, while Oracle used copyright and patent claims.
• Forum shopping and global litigation. Large firms litigate around the globe to maximise leverage (different courts have different remedies and timelines). The SEP fights and smartphone wars show parallel suits in the U.S., Europe and Asia.
• Legal precedents shape industries. Decisions like MGM v. Grokster (inducement), Google v. Oracle (API fair use), and Microsoft v. Motorola (FRAND enforcement) changed how technologies are designed and licensed.
• Settlements are common. Many high-profile suits end in settlement because the commercial stakes and costs of prolonged fights are enormous (Apple–Qualcomm, Waymo–Uber, Apple–Samsung eventual settlement stages). Settlements can include licensing deals, cross-licenses, payments or equity swaps.

Conclusion

The list above is a guided tour through big companies that have sued for intellectual property, highlighting the claim, the motivation, and the path from complaint to resolution. These cases illustrate that IP litigation is rarely just legal posturing — it’s a strategic lever used to protect revenue streams, slow competitors, shape standards and define the boundaries of modern technological competition. Whether the dispute is about the look of a smartphone, the method signatures used by millions of programmers, a trove of autonomous-vehicle data, or the mass sharing of music and movies, the outcomes shape product design, licensing norms and — sometimes — the law itself.