Infringement has repercussions in the legal system. Big Tech companies have been violating the intellectual property rights of smaller competitors, and as a result, they have come under fire from courts and the International Trade Commission as well as paying steep fines.
According to the annual Patent Litigation Report 2021, released by Lex Machina and LexisNexis, Google was the top defendant in 2020 with 48 cases and despite the pandemic, $4.7 billion in damages were awarded in 52 cases.

The company VideoShare LLC, founded in 1998 by three inventors who devised the first streaming-video technology, sued Google and YouTube in 2019 on the grounds that YouTube's methods for distributing video files to users based on their devices' compatibility violated "patent 341." Among other reasons, Google claimed that the invention was invalid because it was granted to VideoShare while withholding crucial facts from the USPTO and that the patent was defective because it addressed an abstract notion that had already been revealed in previous art.
The court awarded $26million to VideoShare after it was established that the streaming technology used by YouTube is the same as the patented technology of VideoShare which converts a video into multiple formats and transmits it to the user’s device in the best format. In a still-pending lawsuit, VideoShare has accused Facebook of violating the same patent in March in the same court. YouTube's streaming technology works in the same way as VideoShare's patented technology for converting a video to multiple formats and transmitting it in the best format for a user's device.
Other patent infringement cases. When creating the sandboxing options for Google Chrome, Google was found to have violated three patents, and as a result, was compelled to pay $20 million to two developers. Google refuted this claim by claiming that the patents were "deliberately general" and that the patent application was written as broadly as possible in order to extend their application. 2013 saw a decision in Google's favor, but 2015 saw a defeat on appeal. The matter was subsequently brought to a US District Court in Eastern Texas, where Google lost, but before it could appeal, the Supreme Court denied the petition.
The US International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial agency that adjudicates trade disputes, and federal court both heard Sonos' lawsuit against Google in January 2020. Sonos requested that imports of Google Home smart speakers, Chrome cast systems, and Pixel phones and laptops be prohibited. Later, Google launched a countersuit against Sonos, alleging that Sonos had violated its patents. In order to avoid a prohibition on importing and selling a variety of its goods in the United States, including its Google Home smart speakers and Pixel phone, the commission allowed Google 60 days to perform software upgrades to erase the stolen technology. These items are manufactured in China and delivered to the US. Google cooperated, but it came at the expense of the products' loss of features and diminished functioning.
A lawsuit against Google LLC is apparently being brought by the Purdue Research Foundation on behalf of the university because it claims that the Android operating system uses proprietary smartphone technology. Google is accused of violating a patent pertaining to the control of "power bugs" in mobile phone apps in the lawsuit.
For violating the patents of Optis Wireless Technology, Apple made a $300 million payment in damages and nearly $570 million to VirnetX, a provider of internet security software.
But, sometimes these big techs are targeted by what is called “patent trolls”. Optis which claimed $506million from Apple is also said to be a patent troll as Apple in one of their statements said, “Optis makes no product and its sole business is to sue companies using patents they accumulate. We will continue to defend against their attempts to extract unreasonable payments for patents they acquire.”
Patent Trolls is a term used to describe companies or person that acquires a lot of patents and then use these patents as lawful weapons, they don’t intend to sell or develop the products, but to launch a large number of patent infringement lawsuits. These companies are also referred to as non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs). Very few startups succeed, the ones that fail, end up abandoning their patents, the ownership of which is taken by these NPEs and later used for threatening organizations by filing infringement suits, making money through litigations and licensing solely.
India does not explicitly prohibit Patent Troll, but section 146 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 makes it compulsory that the granted patent must be used or worked in India, if not then it would invoke compulsory licensing.
In Spice and Samsung vs Ramkumar (Dual Sim Case): Several imported consignments of dual sim mobile phones were seized by the Customs Department across the country on the complaint of Ramkumar alleging that these consignments violated the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Samsung, Spice, and Micromax were among the manufacturers of these seized devices. Some of these importers chose to pay royalties to Ramkumar, the rest decided to bring a legal suit against him.
The majority of Ramkumar's claims were established to be works of prior art and obviousness by both Spice and Samsung. As a result, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board again agreed with Spice Mobiles and Samsung India that Ramkumar's patent lacked inventive steps and novelty. Ramkumar was fined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
In M/s Aditi Manufacturing Co Vs M/s Bharat Bhogilal Patel and Another: Two petitions were filed that attempted to have two patents revoked which were held by Bharat Bhogail: Patent No. 189027, which was issued for a method of producing items with engraved designs on metals or non-metals, and Patent No. 188787, which was issued for an enhanced laser marking and engraving equipment.
Bharat Bhogilal was able to cause problems for powerful corporations. On the basis of Bharat's complaint for patent infringement, the Bombay High Court criminally punished the head of the Raymonds. L.G. was also issued a notice from Customs for allegedly breaching Patel's patent, and he was able to get royalties from many entities. Both the patents were revoked as the inventions were found to be lacking any novelty or inventive steps.
Due to the patentability subject, and regulations, such as compulsory licensing, and the domestic commercial use of the patent, there is a strong legal barrier preventing the patent trolls from significantly worsening the patent regime. One can avoid the situation with paten trolls by getting advice from legal counsel and avoiding entering into contracts for licensing or buying patents with unauthorized parties.
