As economic growth slows, patents are increasingly being forged into aggressive “monetization” tools by many companies. In this smoke-free “patent hunting” game, chip giants and streaming tycoons, who hold substantial profits, have become the most prominent targets.
The Shadow of Earnings Season: Patent Disputes Between Adeia and AMD
On November 3, 2025, the U.S. patent licensing company Adeia filed a lawsuit against chip manufacturer AMD, accusing it of infringing on 10 key semiconductor-related patents. Seven of these patents involve the “hybrid bonding” technology, considered crucial for future 3D stacked chips, while the other three pertain to “advanced process node” technology—two areas that have been core to AMD’s performance competition against Nvidia and Intel in recent years.
This lawsuit did not come without warning. Adeia’s CEO revealed during the third-quarter earnings call that the two parties had been negotiating patent licensing since 2024, but after more than a year, they ultimately failed to reach an agreement. He clearly stated that the lawsuit was intended to “stop AMD from continuing to use Adeia’s semiconductor patent technology without authorization.” This statement clearly reveals the typical strategy of “using litigation to promote negotiation” in patent lawsuits.
More significantly, at the time of announcing the lawsuit, Adeia lowered its full-year revenue forecast from $390 million to $430 million down to $360 million to $380 million. This reduction of up to $40 million serves as a public “price list,” hinting at the scale of licensing revenue Adeia originally expected to receive from AMD. This is not only a management of investor expectations but also conveys a clear message to AMD and the entire market: Adeia is fully prepared financially for the potential gains and costs of this lawsuit.
The Patent Underworld of the Chip Industry
Just a year before AMD faced Adeia’s onslaught, it may not have fully realized that it would also become a defendant. Rewinding to November 2024, AMD transferred about 100 patents to the patent operating company Onesta IP. Such companies are often referred to as “patent assertion entities” (PAEs), whose business model is to acquire patents and profit through licensing or litigation.
After taking over this batch of patents, Onesta IP began filing lawsuits against Qualcomm and Nvidia in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) starting in April 2025, involving six patents. The Western District of Texas is known for its efficiency in handling patent lawsuits and its favorable attitude towards patent holders; the ITC has the powerful authority to issue “limited exclusion orders” that prohibit infringing products from entering the U.S. market. The choice of these two judicial battlegrounds indicates a mature strategy.
This scene vividly reveals the complex ecology of modern patent wars: even a technology leader like AMD is monetizing non-core patents, which then become swords aimed at competitors.
Multi-Front Warfare: Similar Predicaments of Streaming and Automotive Giants
The flames of patent wars are not limited to the chip sector. While Adeia is clashing with AMD, it is also engaged in multiple lawsuits against entertainment giant Disney in various jurisdictions, including the U.S., Brazil, Germany, and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Onesta IP is also attacking on multiple fronts. In addition to suing chip manufacturers in the U.S., it has initiated lawsuits against automotive giant BMW in Germany. Notably, in this case, Onesta IP requested the German court to rule on the infringement of one European patent and two U.S. patents simultaneously. This approach is closely related to the increasing trend of “long-arm jurisdiction” in patent disputes since 2025 in European courts.
The case of Onesta IP suing BMW will also test whether German courts will extend their jurisdiction to U.S. patents. Since the EU Court broadened jurisdiction in the “Bosch case,” German courts and the UPC have issued cross-border injunctions in cases such as “Fujifilm vs. Kodak” and “Dyson vs. Zhimi.” Meanwhile, German, UPC, and UK courts have frequently issued “anti-suit injunctions” and “anti-anti-suit injunctions” in standard essential patent (SEP) cases, intensifying the competition for jurisdiction among courts in different countries.
Why Have They Become “Hot Targets”?
Why have chips, streaming, and smart cars, spanning multiple industries and ecosystems, become the focus of patent litigation?“Gold Mine” Effect: Substantial Profits and Broad Market Prospects.These industries are core pillars of the digital economy, boasting huge revenues and profit margins. For patent claimants, suing a financially strong target means higher potential settlement amounts and licensing fees, with more attractive returns on investment. At the same time, these industries are still in a rapid growth phase, and companies often prefer to settle early to ensure “operational freedom” and avoid disruptions in production, sales, or imports.
Technology-Intensive and Complex Ecosystems.Chips are the foundation of the digital world, streaming relies on complex encoding, decoding, and network transmission technologies, while smart cars deeply integrate communication, computing, sensing, and artificial intelligence. The high complexity of products makes it difficult to avoid thousands of standardized patents or other application patents. Any slight functionality may encroach on others’ patent territories, providing a natural breeding ground for litigation.
“Open Source” Options in an Economic Downturn.In the context of overall economic pressure, many companies holding patents face growth challenges. Monetizing the intellectual property accumulated in patent portfolios has become a quick way to realize cash and fill revenue gaps. Patent litigation has gradually evolved from a purely legal means into an alternative “business model.”
Mature Patent Operation Ecosystem.Specialized patent operation companies (such as Onesta IP and Adeia) make patent enforcement more professional and efficient. They are well-versed in legal procedures, adept at selecting favorable jurisdictions, and capable of maximizing patent value through licensing or litigation.
Conclusion
As industrial structures evolve and technologies change, the battlefield of patents will continue to shift. The current wave of patent litigation in the fields of chips, streaming, and smart cars is an inevitable result of the interplay between economic cycles, technological development, and business strategies. In the future, the battles over patents are likely to become even more intense. In the long-term race of technological innovation, companies must continuously improve their global intellectual property strategies to remain undefeated in this smoke-free war.