Author: Kriti Nishad, University of Allahabad

From 2009 to 2016, Apple and Samsung were embroiled in over fifty suits in ten countries, with damages of hundreds of billions of dollars (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). For someone like me who is a student, it is hard to believe how much time and money two corporations can waste in courts of law over matters such as the design of smartphones, interface icons, or the very curvature of a home button.

But these "patent wars" are not simply company soap operas being played out in far-off courtrooms. They influence how rapidly our cell phones are updated, how much they cost us, and even what styling options are on the gadgets we use daily. Patents, on paper, are supposed to encourage innovation and protect inventors, but in reality, they have become weapons of a constant global war waged by technology behemoths.

The Apple-Samsung saga is usually referred to as the century's smartphone patent war, but it is merely the tip of the iceberg. There are other major companies as well, like Microsoft, Google and Huawei, etc., who are attempting to gain entry in this big market where patent wars are defining the nature of competition in big tech.

And now this brings us to a bigger question: Do these patent wars really encourage innovation by guarding inventors, or do they block creativity under the pressure of continuing legal proceedings?

The basic definition of a patent is – A government granted legal right that allows an inventor to prohibit other people from creating, using, or selling the invention to the public. This is targeted to create a balance: To reward creativity and efforts yet bring in new knowledge into general circulation someday.

Patents are even more important in the technology industry. In other industries, with a lifespan of three or four years, the innovation can be expanded upon and developed incrementally. The technology, however, is advancing at light speed. Billions of dollars are invested in research and development (R&D), creating innovative software, hardware, and design. Patents are the armour that protects all this investment, providing companies with their differentiator advantage and discouraging competitors from merely copying their efforts. In short, patents can be the difference between being the leader in the market and another in the pack.

The term "patent wars" was coined to characterise the increasingly aggressive use of patents by companies, not only in the protection of their own innovation but also as a means of attacking others. Patents have become strategic weapons and are no longer a simple defensive tool. The late 2000s smartphone phenomenon led the charge. As mobile phones rapidly became the century's most influential consumer product, Apple, Samsung, Google, and Microsoft were among several of the firms to make a frenzied bid to acquire vast portfolios of patents for all sorts of things from touch-screen gestures to wireless connectivity. Academics observe that the era witnessed an unprecedented increase in litigation with suits filed in several jurisdictions as companies fought to become market leaders in the exploding smartphone industry (e.g., Jorge L. Contreras, A Brief History of Patent Wars, 2019).

Therefore, the contemporary "patent war" is not merely an affair of legal battles - it is an expression of the high stakes of innovation in an industry where a feature can break or make billions of dollars in revenue.

The Apple vs Samsung case starts at a pivotal moment in technology: Apple introduced the first iPhone in 2007, establishing a new standard for smartphone appearance, with its minimalist front face, rounded edges, and grid of colourful app icons. Samsung, on a wave of popularity following Android, quickly released competing phones that, Apple claimed, drew heavily from these distinctive design elements. What began as competition in the marketplace later became one of the most renowned patent wars in recent technological litigation.

The core issues of the controversy involved design patents. Apple asserted design patents on elements including the rounded front rectangular shape (U.S. Patent No. D618,677), the front face and raised rim (U.S. Patent No. D593,087), and a sixteen-icon grid overlayed onto a black screen (U.S. Patent No. D604,305). Samsung's products, Apple complained, violated these patents by replicating these looks and ornamentations. Aside from design claims, there were utility-patent claims and allegations of trade dress (concerning the general appearance and feel); however, design patents were the primary focus of the case.

2011: Apple first brought the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Samsung had infringed design and utility patents. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011).

2012: A jury granted Apple damages of more than $1 billion, including for infringement of design and utility patents. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2012).

2015: The Federal Circuit partly affirmed and partly reversed, modifying some of the award. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., (Fed. Cir. 2015).

2016: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that for design-patent damages purposes under 35 U.S.C. 289, the "article of manufacture" could be a component, not the whole product. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016).

2018: After a damages-oriented retrial, a jury ruled in Apple's favour for $539 million. Apple and Samsung subsequently settled the case that year, putting an end to the nearly decade-long battle.

This case left many long-term effects. First, the design of smartphones came to the forefront, not only as user experience, but also as a legal consideration. Companies started checking design features in detail and changed how they documented product features so that  they wouldn't end up getting sued. Second, the case created a doctrine of the "article of manufacture" of design-patent law, which influenced the damages computation. Third, corporate strategy changed: patent records are now treated as swords and shields; companies invest a great amount of money in design patents even when it’s extremely small cosmetic features, in the hopes that they could be the part of lawsuits.

All in all, Apple vs Samsung is more than a long series of lawsuits, it will always be a landmark case that revolutionized the manner in which Big Tech was going about designs, profits, and innovations.

Before Apple and Samsung's legal battles, Big Tech players were engaged in their own standards and patent wars. This shows that patent wars are not just about hardware designs; they range from software to wireless standards, and chip licensing to others.

Google vs Oracle

In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (2021), Oracle alleged that Google had copied portions of Java APIs in Android without approval and breached its copyrights. The main issue of this case was about Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and their use by  Google. Was it fair? And also, were those APIs copyrightable? The US Supreme Court later decided that yes, Google’s use of certain Java APIs was actually fair as per the laws.

And that was a big win for programmers since if APIs were to be controlled legally, writing code that works across different platforms would’ve become a total danger for them.

A major dispute emerged between Microsoft and Motorola over patents related to video compression and Wi-Fi. Microsoft argued that Motorola was demanding excessive royalties for patents essential to the standards, which, under their contract, should be licensed on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

A jury ruled in Microsoft's favour in one trial, deciding that Motorola's royalty requests were excessive.

This case emphasised how standard-essential patents (SEPs) can be the origin of problems when firms do not clearly understand what "reasonable" means.

Qualcomm vs Apple and Chip Licensing Wars

Qualcomm has been involved in a lawsuit with Apple regarding patent terms and licensing fees for modem chips and other technology. Apple claimed that Qualcomm used its control over wireless standards (3G/4G/5G) to impose high royalties and unfair licensing terms that Apple found unacceptable. Basically, if you want to use these networks, you have to pay a lot, and that’s what Apple found unfair.  

In 2019, Apple and Qualcomm settled their dispute. They agreed to a multi-year licensing and chipset supply deal.

Big tech patent conflicts leave big impacts on not just firms but also on creativity, on innovations and consumers. When one company forcefully imposes patents on another using lawsuits, it pushes everyone to get creative. Like, remember when Apple got all up in arms about the designs of the phone, and then you see competitors coming up with new looks and fresh user interfaces (UI). Not all were pretty, but that stringency gave a bunch of new designs and even changed what ‘normal’ looks like on the phone.

There are also downsides, those lawsuits? They’re not cheap, and we are talking about hundreds of millions just to duke it out of court. That money could’ve been used for the betterment of a product. And then the delays. For example, Samsung had to make a lot of changes at the last minute after Apple took them to court, which meant redesign, pushing launch dates back, etc.

There’s one more evil in play, and that’s ‘patent trolls’, these are the companies that hoard patents just to sue legit innovators to extort money. This jams courts and time, and in the end, only the lawyers are the winners.

And in the end, who's the one that’s paying for all this, consumers that is ‘us’. The patent's price gets included in the final price of the product. Even sometimes varieties and options also get affected by this.

So, sure, sometimes these legal fights ignite a creative soul in companies to try new things, get more complicated and as a result, everyone suffers.

Now, if we look through the lens of the future,  the old smartphone wars were just the start. And now patent battles are going to stir up more high-speed technologies like AI, EVs, and chips. And with AI, we can currently see, it's already getting worked up. It’s affecting multiple major sectors of the world, like healthcare, finance, and media. The question of who ‘owns’ the result of machine learning would surely bring similar patent wars as the smartphone ones.

Then there’s the electric vehicle sector, in the present time scenario, many companies are investing a heavy amount in batteries, chargers, and in almost self-driving systems, e.g. Tesla. Normal people are arguing over energy storage like it's an important gameplay. With the whole global tension thing, now chip patents are less about tech and more about show off, about who gets to flex it more on the world stage.

Looking ahead, we can see the whole idea of ‘innovation gridlock’ would invite a higher number of litigation and patent claims and that will hinder the speed of progress. And so, some people suggest we need to update IP laws, maybe more towards stricter ones and define clearly what counts as a real invention, or at least stop the countries from getting involved in these unnecessary battles.

So, for us students who are watching all this from the sidelines, the lesson is pretty obvious: these patent wars are not going to be old news; they’re shaping how new technologies are going to enter into society and who will actually benefit from this. 

Patent wars are a big deal in the tech world. Look at Apple and Samsung, they spent a decade battling in court. And the fact that it's not just them.. Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and a lot of others get in these fights too. Patents are not just a legal thing anymore, it has become a solid, powerful tool for shaping the market.

The type of ruckus patent wars create pushes companies towards being creative. It forces them to find ways around existing patents, which results in breakthroughs sometimes. But let’s be honest, these wars eat up a lot of money and time. The time that goes into court proceedings delays new products and hikes up the prices at last for consumers.

So, the real question is, are patent wars just a part of the big capitalist system where every tiny idea needs protection? Or can we actually create global rules for intellectual property that will be obeyed by people to encourage harmonious work around the world? And with new industries like AI, EVs, and chips, now there's even more at stake.

In the end, patent wars aren’t just about winning in courts. They show what the world actually cares about when it comes to progress. And in the law vs. innovation war, it's essentially a matter of: does the customer win out, or collateral damage?