Cornerstone Research Reveals Global Shift in Patent Litigation Amid U.S. Enforcement Uncertainty

Economic consulting firm Cornerstone Research published a comprehensive report last week titled Intellectual Property Litigation: U.S. Trends in Global Perspective, which examines the evolving landscape of patent litigation worldwide. The report reveals a marked shift away from the United States as the dominant forum for patent disputes, coinciding with the rise of intangible assets as the core drivers of corporate value.

Over the past five decades, innovation has transformed intellectual property from a peripheral concern into the foundation of enterprise worth. Where tangible assets once accounted for 83% of the value of S&P 500 companies in 1973, intangible assets—including patents, software, data, and brands—now represent over 90% of corporate valuation. Cornerstone’s report emphasizes that “IP is no longer ancillary; it is the core of enterprise value.”

Despite the U.S. maintaining a strong innovation base supported by blue-chip technology firms, venture capital, and research infrastructure, the report highlights that the nation no longer leads global patenting activity. China, once a secondary player in the early 2000s, overtook the U.S. in total patents granted by 2015 and continues to drive patent growth. The European Union remains a mature innovation hub, while India has recently emerged as a significant patent jurisdiction due to policy reforms, expanding R&D, and integration into global technology ecosystems.

The report identifies increasing fragmentation and uncertainty in U.S. patent enforcement as a key factor in this global diversification. Landmark developments such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 eBay v. MercExchange decision, which removed the presumption of injunctive relief for patent holders, and the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) have introduced procedural complexities. Although patent infringement filings initially rose following the AIA’s enactment, they declined and stabilized around 2020 amid institutional changes.

Currently, U.S. patent enforcement remains strongest in sectors with complex technology stacks and interoperability demands, including wireless communications, connected devices, and life sciences. Many disputes involve standards-essential patents (SEPs) and cases where outcomes significantly impact competitive positioning and revenues. The report also notes a rise in Schedule A litigation targeting online ecosystems and enforcement campaigns by non-practicing entities (NPEs).

Compared to other jurisdictions, U.S. patent litigation is characterized by longer timelines, with a median time-to-trial of approximately 2.5 years between 2015 and 2025. Parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), established under the AIA, often extend these timelines further. In contrast, specialized IP courts and administrative bodies in China and the EU’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) offer expedited adjudication. National courts in Germany and other countries attract patent holders due to shorter timelines and the availability of injunctive relief.

Structural changes introduced by the AIA, including joinder rules and shifting invalidity challenges to the PTAB, have reinforced the post-eBay decline in injunctive relief, which is now predominantly granted to product companies. These enforcement challenges have contributed to a growing preference among U.S. companies for trade secret protection, a trend accelerated by the 2016 Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), which established a federal cause of action for misappropriation under a uniform framework.

The report further documents the globalization of patent enforcement, with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom setting global licensing rates for SEPs and the Netherlands offering rapid injunction pathways. China has seen a dramatic increase in patent infringement cases, rising from over 10,000 filings in 2015 to nearly 45,000 in 2023. Other notable venues include Brazil, where the high court has invalidated automatic patent term extensions, and Colombia, where injunctive relief in SEP litigation enhances its role in global enforcement strategies.

Cornerstone’s analysis also addresses the impact of artificial intelligence on IP law and economics. Recent U.S. copyright fair use rulings, such as Bartz v. Anthropic, have shifted legal focus from the permissibility of AI training to economic considerations like licensing markets and substitution effects. This contrasts with the European Union’s explicit text and data mining exceptions under the Copyright Directive and fair dealing frameworks in India and the UK that restrict AI training to specific purposes.

The report concludes that divergent global legal frameworks will likely intensify regulatory fragmentation and forum competition. The expansion of AI technologies is reshaping IP enforcement worldwide, and national approaches to IP law will significantly influence the future strength and relevance of U.S. patent rights amid increasing global diversification of infringement filings.

Public commentary on the report underscores concerns about the shift toward trade secret protection. Michael J. Schober noted that if U.S. patents become too weak or enforcement too slow, companies may resort to trade secrets, which could impede technological progress by limiting public knowledge exchange. Other commentators highlighted ongoing challenges in U.S. patent validity standards and judicial dynamics affecting patent rights enforcement.

This Cornerstone Research report provides critical insights into the evolving global patent litigation environment, emphasizing the need for stakeholders to adapt to shifting enforcement landscapes and the growing influence of intangible assets in corporate valuation.