Intellectual Property Litigation

Meet the New IP Litigation Playbook

In Miller Johnson’s first survey of leaders in organizations where intellectual property plays a critical role, we find an IP landscape in flux. While IP disputes remain frequent, a rapidly changing regulatory environment and the rise of AI are creating new questions around ownership and prompting businesses to rethink how they protect and defend their intellectual property.

Get the Full Findings

The top five IP litigation changes executives need to know

Patent disputes continue to drive litigation strategy, with 80% of corporate counsel making either moderate (50%) or significant (30%) changes in response to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) developments that increasingly favor patent owners.
AI is changing the calculus for IP litigation. How remains to be decided—40% of corporate counsel see it as creating new opportunities to enforce their own IP, but 49% say it increases litigation risk.
Over half of private equity leaders see AI as an IP risk, with 55% saying it increases litigation exposure for portfolio companies and 33% viewing it as an enforcement opportunity.
But AI-driven litigation disputes aren’t common yet, only 16% say AI is increasing litigation risk and has led to active disputes.
Cost remains the biggest IP litigation challenge, cited by roughly 60% of all respondents.

AI training, data scraping lawsuits are going to blow up. Everyone’s suing over copyright and my company’s already sweating it.

How AI ups the IP risks—and the opportunities

Which of the following AI-related IP litigation issues pose the greatest risk to your organization?

AI is reshaping IP risk for nearly all respondents—even those who haven’t yet been embroiled in an AI-related dispute. Roughly half of corporate counsel (49%) and PE investors (55%) view AI as increasing their own or their portfolio companies’ IP litigation risk.

For most, that risk has yet to materialize. In healthcare and life sciences, however, a quarter of corporate counsel say it has already led to active disputes, as do 23% of those in the manufacturing and industrial sectors. Still, half identify the use of proprietary or copyrighted data to train AI systems as a top risk to their organization.

See How Peers are Preparing

Get Our Guidance for Managing AI-related IP Risks

Companies should take action now to evaluate how AI is being used across the business, strengthen governance around proprietary information, and prepare for the disputes that are likely to develop as the law emerges.

—Brandon C. Griffith Co-Chair of Miller Johnson’s Intellectual Property practice group

Get Guidance

Intellectual property disputes by the numbers

IP patent and copyright disputes are common—and going nowhere

Over the past 12 months, how often has your organization been involved in the following types of IP disputes?

74% of corporate counsel report occasional or frequent involvement in patent disputes over the past year
- 73% report the same for copyright disputes.
12% expect patent involvement to decline over the next year

PTAB and IPR policy changes are reshaping corporate strategy

30% say recent PTAB/IPR policy changes have “materially changed” their organization’s approach to IP litigation
- 50% cite moderate impact

With the rise in PTAB petition denials, we can no longer rely on IPR as a guaranteed parallel track… We have shifted toward more aggressive, front-loaded district court defenses.

Most respondents favor a measured approach to IP litigation

50% of corporate counsel report a defensive posture
40% approach litigation as a balance between enforcing their own IP rights and defending against claims
Only 10% cite an offensive approach

Litigation remains a cost-benefit analysis

Roughly 60% of all respondents say the high cost of IP litigation is a key challenge
- 39% say it’s the length of time to resolution
55% of corporate counsel say a favorable outcome is the top reason to pursue litigation

Private equity sees it differently

56% of PE respondents consider whether the opposing party is a direct competitor as their top factor driving litigation
59% list length of time to resolution as their top IP litigation challenge, not cost
41% cite difficulty proving or recovering damages as an issue, more than double the 19% of general corporate counsel

This report draws on the combined knowledge and experience of attorneys from Miller Johnson and Irwin IP. When Irwin IP merged under the name Miller Johnson and 2025, the two firms were able to combine nationally recognized IP and technology litigation experience with the capabilities of a full-service business law firm. Together, the firms are able to give leaders an integrated view of litigation risk, commercial priorities, and long-term value.

Download the Full Report

IP Litigation Report Contributors

Intellectual Property Attorney & Co-Chair of Miller Johnson’s IP Practice

griffithb@millerjohnson.com | 313.672.6932 | LinkedIn

Brandon C. Griffith is an intellectual property attorney helping businesses protect, own, and enforce their IP rights—from preparing and prosecuting domestic and foreign patent applications to advising on licensing, development, service, and supply agreements. A degreed mechanical engineer, he’s known for breaking down complex legal issues into clear, organized guidance, and has guided clients through IP analysis in hundreds of M&A transactions, working to preserve and leverage IP value on the sell-side and uncover risks on the buy-side.

Brandon C. Griffith
Intellectual Property Attorney, Co-Chair of Miller Johnson’s IP Practice, and Managing Member of the Chicago Office

keenerj@millerjohnson.com | 312.667.6286 | LinkedIn

Jason J. Keener is an intellectual property attorney with over 22 years of experience litigating IP disputes in federal courts nationwide. He has handled patent disputes in a wide range of industries, including automotive diagnostics, eye-tracking adtech, educational software, financial services, online retail, and food manufacturing, drawing on his background in computer science to navigate the most technical cases. Jason prides himself on putting clients’ goals first, pursuing pre-litigation or early resolution when possible and maintaining a lean team when trial and appeals are necessary.

Jason J. Keener
Intellectual Property Attorney, Member of Miller Johnson’s IP Practice

jmarinelli@irwinip.com | 312.248.1584 | LinkedIn

Joe Marinelli is an intellectual property trial lawyer with over 25 years of experience helping clients protect their innovations and defend against claims that threaten their business objectives. He represents clients in high-stakes litigation and before the USPTO in disputes involving patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyrights, and has secured multi-million dollar verdicts, defended IP portfolios in dozens of inter partes reviews, and counseled clients across industries including fintech, mobile devices, automotive systems, and semiconductors—including numerous matters involving standard-essential patents and FRAND claims. Beyond litigation, he advises clients on IP portfolio management, licensing, joint ventures, and technology agreements, and frequently counsels on emerging technology and AI strategy and risk. Joe is a frequent speaker and published author, with work appearing in Law360 and ABA Business Law.

Joseph F. Marinelli
Intellectual Property Attorney, Member of Miller Johnson’s IP Practice

nyem@millerjohnson.com | 313.672.6933 | LinkedIn

Michael R. Nye is an intellectual property attorney focused on technology, and the chair of Miller Johnson’s patent prosecution group. He devises strategies for protecting and developing IP assets aligned with clients’ business objectives—preparing and prosecuting patent applications, reviewing competitive landscapes, analyzing future patent protection opportunities, performing IP portfolio due diligence, and advising on freedom to operate, and has additional experience in post-issuance proceedings including inter partes reviews. He has worked with Fortune 500 companies holding patent portfolios numbering in the thousands, as well as guided startups through their first issued patents, and represents clients across industries including automotive and transportation, consumer electronics, circuit design, electromechanical controls, finance, food processing, healthcare, semiconductors, software and IT, and telecommunications.

Michael R. Nye

Want a personalized walkthrough of the data? Contact any of the attorneys above.

Who we surveyed

To better understand this pivotal moment in IP litigation, we surveyed 150 U.S.-based leaders at organizations where IP plays a meaningful role in business strategy. Most respondents, 82%, are corporate counsel representing middle- and uppermarket companies across five industries:

Automotive and transportation
Consumer products and services
Healthcare and life sciences
Manufacturing and industrial
Technology, media, and telecommunications

We also surveyed a select group of PE leaders investing in those and other industries, nearly three-quarters of whom oversee portfolios where IP is core to the business.

IP Litigation Playbook