1. Dolby International AB vs. Lava International Ltd. (India, 2025)

Facts:
Dolby International owned patents on audio processing technologies, including Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) used in smartphones. Lava International, an Indian phone manufacturer, was selling devices implementing these technologies without a license or paying royalties. Dolby had tried to negotiate a FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) license but negotiations failed.

Legal Issue:
Whether Lava infringed Dolby’s patents by selling devices without a license, and whether the court could require Lava to deposit money or provide a bank guarantee for royalties pending trial.

Ruling:
The Delhi High Court ordered Lava to deposit approximately ₹20 crore as security for potential royalties from devices sold between 2019–2024. The court held that Dolby was likely to succeed in proving infringement.

Reasoning:

SEPs (Standard Essential Patents) are protected under intellectual property law.

FRAND obligations require both parties to negotiate licenses in good faith.

Lava’s refusal to share sales data and engage in proper licensing negotiations justified the court-ordered security.

Significance:

First major Indian case showing that FRAND obligations can lead to court-ordered interim royalties.

Establishes that unauthorized export or sale of devices with SEPs is actionable.

2. Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC (U.S., 2025)

Facts:
Dolby owned U.S. patents for video compression technologies. Unified Patents challenged these patents through inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Dolby claimed the PTAB ignored other parties who had an interest in the case.

Legal Issue:
Whether Dolby had standing to appeal the PTAB’s refusal to address the “real parties in interest.”

Ruling:
The Federal Circuit dismissed Dolby’s appeal for lack of standing because Dolby failed to show a concrete, imminent injury from the PTAB’s decision.

Reasoning:

Courts require an actual injury, not hypothetical or potential losses.

This case clarifies procedural limits for appealing administrative patent decisions.

Significance:

Demonstrates that even patent owners must prove injury to challenge procedural PTAB decisions.

Highlights the complexity of managing SEP disputes in U.S. administrative law.

3. Peter Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (U.S., 2002)

Facts:
Inventor Peter Scheiber licensed surround-sound patents to Dolby. Disputes arose over royalty payments, especially regarding patents that had expired in the U.S. Dolby argued payments were no longer due.

Legal Issue:
Whether Dolby had to continue paying royalties after patent expiry under the licensing agreement.

Ruling:
The court upheld Dolby’s position: royalties were not required for expired patents.

Reasoning:

License terms govern obligations; patent expiration ends the right to royalties unless the contract specifically requires otherwise.

Patent misuse defenses require concrete evidence of improper licensing.

Significance:

Shows how patent licensing contracts are strictly enforced.

Highlights long-term disputes that arise in technology licensing.

4. Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. BLU Products, Inc. (U.S., Florida, 2024‑present)

Facts:
Dolby sued BLU Products for allegedly infringing audio technology patents used in smartphones and streaming devices.

Legal Issue:
Whether BLU’s products infringed Dolby’s patents and what remedies were appropriate (damages or injunctions).

Status:
The case is ongoing. Early rulings include discovery and exchange of technical documentation.

Significance:

Illustrates Dolby’s global litigation strategy to enforce patents.

Shows the focus on smartphones and streaming devices as high-value markets for SEP enforcement.

5. Roku v. Dolby International AB (Europe, 2024‑2025)

Facts:
Roku challenged the validity of a European patent held by Dolby International related to smart TV audio processing technologies.

Legal Issue:
Whether the patent was valid and enforceable against Roku’s devices.

Status:
Proceedings before a German court; focused on patent revocation claims.

Significance:

Shows Dolby’s patent disputes are multi-jurisdictional, spanning India, the U.S., and Europe.

Highlights that global tech companies must defend their patents in multiple regions.

6. Dolby v. Intertrust Technologies — U.S. PTAB (2020)

Facts:
Dolby challenged a patent held by Intertrust Technologies related to secure content management and digital rights management systems, using inter partes review.

Legal Issue:
Whether the challenged patent claims were invalid due to prior art.

Significance:

Illustrates Dolby’s use of administrative patent proceedings to challenge competitor patents.

Demonstrates the interplay between litigation and PTAB proceedings in modern tech patent strategy.

Key Takeaways from Dolby Patent Cases

FRAND Enforcement: Courts can require interim payments or royalties when negotiations fail.

Global Strategy: Dolby enforces patents in multiple jurisdictions (India, U.S., Europe).

Patent Licensing Matters: Contract terms and royalty obligations are critical.

Administrative Challenges: Patent owners must show real injury to appeal PTAB decisions.

Technology Focus: Cases primarily involve audio and video technologies, including smartphones, streaming devices, and smart TVs.