How IP Leaders from Meta, Lyft, Pure Storage, and PacTech Law are rethinking litigation risk, portfolio strategy, and SEP threats in a high-stakes innovation landscape
Litigation risk doesn’t knock. It kicks down the door—usually when your product team is scaling something brilliant. At the recent LexisNexis and LOT Network panel in Palo Alto, four seasoned IP leaders sat down not to celebrate innovation, but to protect it. From AI to autonomous driving, from patent pools to portfolio pruning, the conversation pulled back the curtain on how the smartest tech companies are confronting the new shape of risk.
As it turns out, what keeps them up at night isn’t just patent trolls—it’s the long shadow of operating company entanglements, a quiet data revolution, and the uncomfortable question: Are we still building portfolios that actually serve us?
That’s why LexisNexis and LOT Network brought together senior IP leaders from across industries at an exclusive panel discussion on June 2, 2025, to explore a pressing theme: How do you manage IP litigation risk while still driving innovation at speed?
Here are some of the top insights and what the leaders had to say, straight from the front lines.
Elizabeth Morris of Pure Storage didn’t mince words:
“We’re the small dog in the space… we have to keep barking loudly and be actively aggressive in a defensive sort of way.”
That sentiment echoed across the panel, where leaders acknowledged that while lawsuits from PAEs and NPEs remain a persistent threat, the more disruptive concern is litigation from operating companies with shifting strategies.
According to litigation data shared during the panel, the U.S. has seen over 37,000 patent families litigated between 2014 and 2024. US litigation especially increased for Artificial Intelligence, Social Networks and Augmented/Virtual Reality. Even more telling: nearly 2,530 cases referenced a standard-relevant patent, often in highly strategic sectors like Wi-Fi, 4G/5G, and video compression standards. These aren’t isolated battles—they’re structural threats to innovation.
Kanda Ishihara of Lyft pointed to strategic uncertainty in emerging tech:
“What keeps me up at night is just making sure we’re doing the right things… to maintain our somewhat low radar on IP litigation.”
Jeremiah Chan of Meta highlighted the systemic worry:
“AR, VR, AI—there are a number of areas that are pretty hot. We want to avoid disruption so Meta can innovate.”
Dave Djavaherian, founder of PacTech Law, warned that many industries still underestimate the SEP threat:
“Auto companies didn’t see it coming. They’re now paying $15–30 per car for a cell chip because of standards mandates. Smart Meters or Smart Medical? Same story. Nobody sees it until it’s too late.”
Data presented by Tim Pohlmann of LexisNexis shows that cellular wireless, streaming, and WLAN/WPAN technologies are among the top targets of PAE litigation—areas central to today’s connected devices, such as smart phones, computers, home entertainment, but also vehicles, smart medical tech to or meters. That explains why industries that were once untouched by SEP wars, like automotive and healthcare, are now in the litigation crosshairs.
Across the panel, there was consensus: litigation risk can no longer be treated reactively.
Morris emphasized that membership in LOT Network and RPX has become basic hygiene:
“LOT is just table stakes. Best practice to protect ourselves from potential NPE suits.”
At Meta, Chan added a note of pragmatism:
“We’re spending millions on a portfolio we don’t assert… The data is telling you to build very differently. You don’t need as many patents as you probably have.”
At Lyft, Ishihara linked smart portfolio management directly to business velocity:
“We show the business that we’re not disruptive—that we’re using the budget wisely and protecting freedom to operate.” The panel also examined how company exits from protective networks like LOT can become flashpoints. One striking example: TCL, a founding member of LOT, is set to exit in October 2025, taking with it 77,000 patent assets, including over 500 SEPs.If even a fraction of these fall into the hands of PAEs, it could reshape the litigation landscape. LOT participation, then, isn’t just symbolic—it’s strategic insulation.
Figure 1: LOT Network membership growth chart.
Litigation risk is becoming a data problem, and companies are turning to analytics to solve it.
Both Lyft and Pure Storage described how visualizing portfolio risk helps them secure internal buy-in.
Morris shared:
“Using clever charts helps management understand what’s coming, so we get the resources we need to stay ahead.”
Ishihara added:
“We use illustrations in the tool to show where we have protection, and how we’re mitigating litigation risk.”
She also elaborated on the use of LexisNexis PatentSight+:
“We actually use PatentSight, the LexisNexis tool. It provides so much insight if you know the right questions to ask. It’s gone from being a reporting tool, helping to make IP value visible to non-patent stakeholders, to a radar for anticipating risk across our business areas, including rideshare, micromobility, and AV partnerships.”
Platforms like LexisNexis PatentSight and IPlytics are key tools in this shift. With SEP licensing data, portfolio benchmarking, and competitor tracking, these tools transform risk into something measurable and manageable. A LexisNexis snapshot revealed that platforms like PatentSight facilitate the identification of third-party portfolios with overlapping claims, while IPlytics maps standard participation to assess SEP risk exposure. Meanwhile, tools like LexisNexis Classification uncover technology clusters and patent litigation trends, helping companies anticipate threats before they escalate. These tools aren’t just useful to report on litigation, they actively inform strategy.
Chan reflected on the shift brought by AI-driven tech classification:
“I think we forget how hard things were before we had the technology and tools that we have now. I remember when we had to manually assess 60,000 patents. It was a nightmare. With machine learning classifiers, you now get instant clarity on your portfolio and the broader landscape.”
He also added his perspective about IPlytics:
“I feel the same way about IPlytics as well. It’s not playing sides. It provides one source of truth to objectively understand standard patent ownership, who owns what, so we can negotiate from a place of clarity. I think this is how FRAND negotiations are supposed to work. Without any data, we won’t get there.”
One of the most eye-opening data sets shared: nearly 50% of SEP-related lawsuits in recent years were filed by PAEs or NPEs, not traditional operating companies. This isn’t just a numbers game; it signals a shift in enforcement behavior. Standards like Wi-Fi, 5G, and H.264 video now top the charts in litigation volume, with PAEs often enforcing through strategic patent pool entities, not direct competitors.
Chan called out a silent truth in corporate IP strategy:
“Most litigation from operating companies? It’s entanglements and partnerships that go sour. We don’t spend enough time preparing for that.”
Djavaherian pushed for more aggressive countermeasures when operating companies sell off patents to PAEs: “Treat the party who transferred the patent as the opponent, not only the PAE. Too often, we give them a pass. That has to change.”
He also highlighted the hidden dynamics behind licensing pools:
“When pools like Sisvel have 40 operating companies and it’s the PAEs who sue, that’s not cooperation, that’s coercion.”
The message from the panel was clear: litigation risk is no longer the domain of legal teams alone. Business strategy, engineering, and corporate development all need to be in alignment with a shared risk outlook.
The tools and tactics exist, from network-based defense models like LOT to data-driven portfolio intelligence from LexisNexis.
But the mindset must evolve.
“We all want to leave this profession better than we found it,” said Chan. “That means making sure IP is open, accessible, and defensible for everyone.”
The bottom line? The data speaks as loudly as the panelists: litigation risk is increasingly systemic, not situational. And the companies poised to survive it are those that align analytics, legal foresight, and cross-sector collaboration, before the next wave hits.
IP and Legal leader Alessandro Orsi of HP Inc. speaks with us on the topic of SEPs litigation and its implications for product innovators vs. standards implementers.
