In the world of big business, companies often clash over who owns valuable technology. These disputes usually involve patents, which are legal protections for inventions. One recent and important patent fight involves the carmaker BMW and a company called Onesta IP, LLC. The case raises a big question: Should patents only be enforced in the country where they were issued, or can courts in other countries get involved?
The Dispute
Onesta IP owns several patents related to computer and graphics technology. Two of these are U.S. patents that originally came from technology developed by AMD. Onesta claims that BMW’s in-car infotainment systems such as navigation screens and multimedia features that use Qualcomm chips, use this patented technology without permission.
Normally, if someone believes a U.S. patent is being infringed, they would sue in a U.S. court. Instead, Onesta filed lawsuits in Munich, Germany, asking a German court to rule on alleged violations of both European patents and U.S. patents. This approach is unusual and controversial.
BMW strongly disagreed with Onesta’s strategy. The company argued that U.S. patents should only be interpreted and enforced by U.S. courts under U.S. law.
BMW raised several concerns:
- German courts do not use juries.
- Legal rules about damages and injunctions are different in Germany.
- Onesta appeared to be engaging in “forum shopping,” meaning it chose a court it believed would be more favorable to its case.
As a result of these concerns, BMW filed a case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where Judge Alan D. Albright heard the dispute.
In January 2026, Judge Albright issued an anti-suit injunction, ordering Onesta to stop pursuing its German lawsuits as they relate to U.S. patents.
Judge Albright ruled that U.S. patents belong in U.S. courts and should not be enforced abroad in a way that interferes with U.S. law.
Onesta appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the appeals court initially declined to block the injunction, it later issued a temporary stay, while the appeal is reviewed. As a result, the German cases involving the U.S. patents do not currently have to be withdrawn, but the issue is still unresolved.
Why This Case Matters:
This dispute could shape the future of international patent enforcement. If courts in one country are allowed to rule on patents from another country, companies could face overlapping and conflicting legal decisions around the world. On the other hand, allowing such cases might make it easier for patent holders to enforce their rights globally.
The final outcome of this case could influence how multinational companies protect technology and where they can be sued.
Reader Poll
Should intellectual property (IP) laws remain territorial?
🔘 Yes -Patents should only be enforced in the country where they are issued
🔘 No – Courts should be allowed to enforce patents across borders
🔘 Not sure -The issue is too complex to decide
