Patent disputes have played pivotal roles in shaping industries, defining market leaders, and even forcing companies to adapt, abandon entire product lines, or dramatically pivot their business strategies. These intellectual property battles—whether in tech, fashion, pharmaceuticals, or other sectors—have often influenced not just individual companies but the entire trajectory of their industries.
Some of these legal wars spanned decades, while others quickly reshaped entire markets. Here are six famous patent disputes that left lasting impacts on business landscapes:
1. Kodak vs. Polaroid (1976-1986) – Instant Cameras, Instant Lawsuit
Once upon a time, if you wanted to capture a moment instantly, Polaroid was the go-to brand. Founded by Edwin Land, Polaroid dominated the instant photography market for decades, especially after introducing its game-changing SX-70 camera in 1972. But in 1976, Kodak decided to enter the instant photography game.
What Went Down?
Kodak launched its own EK-4 and EK-6 instant cameras, prompting Polaroid to file a patent infringement lawsuit, claiming that Kodak had copied 12 of its patents, including its innovative film development process. After nearly a decade of legal battles, a judge ruled in favor of Polaroid in 1985. A year later Kodak pulled their instant cameras from the market.
In 1991, Kodak was ordered to pay a whopping $925 million in damages—one of the largest settlements of its time.
Who Won and What Changed?
Polaroid won the case, but the rise of digital photography quickly made instant film obsolete. While Kodak’s financial losses were a factor in its eventual bankruptcy in 2012, the company’s failure to adapt to digital technology was a much bigger contributor. Despite its legal victory, Polaroid also went bankrupt in 2001, struggling to compete in the digital era.
This battle serves as a cautionary tale: winning a lawsuit doesn’t always guarantee long-term success.
2. Amazon vs. Barnes & Noble (1997-2002) – The 1-Click Courtroom Battle
In the early days of e-commerce, Amazon was already setting the pace, introducing its 1-Click ordering system in 1999. This feature allowed customers to buy products with a single click, saving them from re-entering payment and shipping details every time they made a purchase. Barnes & Noble, seeing the potential of streamlined checkout, launched a similar feature called Express Lane.
What Went Down?
Amazon sued Barnes & Noble in 1999, claiming that the Express Lane feature violated Amazon’s 1-Click patent. A temporary injunction was granted, forcing Barnes & Noble to modify the feature, and after intense legal battles, the companies reached a settlement in 2002 under undisclosed terms.
Why Does It Matter?
This lawsuit sparked a larger debate over business method patents and whether something as simple as a checkout process could be patented. Critics argued that Amazon’s patent stifled competition, while supporters saw it as a vital tool to protect innovation. Years later, CEO Jeff Bezos himself called for patent reform, advocating for shorter lifespans and stricter patent standards.
Despite the controversy, Amazon’s 1-Click system remained a significant part of its business model, even being licensed to Apple for iTunes purchases. While the case didn’t directly lead to Amazon’s dominance, it shows how small innovations in e-commerce can have an outsized impact.
3. Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment (2005-2013) – The Doll War
For decades, Barbie was the queen of the toy world. But in 2001, MGA Entertainment introduced Bratz, a line of dolls with a fashionable, edgy aesthetic. The result? Bratz became a serious competitor, cutting into Barbie’s dominance and shaking up the doll market.
What Went Down?
Mattel claimed that Carter Bryant, a designer who had worked for Mattel, created Bratz while still under contract with Mattel—meaning the brand legally belonged to Mattel. Mattel sued MGA in 2005, arguing that Bryant had violated his employment contract by developing Bratz concepts before leaving the company.
In 2008, a jury ruled in Mattel’s favor, awarding it $100 million and forcing MGA to halt production of Bratz dolls. But in 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the ruling, finding that the original decision was flawed, and that MGA had significantly developed Bratz into its own brand.
Who Won and What Changed?
After years of legal battles, a retrial in 2011 ruled in MGA’s favor, with the jury concluding that Mattel engaged in corporate misconduct, including allegedly stealing MGA’s trade secrets. In 2013 MGA was awarded $170 million in damages, However, ownership of Bratz remained a highly contested issue, and the legal battle had already weakened both companies.
The case highlighted the importance of intellectual property rights and employee contracts, reinforcing how difficult it can be for companies to claim ownership over employee-created ideas.
This legal war proved that in business, a strong brand and innovation can survive even the fiercest courtroom battles.
4. Apple vs. Samsung (2011-2018) – The Smartphone Patent Showdown
This patent battle came to define the smartphone era. Apple accused Samsung of copying the design and features of the iPhone, including its rounded rectangular shape, home screen grid, tap-to-zoom functionality, and bounce-back scrolling effect.
What Went Down?
Apple filed a lawsuit in 2011, triggering over 50 legal battles worldwide. A U.S. jury ruled in Apple’s favor in 2012, awarding it $1.05 billion in damages, though this was later reduced to $930 million after appeals. Samsung fought back and in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that damages should be based on individual components, further extending the legal battles.
By 2018, Apple and Samsung settled out of court, officially ending the dispute. While the settlement terms remain undisclosed, Samsung had already paid Apple $539 million in a prior ruling.
Why Does It Matter?
This case reshaped how design patents are evaluated in the tech industry, setting a precedent for future lawsuits. Despite the lengthy legal battle, Apple and Samsung remained fierce rivals, each continuing to dominate the smartphone market.
The biggest takeaway: Winning a lawsuit doesn’t stop competition—great products do.
5. Converse vs. Steve Madden (2020) – A Sneaker Sole Dispute
Fashion brands frequently battle over design patents. In May 2020, Converse took legal action against Steve Madden, alleging that Madden’s “Madden Girl Winnona Flatform High-Top” and “Shark” sneakers infringed upon Converse’s design patents for its Run Star Hike sneaker.
What Went Down?
Converse sent several cease-and-desist letters to Steve Madden before filing a lawsuit. The legal dispute centered on the tread pattern of the shoe, which Converse argued was protected by its design patents. Steve Madden sought to dismiss part of the complaint, arguing differences in design. However, in August 2021, the court denied Madden’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move forward.
The case was eventually settled out of court, with Converse dismissing all claims.
What Changed?
This lawsuit underscores Converse’s commitment to protecting its designs, as evidenced by its extensive portfolio of over 230 active design patents globally. It also highlights Steve Madden’s history of legal challenges related to design similarities with other brands, including disputes with Dr. Martens and Nike.
In the fashion industry, maintaining a robust patent portfolio serves as a crucial tool for brands to safeguard their creative designs and market position.
6. The mRNA Vaccine Patent War (2022–Present)
The development of COVID-19 vaccines wasn’t just a medical breakthrough—it also sparked major patent disputes among pharmaceutical giants.
What Went Down?
CureVac vs. BioNTech:
In 2022, CureVac, a German biotech company, sued BioNTech, claiming that its mRNA technology used in the Comirnaty vaccine infringed on CureVac’s patents.
In late 2023, the German Federal Patent Court ruled in favor of BioNTech, invalidating CureVac’s specific patent. However, CureVac continues to dispute the decision.
Moderna vs. Pfizer & BioNTech:
Moderna sued Pfizer and BioNTech in 2022, alleging they infringed on its mRNA technology used in the Comirnaty vaccine. Moderna claims that Pfizer and BioNTech copied its patented mRNA technology, which had been developed and patented years before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pfizer & BioNTech denied the allegations, arguing that many of the techniques Moderna claimed were already publicly known or developed independently.
In 2024, the High Court in the UK ruled that Pfizer and BioNTech had infringed one of Moderna’s patents, although the companies have been granted permission to appeal.
The lawsuits are ongoing across multiple jurisdictions, including U.S. and European courts.
Why Does It Matter?
These disputes underscore the tension between protecting intellectual property and ensuring public health access. The outcome of these lawsuits could have wide-ranging effects on how patents are enforced in future global health crises, influencing the availability and affordability of life-saving vaccines.
Final Thoughts
Patent disputes are more than just legal battles—they can change industries, fuel innovation, and sometimes even alter the course of history. These landmark cases remind us that in business, intellectual property is often as valuable as the products themselves—and a single lawsuit can have a ripple effect across entire industries.
