[International IP Briefing] US, EU

 

US

Perplexity AI, Inc. Wins Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Over “Perplexity” in the United States

On October 29, 2025, Reuters and other media outlets reported that the artificial intelligence startup Perplexity AI, Inc. (“Perplexity”) prevailed in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the software company Perplexity Solved Solutions (“PSS”) over the use of the name “Perplexity.”

(Factual Background)

In January 2025, PSS filed a trademark infringement action against Perplexity in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to prohibit Perplexity from using the name “Perplexity” as its brand. 

. Founded in 2017, PSS provides software that leverages AI-driven data analysis to simplify complex business needs and improve communication and collaboration. PSS applied for registration of the trademark “Perplexity,” covering software services, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in October 2021 and obtained trademark rights in 2022.

. Perplexity, established in 2022, is a company offering an AI-based search engine.

. PSS alleged that Perplexity attempted to acquire its trademark in 2023 but was refused, and further claimed that it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Perplexity regarding use of the name in October 2024.

. PSS filed the lawsuit on grounds that Perplexity’s name would cause consumer confusion. Perplexity denied the infringement allegations, asserted that no consumer confusion had occurred, and filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of PSS’s trademark registration.

(Procedural History)

In July 2025, PSS’s legal team from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP requested to withdraw from representation, citing an “irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship” that made continued representation impossible. The court granted the request in August 2025.

. The court made clear that because PSS is a corporate entity, (1) it may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel, and (2) failure to retain substitute counsel could result in a default judgment on the counterclaim and dismissal of its claims against the defendant.

(Court’s Decision)

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the trademark infringement action filed by PSS.

. After the withdrawal of its legal team, PSS was unable to retain new counsel. Although PSS requested additional time due to financial difficulties, the court rejected the request on October 9, 2025.

. Perplexity subsequently asked the court to terminate the case because the plaintiff could not secure counsel to represent it.

 

< Source of this post >

https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=US&currentPage=2&po_no=23993

 

EU

EUIPO Releases Report on “Influencers and IP”

On November 10, 2025, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published a report titled “Influencers and IP,” analyzing how social media influencers across the European Union (EU) perceive and engage with intellectual property (IP), as well as the impact they have on the online consumption behavior of younger generations.

(Overview)

Influencer marketing on social media continues its rapid growth and is now a major driver of global economic trends. The market is expected to reach approximately USD 32.55 billion in 2025. Social media influencers today play a significant role in shaping public opinion and cultural development in the digital era, exerting strong and influential power over the values and consumption patterns of EU citizens—especially younger generations.

(Key Findings)

The report is based on an online survey of 300 influencers active on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube across the 27 EU Member States. Major findings include the following:

1. Influencers’ Ownership of IP Rights (IPRs) and Its Impact on Professional Growth.

. A vast majority of respondents (92%) reported that they are professionally active and generate income through their social media content. However, only 18% of influencers indicated that they own IPRs such as trademarks, copyrights, or design rights.

. Influencers who owned IPRs tended to be at a more advanced entrepreneurial and creative stage: 55% of them owned their own brand, and 33% operated an online store.

. In comparison, among influencers without IPRs, only 24% owned their own brand, and just 14% operated an online store.

2. Influencers’ Respect for IP and Sense of Responsibility

. Influencers demonstrated a strong ethical awareness regarding respect for IP. A large majority stated that they actively avoid promoting counterfeit products (94%) and illegally copied digital content (93%) in their work.

. Additionally, 96% of respondents said they feel responsible for the influence their content has on the public, and 92% reported that they review the credibility and appropriateness of a brand before creating collaborative content.

3. Influencers and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

. Many influencers indicated that they actively incorporate AI into their creative workflows, with more than half (51%) saying they use AI “often” or “sometimes” in content production.

. Moreover, 47% expressed concern that their content could be altered by AI and used for others’ benefit, while 72% acknowledged the possibility that AI-generated outputs may infringe existing IPRs.

  

< Source of this post >

https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=EU&po_no=24014

 

 

A New Standard for Patent Search, WIPS Global

 

As we come to the close of another remarkable year, we would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for your continued trust and partnership. Your feedback, insights, and encouragement have guided us throughout 2025, and they have played a meaningful role in shaping the future of WIPS Global.

This year marked an important milestone for us. In September 2025, WIPS Global took a significant step forward with an expanded coverage of 50 countries, enhanced precision in search accuracy, and a more intuitive user experience across the platform. Several core search functions were also refined, allowing us to deliver a faster, smarter, and more reliable patent-search environment for professionals around the world.

As we look ahead to a new year, our commitment remains unchanged. WIPS will continue to stand by you with dependable service, deeper insights, and technology that grows alongside your needs. We are dedicated to leading the future of intellectual property services—together with you.

Thank you sincerely for walking this journey with us. We hope you look forward to an even more intelligent and seamless WIPS Global in 2026.

Led by AI. Completed by you.

Patent Litigation Between Samsung Electronics/Seoul Semiconductor and U.S.-based LED Wafer Solutions

 The global electronics industry has once again entered the whirlwind of patent disputes. LED Wafer Solutions, a U.S.-based non-practicing entity (NPE), has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor, claiming unauthorized use of its LED technology patents. This case is drawing attention not just as a typical patent dispute, but as a strategic battle among global corporations for leadership in next-generation LED technologies. Let’s take a closer look at how this lawsuit arose and what it means.

Overview and Key Background

 The lawsuit was filed on September 15, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff alleges that Samsung Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor unlawfully used its core patents related to LED packaging and manufacturing. The technologies at issue reportedly include packaging structures designed to improve heat dissipation of LED chips, metal wiring layer configurations, and bonding methods for sapphire or ceramic substrates. Each of these elements constitutes a critical factor determining LED performance and lifespan.

Seoul Semiconductor: From “Partner” to “Defendant”

 One particularly notable point in this lawsuit is the inclusion of Seoul Semiconductor as a direct defendant. Until now, Seoul Semiconductor had been mentioned only indirectly as a supplier of LED components to Samsung Electronics. However, being listed as a defendant suggests that the dispute now extends beyond the simple supply chain and into technology design processes. This indicates a full-scale confrontation among core technology owners rather than a mere supply-related issue.

Products and Technologies at the Center of the Dispute

 LED Wafer Solutions claims in its complaint that the LED flash modules used in Samsung’s Galaxy S, Z, and A series smartphones infringe its patents. According to the plaintiff, the structure of these modules is identical or substantially similar to claims in its patents, constituting not only technical similarity but intentional infringement. The plaintiff also argues that Samsung and Seoul Semiconductor continued adopting similar structures even after the technology was publicly disclosed, demonstrating that they recognized the existence of the patents yet persisted in infringement.

Samsung Galaxy camera/ LED flash module
(Source: Samsung Electronics, ko.ifix.com)

The Patents at Issue and Strategic Venue Selection

 The key patents cited in the complaint are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,952,405 and 9,786,822, both of which recently received reexamination certificates. This indicates that the USPTO has reaffirmed the validity of their claims, which strengthens the credibility of LED Wafer Solutions’ assertions. Meanwhile, the lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue well known for its high volume of patent litigation cases. The court’s jury system and procedural tendencies are widely considered favorable to patent holders, suggesting that the plaintiff may have strategically selected this jurisdiction.

So what exactly do these asserted patents cover?

 Both US 8,952,405 and US 9,786,822 relate to “Light emitting diode packages and methods of manufacture.” The technology integrates a wafer substrate and a light-emitting device into a single package to improve manufacturing efficiency for LED devices. It is a technology cited by Samsung Electronics as well as other major electronics manufacturers.

wipsglobal.com > Family analysis > Family Diagram
US 9786822, Light emitting diode package and method of manufacture

How Samsung Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor Might Respond

 For Seoul Semiconductor, this lawsuit may pose a significant burden. The company has built a strong global track record in patent enforcement and defense based on its proprietary technologies. However, as a defendant rather than an enforcer, it must now develop a structured defense strategy. This could influence future royalty negotiations, potential design modifications, and even market reputation.

 Samsung Electronics also cannot take this lawsuit lightly. Despite being a global brand known for strong technological capabilities, litigation in the United States can directly affect international trust and corporate reputation. Samsung is therefore expected to mobilize extensive legal and technical teams to present a detailed rebuttal.

Outlook

 Ultimately, this dispute represents a courtroom battle over “who truly owns the technology.” LED Wafer Solutions seeks to strengthen its patent rights and pursue compensation, while Samsung Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor are expected to mount a strong defense to demonstrate technological independence and non-infringement. As the lawsuit is still in its early stages, the process will soon move on to responses from the defendants, claim-construction procedures, and potential mediation or settlement discussions.

 Beyond determining the winner of a single lawsuit, the outcome may carry broader implications for how Korean technology companies protect their technological sovereignty in the global market. This is why industry watchers are keeping a close eye on future developments.