Korean chip firms log more US patent suits in seven months than in any full year since 2012

Korean companies filed half of the record themselves, nine of the 18 suits ^[5]. The count that bears on cost is the other nine, where they are defendants ^[4]. That tally is already 50% above each of the past two full years, with five months still to run ^[15]. The total of 18 beats every full year since the agency began compiling the series in 2012 ^[2], at 1.8 times 2024's 10 cases and 2.25 times last year's eight ^[17].

Projected in a straight line, 18 cases in seven months comes to about 31 for 2026 ^[22]. The Seoul Economic Daily obtained the Korea Intellectual Property Protection Agency figures ^[1] and is more cautious: it expects filings and defenses each to pass 10, putting the total above 20 ^[19]. The figures are also the first chip-only breakdown of the agency's wider count of US patent suits involving Korean companies ^[13].

The plaintiffs have changed along with the count. Non-practicing entities own no production facilities and earn money by buying patents and enforcing them ^[14]. They brought seven of this year's nine suits against Korean firms ^[6] and 17 of 24 over the five years to the end of July ^[7]. Take 2026 out of that window and the earlier share was 10 of 15, about 67% ^[16], against 77.8% now ^[6]. Other plaintiffs brought the remaining two this year ^[18].

Core memory technology is now a target. Monolithic 3D sued SK hynix in May, alleging it used patented three-dimensional vertical stacking and transistor layout without authorization to make high-bandwidth memory, after suing it in February as well ^[8]. Mare Infinitus, another non-practicing entity, sued Samsung Electronics over high-bandwidth memory in June ^[9]. The patents in both cases cover technology central to HBM, including vertical stacking ^[10]. Kim Yong-sun, commissioner of the Korea Intellectual Property Administration, told the paper that "the larger semiconductors loom in Korean industry, the more noticeable it becomes that foreign NPEs are generating patent disputes in the chip sector." ^[12]

The defense options are narrow. A chipmaker sued by a rival can counter-sue with its own patents. Against a plaintiff that makes nothing, even a large portfolio offers no means of attack ^[20]. Industry officials told the paper that defendants often settle whether or not they infringed, out of concern over litigation costs and reputational damage ^[20]. The other early exit, an inter partes review petition at the US Patent and Trademark Office, has been rejected more often since President Donald Trump took office, and US non-practicing entities have become more active as a result ^[21].

The agency data does not include settlement or damages amounts, so the cost cannot yet be set against the profits. Nine defendant cases is a small number for a sector where Samsung and SK hynix are heading for record operating profit ^[4][11]. If the HBM suits settle for sums that never show up in either company's results, the record stays a count. A damages award or a running royalty on stacked memory would be different, because it would put a per-unit charge on a core product in a boom year. I think that risk is real but narrow, since it rests on suits from two plaintiffs ^[8][9]. The view is wrong if either company discloses an HBM-related litigation charge, or if the full-year tally of suits against Korean firms runs well past the 10 the paper expects ^[19].