Sol IP, LLC has filed two separate lawsuits against Honda Motor Co. and Volkswagen AG, accusing them of infringing Wi-Fi standard-essential patents without proper authorization. The two cases, Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (2:26-cv-00764) and Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG (2:26-cv-00766), have both been filed on August 28, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Previously, Sol IP had also filed a cellular communication standard-essential patent infringement lawsuit against BYD in Germany. Although the cases are both currently at an early stage, Sol IP's decision to name two automakers as defendants simultaneously indicates that its SEP litigation targets are further expanding into the automotive industry. Wi-Fi patent assertions that had previously been mainly concentrated in the areas of communications and consumer electronics have also begun to extend to the vehicle end.

From cellular communication to Wi-Fi: SEP litigation is extending to the vehicle end

The automotive cellular communication SEP licensing market includes both specialized licensing entities and patent operating entities, as well as traditional telecommunications companies to directly enforce their rights. At the same time, whether licenses should be obtained by component suppliers or automakers has long been a matter at issue in licensing negotiations and litigation.

Sol IP's simultaneous lawsuits against Volkswagen and Honda indicate that there have already been similar changes in the Wi-Fi field.

Automotive Wi-Fi licensing faces more complex gaps in rules

The complexity for automotive Wi-Fi licensing to face stems not only from differences in the development of the Wi-Fi and cellular communication licensing markets, but also from the industrial structure of automotive products, which differs from that of consumer electronics.

Compared with the cellular communication field, the development of the Wi-Fi licensing market has clearly lagged behind. Even in relatively mature licensing areas such as mobile phones and PCs, the industry has yet to form a stable consensus on cumulative licensing burden, royalty base, and licensing level. As Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7 are gradually applied in automobiles, relevant licensing entities have also begun to accelerate their operations.

Meantime, there have been substantial difference on product structure and supply chain relationships between automobiles and consumer electronics such as mobile phones and PCs.

Consumer electronics typically implement relevant standards as relatively independent end products, whereas Wi-Fi functions in automobiles may be distributed across different levels, including chips, modules, domain controllers, in-vehicle infotainment systems, and complete vehicle, and may involve technology integration, procurement pricing, and contractual responsibility arrangements among multiple suppliers. Therefore, existing licensing models and royalty rates in the consumer electronics field cannot be directly applied to the automotive industry. At which level licensing shall be implemented, what value should serve as the royalty base, and how existing upstream and downstream licenses should be coordinated all need to be re-examined in light of the actual circumstances of the automotive industry.

Rate consensus for Wi-Fi licensing has not yet reached, but injunction pressure is no different from cellular communication

On January 8, 2026, the Munich Regional Court I in Germany, in the case of Wilus suing ASUS (7 O 5007/25), believed that the relevant ASUS Wi-Fi 6 products implemented the patent involved and issued a judgment ordering cessation of infringement, recall, destruction, and compensation for damages. The cessation-of-infringement part may be provisionally enforced only after the rights holder provides a security of EUR 3.5 million.

Though the Wi-Fi and cellular communication licensing markets differ in degrees of maturity, there is no essential distinction in terms of injunction constraints. Once a court finds patent infringement and determines that the implementer's licensing conduct does not comply with FRAND requirements, the rights holder may likewise obtain injunctive relief by a single Wi-Fi SEP.

From AutoIP

September 2nd, 2026