A Bellwether U.S. Antitrust Case
After MediaTek—the dominant company in the market for TV chips—offered PAEs $1 million to impose licensing fees and litigation costs on its competitors, Realtek uncovered the scheme and decided to fight back. Realtek filed an anticompetitive conduct lawsuit against MediaTek and the PAEs in the Northern District of California, seeking redress under the Sherman Act.
The U.S. Department of Justice recognized the gravity of this abuse. Last year, DOJ filed a statement of interest addressing why the Noerr-Pennington doctrine should not shield MediaTek and the PAEs from antitrust liability, affirming Realtek's position that patent bounty arrangements are improper and should be discouraged as a matter of public policy.
MediaTek has engineered an illegal scheme to use its dominant market position to raise prices and thwart competition. This scheme has three interconnected elements:
Anticompetitive Agreement
MediaTek struck an anticompetitive agreement with Future Link (a PAE) in which MediaTek paid a $1 million bounty to raise the costs of competitors by imposing licensing fees or litigation expenses on them. The bounty was guaranteed regardless of whether any suits filed had merit or succeeded.
Predatory Lawsuits
Future Link then executed the second phase of the plan by filing patent lawsuits, without regard to the merits, against Realtek. These suits were the mechanism used to inflict cost, disruption, and reputational harm – even though none succeeded legally and were quickly withdrawn, with accompanying misrepresentations about a third-party settlement agreement with one of Realtek's suppliers.
Competitive Interference
After the harassing lawsuits were filed, the customers were unaware that the suits were simply a pretext for a broader market manipulation strategy to harm Realtek.
Why This Case Matters
The Realtek v. MediaTek litigation represents a pivotal moment for American competition and innovation. If courts allow dominant firms to hire PAEs as proxies to attack competitors, this scheme will metastasize across industries – creating a chilling effect on competition and turning legitimate patent systems into tools of market manipulation. The outcome will set precedent for whether the legal system protects or enables anticompetitive abuse.
Realtek v. MediaTek et al. — Northern District of California
September 2024
MediaTek, IPValue, and Future Link, alleging an anticompetitive scheme where MediaTek paid patent trolls to file baseless lawsuits against Realtek to stifle competition (case overview on pages 2-11).
October 4, 2024
Statement from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division arguing that MediaTek’s “bounty provision” agreement with PAEs to sue its competitors should be reviewed under antitrust law and not protected as free speech (key arguments on pages 5-8).
March 7, 2025
Ruling from the Northern District of California allowing Realtek’s case to move forward on some claims. The court found Realtek made a strong enough case that two Texas lawsuits were bogus, but dismissed claims about the ITC case and the overall pattern of lawsuits (key analysis on pages 13-20).
September 9, 2025
Realtek’s public response explaining why the California defendants’ summary judgment motion should be denied.
September 17, 2025
Request from MediaTek, IPValue, and Future Link for permission to file an early summary judgment motion, arguing that prior court rulings should prevent Realtek from relitigating these issues (key arguments on pages 2-3).
September 22, 2025
Realtek’s formal legal response opposing the defendants’ request to file an additional early summary judgment motion. Argues that the defendants are misrepresenting a recent Federal Circuit decision related to an earlier Texas patent case, and that a key licensing agreement was never properly disclosed to the Texas court (key arguments on pages 2-4).
October 3, 2025
Order from the Northern District of California allowing the defendants to seek early dismissal based on previous rulings from the Western District of Texas and the International Trade Commission.
October 23, 2025
Motion from MediaTek, IPValue, and Future Link seeking dismissal of seven of Realtek’s nine claims. Argues that because the Western District of Texas and Federal Circuit already ruled the patent lawsuits were not objectively baseless, Realtek cannot now argue they were sham litigation (key arguments on pages 3-7).
November 6, 2025
Realtek’s formal legal response explaining why the case should continue rather than be dismissed early (core arguments on pages 5-12).
November 6, 2025
Brief public statement from Realtek opposing the defendants’ attempt to end the case early.
Future Link Systems v. Realtek — Western District of Texas
September 9, 2025
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Realtek’s appeal of the district court’s denial of fees and costs in patent infringement cases brought by Future Link Systems against Realtek in the Western District of Texas. The court ruled in Realtek’s favor, finding that Realtek is the “prevailing party” and sending the case back to the Texas district court to reconsider awarding attorney's fees and costs to Realtek (key holdings on pages 5-9).
October 16, 2025
Letter from Realtek’s counsel to Judge Albright requesting a discovery and briefing schedule following the Federal Circuit’s remand. Asks the court to allow limited discovery before deciding whether Future Link’s patent lawsuit was “exceptional” enough to warrant attorney’s fees.