On 30 June 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a summary judgement finding that Hewlett-Packard, Dell Technologies and ASUS Computer held an implied licence to LiTL LLC’s portable computer patents, thereby exonerating them from the infringement allegations. The judge noted that, as customers of LiTL’s patent licensees, the three companies derived an implied licence from the express licence agreements between the latter and LiTL; this finding rendered the requirement to demonstrate a ‘non-infringing use’ inapplicable in this case.

LiTL LLC is a technology company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, and was founded in 2007. Its parent company is TRI Ventures, Inc. The company specialises in the research and development of portable computing devices and currently holds approximately 66 patents.

In 2023, LiTL brought patent infringement proceedings against three companies, alleging that they had infringed the patent portfolio relating to its portable ‘Webbook’ product, which enables laptops to be used in both clamshell and easel modes. The proceedings initially involved eight patents, but LiTL subsequently withdrew two of them.

The central issue in the case concerns the conditions for the establishment of an implied licence. LiTL had previously licensed its patents to an unnamed company, of which HP, Dell and Asus were all customers. The three defendants consequently raised a defence of implied licence. The patent holder, LiTL, argued that for an implied licence to exist, the alleged infringer must sell products that have ‘no non-infringing use’. However, Judge Choe-Groves explicitly stated that this requirement is ‘irrelevant’ where the implied licence derives from an express licence .

In her order, the judge wrote: “This Court considers that the licence agreement confers upon the licensee’s customers an implied licence permitting them to sell, use, practise or exploit the patent in question through any of the licensee’s products, and to engage in any conduct relating to any of the licensee’s products which would otherwise be prohibited in the absence of that agreement. Consequently, as the defendant, being a customer of the licensee, derives an implied licence from the express licence between LiTL and the licensee, the requirement to prove that the defendant’s product has ‘no non-infringing use’ does not apply in the context of the facts of this case.”

Furthermore, Judge Choe-Groves found that the second element of implied licence—that “the circumstances of the sale must clearly indicate that a licence should be inferred to have been granted”—had also been satisfied; she therefore dismissed all other motions as moot.

Previously, LiTL had brought a similar action against Lenovo, which was subsequently withdrawn. Microsoft had also participated in the proceedings as an intervenor-plaintiff, seeking a declaratory judgement that its Windows operating system did not infringe the patent.