In a recent development in the ongoing patent litigation between BMW and Onesta IP, BMW has challenged Onesta’s assertion that a settlement with Qualcomm resolves the patent disputes in Germany. Onesta had informed the Federal Circuit that its agreement with Qualcomm addressed the contentious patent suits involving BMW. However, BMW countered, stating that Onesta lacks “any shred of evidence to back its grandiose assertions.”
The dispute centers on Onesta’s claims against BMW in the Munich Regional Court I, where Onesta alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,381 B2 and 8,443,209 B2, as well as a related European patent, EP 2,473,920 B1. These patents pertain to GPU and system-on-chip processing features, including asynchronous task dispatch and performance-sensitive resource control. Onesta’s infringement allegations are linked to certain BMW vehicles incorporating Qualcomm Snapdragon SoC components. ([finnegan.com](https://www.finnegan.com/en/firm/news/qanda-how-an-npe-is-testing-the-limits-of-bsh-v-electrolux.html?utm_source=openai))
In response to Onesta’s actions, BMW filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 15, 2025, seeking declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, and patent misuse concerning the two U.S. patents. BMW also requested emergency injunctive relief to prevent the adjudication of these U.S. patent rights in a foreign court. Shortly thereafter, Judge Alan Albright issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which was later converted into an anti-suit injunction (ASI) on January 13, 2026. This ASI directed Onesta to terminate the German proceedings to the extent they assert U.S. patents. ([finnegan.com](https://www.finnegan.com/en/firm/news/onesta-ip-must-halt-foreign-enforcement-of-us-patents-against-bmw.html?utm_source=openai))
Onesta’s recent claim that its settlement with Qualcomm resolves the patent disputes with BMW has been met with skepticism. BMW argues that Onesta has not provided concrete evidence to substantiate this assertion. The Federal Circuit previously denied Onesta’s motion for an emergency stay following the ASI, indicating the court’s inclination to uphold the injunction. ([usaherald.com](https://usaherald.com/federal-circuit-declines-to-pause-texas-order-blocking-onestas-bmw-patent-suits-in-germany/?utm_source=openai))
This case underscores the complexities of international patent litigation, especially when U.S. patents are asserted in foreign jurisdictions. The outcome may have significant implications for how multinational corporations navigate patent disputes across different legal systems.