XR Communications, LLC v. Netgear, Inc DC

After filing more than a dozen new cases in mid-June, XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) was not done. Since then, the plaintiff has added suits against Dell (6:21-cv-00646), HP (6:21-cv-00694), and Microsoft (6:21-cv-00695) to those filed earlier against Alphabet (Google), Amazon (eero), Apple, ASUSTek, Cisco, Comcast, CommScope (ARRIS Solutions, Ruckus Wireless), D-Link, Hon Hai Precision Industry (Belkin), HP Enterprise (HPE) (Aruba Networks), NETGEAR, Samsung, and Ubiquiti Networks. The latest complaints focus on one of the now seven patents-in-campaign, alleging infringement through the provision of Wi-Fi-enabled laptops, tablets and two-in-ones, and desktops that support MIMO and/or MU-MIMO technologies.

XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) has filed more than a dozen new cases, one each against Alphabet (Google), Amazon (eero), Apple, ASUSTek, Cisco, Comcast, CommScope (ARRIS Solutions), and Samsung in the Western District of Texas; against D-Link, Hon Hai Precision Industry (Belkin), HP Enterprise (HPE) (Aruba Networks), NETGEAR, and Ubiquiti Networks in the Central District of California; and against CommScope (Ruckus Wireless) in the Northern District of California. XR Communications targets various wireless networking capabilities of certain defendant devices—including access points, controllers, routers, and streaming devices—with overlapping subsets of four patents. The new wave arrives as the prior, 2017 wave of litigation from the same plaintiff comes back to life at the conclusion of a set of inter partes reviews (IPRs) of three patents asserted previously.

Throughout May 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw activity in multiple long-running campaigns, including challenges brought against patents and plaintiffs with colorful and tangled litigation histories. The Board saw petitions for AIA review brought in May against Publishing Technologies LLC, an NPE controlled by patent attorney and frequent litigant Bradley D. Liddle; in the mobile devices campaign waged by AGIS Software Development LLC; and in the networking campaign brought by XR Communications, LLC. Also in May, the Board instituted trial for inter partes reviews (IPRs) against Iridescent Networks, Inc. and Oyster Optics, LLC. Final decisions issued in May include three against prolific plaintiff Realtime Data LLC, which saw claims cancelled from one of its data compression patents while another two survived unscathed, as well as final decisions cancelling claims from patents held by General Patent Corporation and VirnetX Holding Corporation.

In April 2017, XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato) launched a litigation campaign with 11 lawsuits, each asserting the same three wireless communications patents. Quick dismissal of one of those cases left ten active in the Central District of California, the one against Ruckus Wireless becoming messy following Brocade’s sell-off of Ruckus to ARRIS in the wake of its own acquisition by Broadcom. XR Communications tried to salvage the situation by filing against ARRIS in the Los Angeles court, but District Judge Andrew J. Guilford handed down a colorful March 20, 2018 order, transferring the Ruckus Wireless case to the Northern District of California. XR Communications has responded by dismissing its Central District case against ARRIS and filing a new one (5:18-cv-02736) in the Northern District, targeting certain access points and routers sold by ARRIS, including certain of its SURFboard and Touchstone cable modems. Meanwhile, back down in Los Angeles, the court has stayed the remaining cases in light of multiple petitions filed for inter partes review (IPR) of the three patents-in-suit.

In March 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed in a variety of notable campaigns, including those waged by publicly traded Quarterhill Inc.; privately held XR Communications, LLC; and inventor Leigh M. Rothschild. The Board also instituted trial throughout March in campaigns brought by Oyster Optics, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. In addition, the PTAB granted in March a motion to amend in two IPRs against prolific plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC, also issuing final decisions involving patents asserted by Uniloc; Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg; Evolved Wireless LLC; Game and Technology Co., Ltd; and TQ Delta LLC.

XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato) has filed suit against ARRIS (Ruckus Networks) (8:18-cv-00192), asserting the same three patents already at issue in the other ten cases in the campaign. The new complaint follows Brocade’s sell-off of Ruckus Wireless in the wake of its own acquisition by Broadcom. The plaintiff pleads in the new complaint that at a recent hearing, counsel for Ruckus Wireless, sued in a separate case, represented that the company “probably doesn’t exist anymore” and that “the company that exists is Ruckus Networks and ARRIS company”. XR Communications further pleads that Ruckus Networks is the alter ego of its new parent companies, operating as a business unit rather than a separate subsidiary.

The litigation campaign that XR Communications, LLC launched at the beginning of April with cases against D-Link and Xirrus has expanded. The NPE has since added suits against ASUS (2:17-cv-02948), Belkin (8:17-cv-00674), Brocade (Ruckus Wireless) (2:17-cv-02961), Cisco (2:17-cv-02951), Digital Products International (NEWO) (5:17-cv-00744), Extreme Networks (2:17-cv-02953), HPE (Aruba Networks) (2:17-cv-02945), NETGEAR (2:17-cv-02959), and Ubiquiti Networks (2:17-cv-02968). Three wireless communications patents (6,611,231; 7,062,296; 7,729,728) are asserted in each of the complaints, with infringement allegations focusing on Wi-Fi routers using the MU-MIMO and 802.11ac-2013 standards (the ‘296 patent), routers with phased array antennas and certain transceivers (the ‘728 patent), and routers with adaptive antennas (the ‘231 patent).

XR Communications, LLC has kicked off a litigation campaign asserting three patents (6,611,231; 7,062,296; 7,729,728) developed by failed Wi-Fi infrastructure provider Vivato, Inc. The defendants are D-Link (8:17-cv-00596), sued in the Central District of California, and Xirrus (3:17-cv-00675), sued in the Southern District of California. Accused products include Wi-Fi routers using the MU-MIMO and 802.11ac-2013 standards (the ‘296 patent), routers with phased array antennas and certain transceivers (the ‘728 patent), and routers with adaptive antennas (the ‘231 patent).