Goodman v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. DC

The litigation campaign of individual named inventor James B. Goodman came to an abrupt halt in mid-2018 after a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Texas, upon hearing arguments over a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement brought by HP, indicated an inclination to grant that motion. The magistrate filed a report and recommendation along those lines, Goodman responded with objections, and District Judge Keith P. Ellison overruled those objections, adopted the magistrate’s recommendations, and dismissed the case. Meanwhile, because the infringement allegations elsewhere were similarly premised on the alleged compliance with certain JEDEC standards, Goodman promptly dismissed suits against Acer, ASUSTek, and Lenovo in the Northern District of California and against Samsung in Southern District of New York. The campaign, however, appears not to be over after all; this past week, Goodman sued NVIDIA (1:19-cv-04661) in the Southern District of New York over the same patent, this time alleging infringement through the provision of graphics cards incorporating certain GPUs and GDDR5, GDDR5X, or GDDR6 memory, allegedly practicing relevant (and different) JEDEC standards JESD212C, JESD232A, and JESD250B, respectively.

Roughly one month after James B. Goodman added a Northern District of California case against Lenovo to the campaign begun over a dozen years ago, the individual inventor has filed another suit in the same forum. This time Goodman has sued Acer (3:17-cv-07297), alleging infringement of a familiar, single patent through provision of computing and/or consumer electronics devices that utilize DDR3 and DDR4 memory allegedly compliant with the JEDEC standard. Other open cases in the campaign include one against HP in the Southern District of Texas, another against Samsung in the Southern District of New York, and a third Northern District of California suit, against ASUS.

Individual inventor James B. Goodman has added a new case against Lenovo (3:17-cv-06782) to the campaign that he has been litigating since July 2004. Goodman again alleges infringement of a single patent through Lenovo’s provision of certain computing devices that utilize DDR3 and DDR4 memory allegedly compliant with the JEDEC standard. The new suit has been filed in the Northern District of California, after two of the four suits Goodman filed in the Southern District of Texas in late 2016 and earlier in 2017, against ASUS (transferred to the Northern District of California) and Samsung (refiled in the Southern District of New York), were forced elsewhere. One of the other two cases (against Micro Electronics) has been dismissed in light of settlement, while the other (against HP) proceeds in Texas after that court denied a motion to dismiss under a license theory and a motion to stay in light of recently filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR).

In October 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw the filing of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against a variety of frequent litigants, including publicly traded NPEs Acacia Research Corporation and Xperi Corporation, as well as privately held Monument Patent Holdings, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. The Board also instituted trial in October for IPRs against multiple Acacia subsidiaries, Uniloc, and Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg. In addition, the PTAB issued an IPR final decision cancelling multiple claims from a data compression patent held by prolific plaintiff Realtime Data LLC, including the single claim that Riverbed Technology (one of the petitioners for the IPR) was found to infringe in a $4.3M verdict in May, with other final decisions issued in campaigns waged by TQ Delta LLC and publicly traded Quarterhill Inc. IPRs against IP Bridge, Inc. and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC also ended in termination in October after the patent owners requested adverse judgments.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw the number of petitions for AIA review filed against NPEs drop by more than half in August 2017, down to 30 petitions from 68 in July. Petitions were brought in August against publicly traded Finjan Holdings, Inc., inventor Leigh M. Rothschild, and a mix of prolific private litigants, including Blackbird Tech LLC, Realtime Data LLC, and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. Meanwhile, the Board instituted trial in August for petitions against a variety of entities, including the California Institute of Technology and publicly traded Quarterhill Inc. as well as IP Bridge, Inc.; Realtime Data; and Uniloc. The PTAB also issued final decisions throughout August in campaigns waged by publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation; Advanced Touchscreen and Gesture Technologies, LLC; Elm 3DS Innovations LLC; and Rosetta-Wireless Corporation.

Individual inventor James B. Goodman has filed a second lawsuit against Samsung in the Southern District of New York (1:17-cv-05539), a month after the defendant moved to dismiss a troubled case against it in the Southern District of Texas (4:17-cv-00455). In that earlier suit, Goodman voluntarily dismissed Samsung’s American subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) (a New York entity alleged to have a principal place of business in New Jersey) without prejudice on May 25, three days after the US Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland. On June 13, Samsung moved to dismiss due to pleading deficiencies, asserting that Goodman has not plausibly alleged infringement in Texas by the remaining defendant, Korean parent entity Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (SEC). The inventor moved to dismiss SEC a week later. Goodman’s New York complaint targets SEA alone and alleges infringement of a single patent (6,243,315) through the provision of certain computing devices that utilize DDR3 and DDR4 memory allegedly compliant with the JEDEC standard.

Individual inventor James B. Goodman has added a case against Samsung (4:17-cv-00455) to the litigation campaign that he started over a decade ago. The new complaint asserts a single patent (6,243,315), targeting computing devices that contain certain memory devices (DDR3 and DDR4). The ‘315 patent generally relates to volatile memory systems that have the capability to retain some data during low power situations. Goodman accuses the Samsung memory products of infringement through compliance with relevant JEDEC standards. The inventor’s latest complaint identifies Samsung as one of his prior licensees, but court filings in recent, parallel cases suggest that that license expired, as long ago as 2003.

Individual inventor James B. Goodman has added two more defendants to a litigation campaign that he started over ten years ago. The new complaints assert a single patent (6,243,315) against ASUS (4:16-cv-03232) and HP (4:16-cv-03195) over the manufacture and sale of computer products that contain certain memory devices. The ‘315 patent generally relates to volatile memory systems having the capability to retain some data during low power situations. As has been the case throughout this campaign, which has now hit over 25 defendants, Goodman accuses the products of infringement through compliance with relevant JEDEC standards.