Visual Effect Innovations, LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc.
- Filed: 09/06/2017
- Closed: 12/17/2018
- Latest Docket Entry: 12/17/2018
New Video Image Processing Campaign Launched over Patents Returned to Named Inventors by Dominion HarborAugust 10, 2019
Video image processing patents asserted by a plaintiff associated with monetization firm Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC through January 2019 have now been returned both to their named inventors and to litigation. VDPP LLC, an entity that those named inventors formed in Oregon, has filed suit in the Northern District of California over certain assets from the returned portfolio, accusing Acer (3:19-cv-04571) and Facebook (3:19-cv-04597) of infringement through the use of certain image processing features within a variety of devices, including smartphones, tablets, and virtual reality headsets. In the new campaign, the plaintiff discloses Dynamic IP Deals, LLC (d/b/a DynaIP) as a nonparty having an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, at least the third NPE to do so this year.
May 13, 2018
With its new case against LG Electronics (LGE) (1:18-cv-00687), Visual Effect Innovations, LLC (VEI), an affiliate of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC, has now filed second suits against all three defendants named last September: Samsung, Sony, and now LGE. All three new complaints assert two recently issued members of the single family of 24 patents at issue in the campaign, generally related to various video image processing techniques. The defendants are accused of infringement through the manufacture and sale of certain televisions and monitors.
May 4, 2018
In January of this year, Visual Effect Innovations, LLC’s (VEI’s) December 2016 case against NVIDIA ended in settlement, leaving active in the campaign three September 2017 cases, one each filed against LG Electronics (LGE), Sony, and Samsung. VEI has now added a second case against Sony (1:18-cv-00675) in the District of Delaware, and a second case against Samsung (2:18-cv-00184) in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff targets image processing techniques allegedly used in the defendants’ televisions (e.g., 4K upscaling, motion blur reduction, local dimming, etc.), asserting against Sony one patent originally at issue in (but recently dropped from) cases against both LGE and NVIDIA, and asserting against both Samsung and Sony two patents new to the campaign entirely.
September 15, 2017
Various image processing techniques allegedly performed in certain televisions made and sold by Samsung (2:17-cv-00645) have been targeted in the latest complaint filed by Visual Effect Innovations, LLC (VEI), a subsidiary of Monument Patent Holdings, LLC. The two patents asserted in the new complaint are already at issue in the campaign, which began in December 2016 with a case against NVIDIA and saw suits against LG Electronics and Sony added earlier this month. Televisions, monitors, and laser projectors are the focus of these latter complaints, with NVIDIA’s 3D glasses with “independent lens control”, as well as a variety of NVIDIA graphics cards used to display 3D video games, targeted in the first case.
Monument’s Image Processing Campaign Sees New Complaints Filed Against LG Electronics and Sony, Amended Complaints Against NVIDIASeptember 8, 2017
Visual Effect Innovations, LLC (VEI), a subsidiary of Monument Patent Holdings, LLC, has filed cases against LG Electronics (LGE) (1:17-cv-01275) and Sony (1:17-cv-01276) in the campaign that it began last December with a suit against NVIDIA. VEI’s original complaint against NVIDIA asserted two patents, generally related to 3D filters, against NVIDIA’s 3D glasses with “independent lens control”, but in July, the NPE filed an amended complaint in that case, adding two video image processing patents and accompanying, new infringement allegations against a variety of NVIDIA graphics cards used to display 3D video games, among other things. These latest complaints add to the campaign a fifth patent, issued by the USPTO in July, from the same 21-member family, with the set of accused products now sweeping in televisions, monitors, and laser projectors.
June 8, 2017
Since the US Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, RPX has seen an upswing in venue-related filings by both plaintiffs and defendants—with indications that some NPEs may be throwing in the towel on Texas, while others are seemingly digging in. Defendants have also begun to adapt their defensive strategies, asserting more comprehensive interpretations of the patent venue statute and proactively maintaining their right to bring venue challenges down the road.
TC Heartland returned a key portion of the patent venue statue, one that allows infringement suits to be brought where a defendant corporation “resides”, to its prior interpretation: such a defendant “resides” only in its state of incorporation. Although venue is still proper under the same statute where a defendant has “committed acts of infringement” and has “a regular and established place of business”, the ruling could significantly limit available venues—potentially impacting both new filings and existing lawsuits.
RPX has been tracking activity in each of those categories since TC Heartland issued. To receive RPX’s new daily transfer alert email summarizing all transfer motions and orders, subscribe here.
Evolving NPE Responses
Conceding to Transfer
RPX has seen a variety of cases in which NPEs, including prolific Texas plaintiffs, have simply conceded the issue of venue since TC Heartland issued. On May 30, Texas-based Monument Patent Holdings, LLC subsidiary Visual Effect Innovations, LLC stipulated to the transfer of its case against NVIDIA (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Clara) from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The parties’ joint stipulation explicitly cited TC Heartland. Texas plaintiff Hypermedia Navigation LLC, an affiliate of monetization firm IP Valuation Partners LLC, made a similar concession in its case against Yahoo (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Sunnyvale), with both parties filing a joint motion to transfer that lawsuit to the same California district. Both Monument and IP Valuation Partners have both taken advantage of the Eastern District of Texas through the formation of multiple NPEs in the state, each designed to wage a single campaign in the Eastern District. RPX will continue to monitor whether those patterns continue as the effects of TC Heartland become clearer.
Picking New Venues
Other plaintiffs have fought back by dismissing existing cases and re-filing in districts where they consider venue to be proper under the Court’s decision. For example, prolific litigant IP Edge LLC (the top filer in 2017 thus far) has begun to shift its assertion efforts outside Texas. Just three days after TC Heartland issued, the NPE’s affiliate Venadium LLC filed five new cases in the Northern District of Illinois: three against Paylocity, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, and W.W. Grainger—each alleged to reside in that district—as well as two cases against Delaware entities Allstate Insurance and Hyatt Hotels that are alleged to have a principal office in Illinois.
Additionally, Iron Oak Technologies LLC voluntarily dismissed two of its Northern District of Texas cases on June 1, conceding that it is “unaware” of defendants Acer (incorporated in California) or Lenovo (incorporated in Delaware) “having a regular and established place of business” in that district. (See here for the stipulation of dismissal as to Acer, and here for the one pertaining to Lenovo.) That same day, the NPE then filed new actions against both defendants in the Western District of Texas, attaching to its complaints evidence that each has a remote office in the district. Similarly, Express Mobile, Inc.—faced with an existing motion to dismiss due to improper venue brought by defendant Alpine Consulting—notified the district court on the day that TC Heartland was published that it would not oppose that motion. Also that day, the NPE then filed a new case against Alpine in the Northern District of Illinois.
INVT SPE LLC, an NPE controlled by Fortress Investment Group LLC (which took over a campaign started by Inventergy, Inc.) followed that same strategy. On May 25, it both dismissed two suits filed against Apple and HTC in February (one each in the Eastern District of Texas) and filed two new suits against the two defendants in the District of New Jersey. While the previous complaints merely contained short, boilerplate language to establish venue, the new filings make specific allegations supporting its contention that venue is proper in New Jersey, including that the companies have retail locations in New Jersey, have employees in that state that interact with wireless carriers there, and actively list job openings in that district. (See here for the complaint against Apple, and here for the one against HTC.)
Doubling Down on Texas
While some NPEs have attempted to get ahead of TC Heartland, some have doubled down on their venues of choice—particularly the notoriously plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas. A notable example occurred toward the end of last week, when Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited filed a new set of complaints, some amended and others original, in the Eastern District against Google. While its previous pleadings had dedicated scarcely a paragraph or two to venue, Uniloc’s newest filings provide expansive venue-related allegations spanning over thirty pages. (See here for one of the new complaints against Google.) The NPE now prefaces its venue pleadings with a lengthy accounting of the defendant’s supposed connections to the Eastern District, listing a wide variety of Google products made available and supposedly used by customers there along with other alleged connections to the forum, including Google business locations, data collection efforts, and even its provision of services measuring traffic conditions. Uniloc has not felt the need for such extensive venue-related pleading in all of its new cases in the Eastern District—a new round of cases against Apple, also brought last week, contain the NPE’s more standard, minimal venue language.
Roping in Foreign Defendants
RPX has also begun to see early examples of cases addressing the issue of venue for foreign defendants, which the Supreme Court explicitly declined to discuss in TC Heartland. On May 31, CyWee Group Ltd., a British Virgin Islands entity affiliated with Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), sued LG Electronics (LGE) in the Southern District of California along with two of its US subsidiaries, LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA (LGEMU) and LG Electronics USA (LGEUSA). The NPE’s complaint asserts that venue is proper in that district for LGEMU based on its incorporation in California. CyWee then pleads that LGEMU is an agent of LGEUSA, noting several ways that those entities have allegedly been equated with LGE in public communications. Venue is alleged to be proper against the South Korean corporate parent both because “it is not a resident of the United States and may, therefore, be sued in any judicial district” and because it has a “regular and established place of business” in the district through its purported agents (and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district).
Evolving Defensive Strategies
Moving Beyond Residence
While venue motions filed in the immediate wake of TC Heartland focused on corporate residence, RPX has more recently seen an increasing number of defendants asserting improper venue due to the lack of a “regular and established place of business” in the original district. One such example occurred this past week in the sprawling campaign waged by Realtime Data LLC. Less than two weeks after a jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded the NPE $4.32M in a trial against Riverbed Technologies, that same defendant filed a declaratory judgment action against Realtime Data in the Northern District of California. In the new complaint, Riverbed pleads that because it is not incorporated in Texas and does not have a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas, venue is not proper there. Meanwhile, Realtime Data faces reinvigorated venue challenges in other cases in its Texas campaign, including a motion to dismiss for improper venue or transfer to the District of Colorado brought by Spectra Logic (under a TC Heartland theory, prior to the decision’s issuance), a motion to dismiss for improper venue filed by Barracuda Networks, and a motion to dismiss for improper venue filed by Carbonite. In addition, on May 30, Huawei challenged the choice of venue in a case brought by Smart Wearable Technologies Inc., a subsidiary of Wi-LAN Inc. (which changed its name to Quarterhill Inc. on June 1 as part of a business re-organization and shift away from patent assertion). That motion alleges that venue is not proper in the Western District of Virginia, asserting that as a Texas corporation, defendant Huawei Technologies does not reside in the Western District of Virginia. Huawei also argues that it lacks a “regular and established place of business” in that district.
Additionally, some defendants have tacked venue challenges onto motions to dismiss for pleading inadequacies, arguing that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pled acts of infringement anywhere, much less in the suit’s venue. On May 25, Apple filed a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in a case brought against it by Prowire LLC in the District of Delaware. The company asserts that the NPE has not plausibly alleged infringement of the asserted claims, making that venue improper as a result because venue is only proper in a district where the defendant has “committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business”. A similar argument was asserted by Lowes in a June 1 motion to dismiss filed against Monument Patent Holdings, LLC subsidiary Clean Energy Management Solutions, LLC.
At least one defendant has withdrawn a prior motion to change venues for convenience in light of TC Heartland. For example, on June 5, District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III granted Dell’s motion to withdraw such a motion in a case filed against it by Cypress Lake Software, Inc., in favor of a future motion to dismiss for improper venue, which need not address the relative convenience of the two districts or public interest factors.
Prevention of Waiver
One potential consequence of TC Heartland is that defendants relying on the previous definition of corporate residence may have waived their ability to challenge venue in existing suits. RPX has seen parties proactively preserve their ability to challenge waiver in pleadings and motions, both since TC Heartland and in the months leading up to the decision, with defendants sometimes explicitly stating that they have reserved those rights in anticipation of TC Heartland. Two days after TC Heartland was decided, STMicro filed a motion to dismiss an Eastern District of Texas case that Semcon IP Inc. (a subsidiary of Quest Patent Research Corporation) brought against it roughly one year ago. Heading off any waiver argument, STMicro notes that it pled improper venue as an affirmative defense in its answer to Semcon IP’s complaint, that the TC Heartland theory was not available before May 22, and that, once the decision came down, it filed its motion within two days. A similar argument was raised by NVIDIA in the transfer motion that it filed in the Texas Visual Effect Innovations case, with a footnote expressly stating it had not conceded proper venue by seeking a transfer for convenience and reserving the right to object after TC Heartland was decided.
June 6, 2017
Roughly ten days after the US Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision on patent venue, Monument Patent Holdings, LLC, through the plaintiff, its subsidiary Visual Effect Innovations, LLC (VEI), and sole defendant NVIDIA filed a joint stipulation to transfer the case between them from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. In January 2017, NVIDIA sought to a change of venue for convenience to the Northern District, explicitly reserving in its motion the right to contest the propriety of venue in Texas under any eventual TC Heartland decision. NVIDIA is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Clara. The court has signed the joint stipulation, and the case has been transferred, formally under the provision of the venue statutes related to convenience transfers, to a new number (3:17-cv-03187) in the Northern District of California.