CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Google LLC
- Filed: 04/16/2018
- Closed: 01/04/2019
- Latest Docket Entry: 01/17/2020
February 23, 2020
CyWee Group Ltd., a spin-off of the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), hit a roadblock in its ongoing smartphone motion-sensing campaign in early January, when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated claims from both patents-in-suit in an inter partes review (IPR) filed by Google. Now, shortly after the PTAB released redacted, public versions of those two decisions, CyWee has filed a second lawsuit against Google (6:20-cv-00128), alleging that the company should have listed another campaign defendant, LG Electronics (LGE), as a real party in interest (RPI) in its IPRs—in which case the petitions would have been time-barred. The NPE’s complaint follows an earlier attempt to raise a similar RPI argument before the PTAB, which rejected that defense in its January final decisions.
Access to the full article is currently available to RPX members only. Please contact us if you need further information.
July 7, 2018
In June 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw petitioners wage validity challenges against a variety of prominent NPEs. Among those hit by petitions for AIA review in June was Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), which has not filed any new litigation in the US since October 2017, but continues to assert patents overseas; and NPEs affiliated with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Industrial Technology Research Institute. Also in June, the PTAB instituted trial for two IPRs against affiliates of top litigant IP Edge LLC, which remains the most prolific patent plaintiff of the past 18 years by the number of defendants added to US patent suits. In addition, the Board issued final decisions in IPRs against IV, the California Institute of Technology, inventor Daniel L. Flamm, and frequent litigants Realtime Data LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited.
April 18, 2018
On the day of a related claim construction hearing in Texas, CyWee Group Ltd. has sued Alphabet (Google) (1:18-cv-00571) in Delaware. The hearing concerned terms from the same two patents asserted against Google, patents generally related to measuring, calculating, and outputting the movement of a device so that those movements can be translated to a two-dimensional screen. Targeted in the new complaint are the Google Pixel, Pixel XL, Pixel 2, and Pixel 2 XL smartphones and the virtual reality and/or augmented features offered by those devices, as enabled by each device’s 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, and/or 3-axis geomagnetic field sensor. This multidistrict campaign has been running through the major smartphone providers since April 2014.
October 17, 2017
CyWee Group Ltd. has filed suit against another smartphone manufacturer, adding a case against ZTE (3:17-cv-02130) to a campaign that has already seen suits against Apple, HTC, Huawei, Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), LG Electronics (LGE), and Samsung. Each complaint asserts two patents from a five-member family generally related to measuring, calculating, and outputting the movement of a device so that those movements can be translated to a two-dimensional screen. The accused products throughout the campaign have been certain smartphones and tablets, with CyWee’s complaint against ZTE naming the Axon 7, Axon 7 Mini, Blade Spark, and ZMax Pro devices.
June 15, 2017
As it did a couple of weeks ago, CyWee Group Ltd. has filed suit—twice—against an overseas corporation and its US subsidiary in a venue where that subsidiary is located. One new complaint names Huawei (2:17-cv-00495), alleging proper venue in the Eastern District of Texas for Huawei Device USA, Inc., the Plano-based domestic subsidiary because it is incorporated in Texas (and therefore “resides” in the state) and for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., the Chinese parent, because it is “not a resident of the United States and may, therefore, be sued in any judicial district”. CyWee further alleges that the subsidiary is an agent of the parent, justifying venue based on alleged acts of infringement and the presence of a “regular and established place of business” in the district. CyWee’s new complaint against HTC (2:17-cv-00932) takes a similar approach against the Taiwanese company and its US subsidiary HTC America. In late May, CyWee filed suit against LG Electronics (the parent and a US sub) in the Southern District of California based on similar allegations about the defendants’ relationship to each other and connections to that district.
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.
Third Original Complaint in CyWee Campaign Addresses Venue for Case Against a Foreign Corporation and Its US SubsidiariesMay 31, 2017
CyWee Group Ltd., a British Virgin Islands entity affiliated with Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), has added a third case to its sole litigation campaign, suing LG Electronics (LGE), together with two of its US subsidiaries in the Southern District of California (3:17-cv-01102). The new complaint asserts the same two patents (8,441,438; 8,552,978), which generally relate to measuring, calculating, and outputting the movement of a device so that those movements can be translated to a two-dimensional screen. The accused products throughout the campaign have been certain smartphones and tablets. Earlier this year, in February, CyWee asserted the ‘438 and ‘978 patents against Samsung in a case filed on the same day that an April 2014 case against Apple was dismissed.
February 17, 2017
On the same day of a dismissal in a case filed against Apple in April 2014, CyWee Group Ltd., a British Virgin Islands entity affiliated with Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), has filed a second suit asserting the same two patents (8,441,438; 8,552,978), this time against Samsung (2:17-cv-00140). The patents, the earliest two to issue from a family of three, generally relate to measuring, calculating, and outputting the movement of a device so that those movements can be translated to a two-dimensional screen. The accused products are certain Samsung smartphones and tablets.