Network-1 Technologies, Inc. has added cases against three more defendants to its oldest litigation campaign, suing Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology (Hikvision) (2:22-cv-08050) and TP-Link (8:22-cv-01980) in separate Central District of California complaints, as well as Panasonic (2:22-cv-00430) in the Eastern District of Texas. These cases join four that the publicly traded plaintiff filed in early October in the District of Delaware, one against each of Arista Networks, Fortinet, Honeywell, and Ubiquiti. A single expired PoE patent has been asserted throughout, with infringement allegations targeting the provision of products that “distribute or use power transferred through Ethernet cables (‘Power over Ethernet’ or ‘PoE’), including Power Sourcing Equipment (‘PSEs’) and Powered Devices (‘PDs’) that are compliant with the IEEE 802.3af and 802.3at standards.
Network-1 Technologies, Inc. has filed its first new litigation since 2018, suing Arista Networks(1:22-cv-01318), Fortinet (1:22-cv-01319), Honeywell (1:22-cv-01320), and Ubiquiti (1:22-cv-01321) over the provision of products that “distribute or use power transferred through Ethernet cables (‘Power over Ethernet’ or ‘PoE’), including Power Sourcing Equipment (‘PSEs’) and Powered Devices (‘PDs’) that are compliant with the IEEE 802.3af and 802.3at standards”. The publicly traded plaintiff asserts a single patent generally related to detecting PoE compatibility of networked devices via current probes and voltage sensing. The patent has been in suit since 2004 and is characterized in the new complaints as “the most important patent covering products that comply with the 802.3af standard” and as having generated more than $187M in licensing revenue over the years.
The Federal Circuit has overturned a noninfringement verdict for HP and HP Enterprise (HPE) against Network-1 Technologies, Inc., ruling on September 24 that a Texas jury’s finding on that issue depended on an erroneous claim construction and remanding for further proceedings. However, the appeals court also reversed and remanded a ruling by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III that the defendants were estopped from challenging the validity of the asserted Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) patent due to the defendant’s joinder to another company’s inter partes review (IPR), a decision that had resulted in the reversal of that same jury’s finding that the patent was invalid. Rather, the Federal Circuit ruled that HP and HPE could not “reasonably . . . have raised” their district court invalidity arguments—which were different than the grounds raised in the IPR—under its recent decision in Facebook v. Windy City Innovations, which in part bars the joinder of new issues to an already instituted IPR.