Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al DC

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.

In September 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw more than ten petitions filed in NPE campaigns involving networking and related technologies such as cybersecurity, including those waged by publicly traded Finjan Holdings, Inc.; prolific private litigant Realtime Data LLC; and Oyster Optics, LLC. Trial was instituted in September for an inter partes review (IPR) against Finjan and in IPRs against other frequent plaintiffs, including MyMail, Ltd. and Sound View Innovations, LLC. The Board issued final decisions in two covered business method (CBM) reviews against Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, the first AIA reviews against the NPE to reach final decisions since March 2016, and only the fourth to date. The PTAB also issued final decisions in IPRs against publicly traded Document Security Systems, Inc. as well as Acceleration Bay, LLC; Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC; and Personalized Media Communications, LLC; among other NPEs.

In August 2016, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 14 cases involving Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (d/b/a MTel, LLC), including three declaratory judgment actions, for pretrial proceedings before District Judge Leonard Stark in Delaware. Several of the cases were transferred in from the Eastern District of Texas, including a case filed against Cox Communications. In that suit, before transfer, Cox filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over it in Texas. (Judge Stark recently granted that motion, dismissing the action against Cox as well as a second case, against Bright House Networks). MTel has now responded with a new case filed against Cox (1:17-cv-00463), asserting the same three wireless telecommunications patents (5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210) from the earlier case.

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (d/b/a MTel, LLC) has sued Cellco (Verizon Wireless) (2:16-cv-01324) in the wake of significant setbacks at trial, accusing the company of infringing four wireless communication patents (5,581,804; 5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210). Verizon is alleged to infringe through its LTE network and through the provision of devices that use certain wireless connection and transmission standards, including MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output) and OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing). MTel’s newest complaint comes after two unfavorable jury verdicts earlier this year, with findings of non-infringement issued for BlackBerry (3:12-cv-01652) in July (with respect to the ‘804 patent) and HTC (2:13-cv-00948) in September (of the 5,754,946 patent). However, the impact of those verdicts was blunted by settlements reached with both defendants prior to the entry of judgment: the BlackBerry case has been stayed since September after the parties reached an agreement, while the HTC case was dismissed on December 6.

Several months after Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (MTel) lost its first suit against Samsung, the entity filed a second suit (2:15-cv-00183) that asserts a different group of patents. The complaint asserts six patents, all of which have been previously used in MTel’s litigation campaign (5,581,804; 5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,754,946; 5,809,428; 5,915,210). At issue in this case are Samsung’s devices, including smartphones, TVs, and wearables, that run operating systems with messaging applications or services. The complaint also mentions MTel’s trial win over Apple in November 2014 as evidence of infringement. Specifically, it notes that features in Samsung’s devices are similar to features in Apple devices that were found to infringe MTel’s patents.