Quartz Auto Technologies LLC v. Lyft, Inc. DC

As the Western District of Texas remains atop the venue charts, an issue of ongoing interest for patent litigants has been how District Judge Alan D. Albright has handled motions to transfer. Most of this narrative has thus far focused on his restrictive approach to convenience transfers, a posture that may be shifting in response to a series of recent reversals by the Federal Circuit. However, less attention has been paid to his treatment of motions alleging improper venue, since—unlike former NPE hotspots like the Eastern District of Texas—many companies have active operations in West Texas, and may therefore “reside” in that venue as established under the Supreme Court’s 2017 TC Heartland decision. While such a venue challenge may not be an option for some defendants, recent orders by Judge Albright suggest that improper venue challenges may succeed in his court for companies with a sufficiently minimal presence there.

Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC has expanded its sole litigation campaign with a new suit against Postmates (1:20-cv-01673)—acquired by Uber earlier this month—in the District of Delaware. The three asserted patents, originating with IBM, generally relate to various aspects of location-based functionality, with the plaintiff’s infringement allegations targeting the Postmates platform (including the Fleet app) over features for “coordinating, controlling, and providing on-demand delivery services” through location data. The new case joins two active February 2020 suits, filed in the Western District of Texas, against Lyft and Uber.

NPE litigation in the Automotive market sector during the first four months of 2020 was up nearly threefold from the same time period last year. Most recently, 21ST CENTURY GARAGE LLC and Sisvel International S.A. (d/b/a Sisvel Group) have taken aim at companies operating in the sector, but the year so far has seen new campaigns launched by plaintiffs ranging from relatively recent entrants to patent monetization (e.g., Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC) to established players (e.g., Conversant Wireless Licensing, S.à.r.l.), as well as additional cases filed in existing campaigns waged by inventor-controlled Omega Patents, L.L.C. and frequent plaintiff Leigh M. Rothschild. From wireless connectivity to more traditional automotive technologies, something about 2020 has drawn more litigation to the sector.

With a suit against Lyft (6:20-cv-00156) filed in the Western District of Texas, Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC has expanded the ridesharing campaign it launched last month with a case against Uber (also sued in the Western District of Texas). Both suits assert former IBM patents that were among those assigned by Daedalus Group LLC to Slingshot IOT LLC—a Maryland entity associated with Quartz Auto, as well as a number of other litigating NPEs—in a transaction flagged by RPX in mid-February. Lyft and Uber are accused of infringement through the provision of their respective ridesharing apps and services.

Last week RPX reported the assignment of the remaining former IBM assets acquired last fall by Daedalus Group LLC to new Maryland entity Slingshot IOT LLC. Most of those assets were transferred in late January to Daedalus Blue LLC, a entity that has subsequently begun asserting a subset of them, filing a case against dronemaker DJI. Last week, Slingshot IOT assigned nearly 20 assets, roughly a third of what it received from Daedalus Group, to Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC, another new Maryland entity, which has also now turned plaintiff, suing Uber (6:20-cv-00126) in the Western District of Texas over six of those patents.