XR Communications LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD et al DC
- Filed: 06/16/2021
- Case Updated Daily
- Latest Docket Entry: 11/30/2022
- All Upcoming Events:
- Case Management Conference (06/02/2023)
- Jury Trial (06/23/2023)
November 18, 2022
On November 8, 2022, the Federal Circuit vacated scheduling orders in three cases filed against Apple in the Western District of Texas. The appellate court ruled that District Judge Alan D. Albright abused his discretion both by pushing forward on substantive matters in the litigation without deciding a trio of Apple motions to transfer for convenience—which would be left, according to the vacated scheduling orders, for resolution after the close of all fact discovery—and by denying Apple’s motions to stay the cases pending resolution of the mandamus petitions themselves. Now, Judge Albright has responded.
November 11, 2022
The Federal Circuit has issued another rebuke against Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright over his approach to transfer timing. In the past few years, the appellate court has repeatedly ordered Judge Albright to consider transfer motions before turning to substantive issues like claim construction, leading him to modify his general case schedule to open venue discovery automatically upon the filing of a motion to transfer, with Markman hearings (typically scheduled early) often delayed. However, Judge Albright has argued that parties have since “beg[u]n abusing this process”, “strategically wait[ing]” to file their transfer motions—prompting him to impose a modified scheduling order in three cases against Apple that pushed the consideration of its convenience transfer motions to after the close of fact discovery. Now the Federal Circuit has overturned that scheduling order, ruling in three decisions—one precedential—that Judge Albright abused his discretion by pushing forward on substantive matters without deciding Apple’s transfer motions, and by denying its motions to stay pending appeal.
October 23, 2022
The scheduling framework announced by Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright in a case that XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) filed against Apple (6:21-cv-00620) is no longer confined to that case. It also applies to suits filed separately against Apple by Aire Technology Limited (6:21-cv-01011) and Scramoge Technology Limited (6:21-cv-01071). That framework boots the consideration of Apple’s motions to transfer these cases out of West Texas for convenience to after the close of fact discovery. To avoid more problems with the Federal Circuit, which has repeatedly held that transfer consideration should precede any turn to substantive issues in the case (like claim construction), Judge Albright has delayed—in all three cases—a previously scheduled Markman hearing until after both the close of fact discovery and a ruling on “replacement” motions to transfer, to be informed at that point by full discovery. Late last month, the court handed down a “supplemental consolidated” order explaining its reasoning for denying Apple’s motion to stay these cases while mandamus review proceeds before the Federal Circuit.
Judge Albright Upends Case Schedule, Placing Transfer Consideration After the Close of Fact DiscoverySeptember 9, 2022
Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright has replaced an August 29, 2022 order with a September 9, 2022 order, announcing in each that “speculation and incomplete discovery often plagues early transfer motions”. The court explained that its current general case schedule, modified in response to feedback from the Federal Circuit, opens venue discovery automatically upon the filing of a motion to transfer, with claim construction hearings (typically scheduled early) often delayed to comply with the mandate that transfer consideration should precede any turn to substantive issues in the case (like claim construction). Per Judge Albright, “[p]arties then began abusing this process”, “strategically wait[ing] to file their transfer motions to delay the case”. Comparing defendants’ conduct during venue discovery, Judge Albright then handed down a new scheduling framework for the XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) case before him, one that places venue consideration after the close of general fact discovery but still before Markman.Access to the full article is currently available to RPX members only. Please contact us if you need further information.
July 4, 2021
After filing more than a dozen new cases in mid-June, XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) was not done. Since then, the plaintiff has added suits against Dell (6:21-cv-00646), HP (6:21-cv-00694), and Microsoft (6:21-cv-00695) to those filed earlier against Alphabet (Google), Amazon (eero), Apple, ASUSTek, Cisco, Comcast, CommScope (ARRIS Solutions, Ruckus Wireless), D-Link, Hon Hai Precision Industry (Belkin), HP Enterprise (HPE) (Aruba Networks), NETGEAR, Samsung, and Ubiquiti Networks. The latest complaints focus on one of the now seven patents-in-campaign, alleging infringement through the provision of Wi-Fi-enabled laptops, tablets and two-in-ones, and desktops that support MIMO and/or MU-MIMO technologies.
June 19, 2021
XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) has filed more than a dozen new cases, one each against Alphabet (Google), Amazon (eero), Apple, ASUSTek, Cisco, Comcast, CommScope (ARRIS Solutions), and Samsung in the Western District of Texas; against D-Link, Hon Hai Precision Industry (Belkin), HP Enterprise (HPE) (Aruba Networks), NETGEAR, and Ubiquiti Networks in the Central District of California; and against CommScope (Ruckus Wireless) in the Northern District of California. XR Communications targets various wireless networking capabilities of certain defendant devices—including access points, controllers, routers, and streaming devices—with overlapping subsets of four patents. The new wave arrives as the prior, 2017 wave of litigation from the same plaintiff comes back to life at the conclusion of a set of inter partes reviews (IPRs) of three patents asserted previously.