Implicit Networks Inc v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc et al DC

Implicit, LLC has filed a new round of Eastern District of Texas cases in its long-running litigation targeting network management products, hitting CA Technologies (2:19-cv-00038), Fortinet (2:19-cv-00039), and Imperva (2:19-cv-00040), all defendants new to the campaign, as well as Juniper Networks (2:19-cv-00037), Sandvine (2:19-cv-00041), and Sophos (2:19-cv-00042), all sued previously. In earlier court decisions, the patents have been divided into Implicit’s “Demultiplexing Patents”, generally related to “technology for computer message exchange processing and more specifically to technology for dynamically converting the form of the messages as the messages are being exchanged”, and its “Applet Patents”, broadly concerning “server technology for providing applets and applications to a client computer”. More than a dozen Implicit patents have been asserted since this campaign began, with eight patents—five from the first category and three from the second—at issue in these newest complaints. All six defendants are accused of infringing the three applet patents, with all but Sophos charged with infringement of the five demultiplexing patents.

Implicit, LLC has filed a new Eastern District of Texas campaign on the heels of District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s refusal to transfer an earlier case against Palo Alto Networks to California. The latest defendants are McAfee (2:18-cv-00046) and Sophos (2:18-cv-00047), each accused of infringing three patents, characterized by the court as Implicit’s “Demultiplexing Patents” and generally related to “technology for computer message exchange processing and more specifically to technology for dynamically converting the form of the messages as the messages are being exchanged”. The accused products are “McAfee’s security information and event management products that include McAfee Application Data Monitor functionality” and the Sophos XG Firewall, respectively.

Inventor-controlled Implicit, LLC has filed a new case against Palo Alto Networks (6:17-cv-00336), asserting the same six patents already at issue in the campaign (6,324,685; 8,694,683; 8,856,779; 9,270,790; 9,325,740; 9,591,104). The patents fall into two families, one generally directed to “technology for computer message exchange processing and more specifically to technology for dynamically converting the form of the messages as the messages are being exchanged” (the ‘683, ‘790, and ‘104 patents, collectively characterized by the court as the “Demultiplexing Patents”) and the other generally directed to “server technology for providing applets and applications to a client computer” (the ‘685, ‘779, and ‘740 patents, collectively termed the “Applet Patents”). The new complaint targets Palo Alto Networks’s PAN-OS 8.0 and other software and services “directed to analysis and detection of packet content including attacks arising in a data network environment”. This latest complaint follows recent stays in two of three open cases in the campaign, one each against Ericsson and Huawei, to facilitate settlements.

In early 2016, inventor Edward Balassanian revived a prior campaign, litigated in California by earlier controlled subsidiary Implicit Networks, Inc., with new cases filed in Texas by a more recent controlled subsidiary Implicit, LLC. That campaign asserted five patents at the time (6,324,685; 8,694,683; 8,856,779; 9,270,790; 9,325,740), generally related to the dynamic download of applications based on analyzing user requests. The defendants in the Texas revival were Ericsson, Huawei, NEC, Nokia, and Trend Micro. On March 7, 2017, a sixth patent (9,591,104) issued, and, within three weeks, Implicit has filed new suits against Ericsson (6:17-cv-00181), Huawei (6:17-cv-00182), and Trend Micro (6:17-cv-00183) to assert the ‘104 patent. The accused products are those that act as network gateways and/or engage in deep packet inspection.

Near the beginning of 2016, inventor Edward Balassanian revived one of his two prior litigation campaigns by asserting five patents against Ericsson, Huawei, NEC, Nokia, and Trend Micro in complaints filed by an entity under his control, Implicit, LLC. The plaintiff in the earlier campaign, Implicit Networks, Inc., was also controlled by Balassanian. Now, Balassanian has repeated the exercise, reviving through Implicit, LLC the second campaign litigated through Implicit Networks back in 2009-2010. Implicit has filed suit against Huawei again (6:16-cv-01358), this time asserting two patents (6,507,349; 8,046,687) generally related to manipulating the display of information without using “separate controls”. Balassanian accuses Huawei of infringement through touchscreen options (e.g. volume control for videos) available on tablets and smartphones made and sold with the company’s Emotion user interface (versions 1.0-5.0).