One Too Many Zeroclicks? Discovery in Apple Case Ripples Throughout NPE’s Campaign

May 31, 2020

In late April, District Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered plaintiff Zeroclick, LLC to show cause why its case against Apple in the Northern District of California should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Apple had filed its motion to dismiss after discovery suggested that the circumstances surrounding the transfer of control of the asserted patents, and of the plaintiff itself, from IPNav’s Erich Spangenberg to the sole named inventor Nes Irvine might have robbed Zeroclick—the Zeroclick that filed suit in September 2015—of its standing to sue. Zeroclick, Apple, and Irvine have responded to the California court’s order. Meanwhile, two of four defendants sued in an October 2019 expansion of the campaign in the Western District of Texas, Dell and Microsoft, each filed a motion to dismiss of its own late last week, while Zeroclick, LLC—presumably the newer Zeroclick entity reincorporated by Irvine—hit not only Dell (6:20-cv-00421) and Microsoft (6:20-cv-00423) but also prior defendants LG Electronics (LGE) (6:20-cv-00422) and Samsung (6:20-cv-00425) with apparent belt-and-suspenders suits in the same forum.

Subscription Required

This content requires a subscription to view

  • Over 7,000 news articles covering new patent cases, key policy decisions, and USPTO assignments
  • Advanced custom alerts for campaigns and entities
  • Proprietary litigation timelines
  • Full access to Federal Circuit, PTAB, and ITC dockets
  • Judge, venue, and law firm analytics