Large Investor Takes Possession of NeoMedia Patents and Continues QR Code Campaign
NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. recently reported to the SEC that it had been notified of an alleged default on terms and conditions made to the publicly traded company, and that a large creditor, YA Global Investments LP (f/k/a Cornell Capital Partners LP), had demanded immediate payment of over $43M in principal and interest. It appears that NeoMedia was unable to repay the amount, YA Global triggered a June 29, 2016 auction of NeoMedia’s patent portfolio, which had been used as collateral for the loan, and a new YA Global affiliate, NM, LLC (formed in Delaware the day before) won the auction, taking ownership of the patents. Since then, NM is now listed on the copyright line for NeoMedia’s website, and the new entity has filed three suits asserting two of those patents (6,199,048; 8,131,597), which generally relate to the use of QR codes, one each against Dick’s Sporting Goods (1:16-cv-00789), Quickrete Companies (1:16-cv-00814), and TJX Companies (1:16-cv-00813). Both patents-in-suit expired in October 2015 and belong to a portfolio that NeoMedia began asserting well over a decade ago.
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
Related News
Details
Key Parties
Campaigns
Litigations
- NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LSCAN TECHNOLOGIES INC.
- Airclic Inc. v. NeoMedia Technologies Inc.
- Neomedia Tech Inc v. Virgin Entertainment, et al
- NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Scanbuy Inc.
- Neomedia Tech Inc v. AirClic Inc, et al
- NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. AIRCLIC INC.
- AIRCLIC INC. v. NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
- NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. SpyderLynk, LLC.
- NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Taco Bell Corp.
- NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Kao USA, Inc.