VirtaMove, Corp. (f/k/a Appzero) has filed a second Eastern District of Texas complaint against IBM (2:25-cv-00619), accusing the defendant of infringing two of the patents asserted in its containerization campaign, through the provision of products with features for building, deploying, running, and managing containerized applications, including “IBM Cloud, IBM Cloud Private (ICP), IBM z/OS Container Platform, and IBM Cloud Code Engine”. This second case drops a few days after VirtaMove filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit reversing a convenience transfer of an earlier suit against Alphabet (Google) in this campaign. There, VirtaMove indicates that it expects to file a similar petition with respect to the transfer of a case against Amazon as well and leads with the statement, “The division between the Fifth Circuit and the Federal Circuit on transfer law has harmed VirtaMove Corp. (“VirtaMove”), a small company in east Canada whose patents have been infringed by the giants Google, Amazon, IBM, and [HP Enterprise]”.

Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC  (AMV) has sued Cisco (1:25-cv-00888) in the Western District of Texas where it sued Broadcom this past April over the same three patents. AMV again targets the provision of Fibre Channel storage area network (SAN) products that utilize Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE), here including the UCS CNA M72KR-Q QLogic Converged Network Adapter (CNA) (a QLogic-based Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) mezzanine card), Cisco’s Unified Computing System, and “other products and services practicing the FCoE standard”. Assigned to District Judge David A. Ezra, the suit against Broadcom is early stage.

Following its April 2025 case against Fortinet in the Eastern District of Texas, UMBRA Technologies (US) Inc. and UMBRA Technologies Ltd., a British Virgin Islands entity, have filed suit against Palo Alto Networks (PAN) (2:25-cv-00635) in the same district. A prior case against VMware has ended; against Cisco, been stayed to await certain Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings; and against Juniper Networks, has seen multiple amended complaints, collectively upping the number of asserted patents there to seven. PAN is accused of infringing five UMBRA patents, through the provision of “hardware and software products for network virtualization and related services”.

As the exclusive licensee of five asserted patents held by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), OptimNet LLC has sued Verizon (Verizon Wireless and several other subsidiaries) (2:25-cv-00628) in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff targets the provision of passive optical networking (PON) systems, including systems using the Next Generation Passive Optical Network 2 (NG-PON2) standard, as used in part to provide backhaul for Verizon’s 5G network. The infringing aspects of those systems are further described as comprising “network devices that employ Verizon’s OTU4 network”, including certain Infinera transponders and muxponders, that “utilize the ITU-T G.709/Y.1331 OTU4 infrastructure across Verizon’s optical backbone”; as well as “Verizon’s wavelength services products, including customer premise network equipment (CPNE)”, the aforementioned Infinera products, and optical transport systems from Alcatel-Lucent, Ciena, and Nokia-Siemens.

In its lone active litigation campaign, Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV)—via plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC—have filed second complaints against existing defendants American Airlines (4:25-cv-00576), in the Eastern District of Texas, and against Lenovo (1:25-cv-00834) and Southwest Airlines (7:25-cv-00252), in the Western District of Texas. In the latter forum, District Judge Alan D. Albright has agreed to hear arguments concerning supplemental construction of a term (“valid operation range”) that the defendants argue IV narrowed in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Brotherhood Insurance (1:25-cv-00273) has filed a Northern District of Indiana complaint seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of a patent held by Texas entity Aloft Media, LLC. The pleading also names as defendants George Andrew Gordon, Aloft Media’s manager; George Street Partners, Aloft Media’s licensing agent, which allegedly “operates as Aloft Media’s de facto licensing department”; and Todd Schmidt, George Street’s president. Brotherhood’s complaint also pleads a claim for violation of Indiana’s Bad Faith Asserts of Patent Infringement Act. It is now the third in this campaign to respond with a declaratory judgment action after the receipt of a notice letter, Schaefer Systems having filed a DJ complaint in September 2022 in the Western District of North Carolina (also pleading a violation of that state’s Abusive Patent Assertion Act (APAA)) and The Morse Group, a DJ complaint in the Northern District of Illinois this past April.

Honeywell has responded to an April 2025 complaint filed against it in the Eastern District of Texas by Patent Armory Inc. with a new complaint in the Western District of North Carolina (3:25-cv-00375). There, Honeywell seeks declaratory judgments of noninfringement of the five patents that Patent Armory has asserted against it, Honeywell additionally pleading a violation of the North Carolina Abusive Patent Assertion Act (APAA). Honeywell notes that Patent Armory made a quick $95K settlement demand, pleading on information and belief that “Patent Armory knows that litigating the Texas Lawsuit as well as any of the Patent Armory Serial Lawsuits would cost substantially more than $95,000”.

IngenioSpec LLC has filed a pair of Western District of Texas complaints against Apple (1:25-cv-00867, 1:25-cv-00877), targeting a range of features provided with AirPods (Pro) and iPhones. The plaintiff has also filed another complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC), naming as proposed respondents Brilliant Labs, DJI, DVPR, Even Realities, Halliday, Holoswim, INMO, and NRMyW (337-TA-3833), the lot accused over the alleged importation of “eyewear products containing electronic components in the frames and/or lenses, associated components, and related charging apparatuses”.

Patent assignments recently made public by the USPTO continue to flesh out the spread of Monterey Research, LLC’s portfolio of former Cypress Semiconductor patents. Those records also note a batch of former Mitsubishi Electric (MELCO) patents changing hands, from a plaintiff passing the baton after its own litigation over the portfolio ended last June. A research operation tied to a European university has also offloaded some US computer architecture patents to suggestive hands, while the path of a portfolio of geofencing (and other mobile technology) patents seems to echo a route that previously led to litigation—litigation involving a jury award for that plaintiff as well as a shift of attorney fees to the plaintiff. Finally, an individual inventor has moved a family of peer-to-peer payments patents in a direction that could signal future monetization.

Roughly a month after filing a first case against Cisco, DYNAMIC MESH NETWORKS, INC. (d/b/a MeshDynamics) has filed a second one (2:25-cv-00606), again in the Eastern District of Texas. This time, the plaintiff targets the provision of Cisco Webex and certain Cisco SD-WAN solutions and equipment; the first MeshDynamics suit focuses on Cisco’s provision of mesh networking equipment and solutions, including access points, control systems, and wireless controllers. All eight patents now in suit stem from the same large family.