Recorded assignments recently made public by the USPTO reveal batches of US patents, one generally related to multi-display devices and another to drug delivery devices, on the move, to entities tied to experienced monetization teams—teams that have apparently secured the backing of the same prominent litigation funder. One of those entities is already in litigation, over previously received patents from the same source, while the other appears headed in that direction.

Last week, the set of October 2022 cases that Apple filed against Masimo and Sound United in Delaware produced a jury verdict. The jury found two Apple design patent claims infringed, indicating that none of the tried claims from three utility patents was proven infringed. It also found one of the claims from those utility patents proven invalid for obviousness—and that Masimo’s infringement was willful. The damages sought here were so nominal that counsel for Masimo attempted to avert trial to a jury, through what the court dubbed an “exciting turn of events”, at the eleventh hour, with $900 cash.

Last month, Touchstream Technologies, Inc. filed its first 2024 complaint, against Yamaha in the Eastern District of Texas; now, the plaintiff has hit VIZIO (8:24-cv-02328). Two patents (one familiar to the campaign, one new) generally related to triggering the remote playback of content are asserted, with infringement allegations focused on the provision of VIZIO’s WatchFree+ app “and associated SmartCast compatible devices, such as TVs, speakers, and sound bars”. Elsewhere in this campaign, Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright, while having denied other posttrial motions in a Touchstream case against Alphabet (Google), which produced a $340M jury verdict (and judgment) for the plaintiff, has yet to resolve a posttrial dispute over whether that award should be considered a one-time lump sum (Google’s position) or merely a royalty for an articulated period of past infringement (Touchstream’s). The court indicated in mid-January 2024 that it would “get an order out . . . pretty quickly”.

W&Wsens Devices, Inc. has filed an Eastern District of Texas complaint against Samsung (2:24-cv-00854), alleging infringement of five patents described as generally related to “semiconductor photodetectors”. With four of those patents, the inventor-controlled plaintiff targets the provision of CMOS image sensors, as well as products (e.g., computers, digital cameras, smartphones, and tablets), including those of Samsung and those manufactured by third parties Alphabet (Google) and Motorola, incorporating those sensors. With the fifth patent, W&Wsens Devices targets the provision of “Time-of-Flight” (ToF) CMOS image sensors.

Standard essential patent (SEP) disputes often involve litigation in multiple different countries, which frequently leads to battles over jurisdiction as parties seek to have their claims decided in a preferred venue. One tool for doing so is a motion for an anti-suit injunction, which asks a court in one country to bar an opposing party from pursuing claims in a court in another country—or to bar the enforcement of decisions from the foreign court. Now, the Federal Circuit has weighed in on a key aspect of the caselaw governing such motions in the US. On October 24, the appellate court issued a precedential decision, in Ericsson v. Lenovo, that revisited the standard for a key threshold issue for anti-suit injunctions, loosening the requirement that a domestic case must be “dispositive” of a foreign action.

Michigan plaintiff Ginko LLC has filed its first litigation, accusing Apple (1:24-cv-01279) of infringing a single patent generally related to sharing a user’s contact data through devices on a network. The accused products are various iPhones and Apple Watches that support the NameDrop feature—which “allows users to easily share contact information by simply bringing their iPhone devices together or by bringing an iPhone and Apple Watch together”. The new Western District of Texas complaint seeks a permanent injunction, together with other relief.

USTA Technology, LLC filed an Eastern District of Texas case against Lenovo this past June, hitting ASUSTek, AT&T (AT&T Mobility), LG Electronics (LGE), and Samsung in the same district. Now, the plaintiff has filed a case against Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) that targets the provision of a wider set of products, including modems, routers, and smartphones, as well as related hardware and software products, that are compliant with the “wideband channel access features of the 802.11ac standard”. Asserted is the same patent, generally related to “managing interference in a radio communications network”.

VDPP LLC has filed two new complaints, one in the Southern District of New York against TATA Motors (Jaguar Land Rover North America) (2:24-cv-10029), targeting the provision of the Jaguar Surround View System, and another in the Southern District of New York against Savant Systems (1:24-cv-08139), targeting the provision of certain surveillance cameras. Two different patents are asserted, both from a family broadly directed to modified images and/or videos. New counsel for VDPP has filed the complaints in each forum, as former mainstay Ramey LLP moves on an emergency basis to protect the retirement account of its principal, in light of an earlier order holding him jointly and severally liable for $207K in shifted attorney fees.

New Mexico plaintiff Peregrine Data LLC has sued Lytx (1:24-cv-01177) in a new District of Delaware complaint. Asserted is a single patent generally related to recording all events around a vehicle, where each camera operates separately and individually records to a separate file, with infringement allegations targeting the provision of the Lytx DriveCam intelligent dash cam, as used with additional cameras connected to a “hub” (apparently the Lytx Hub Adapter) to capture images around the body of a vehicle of that vehicle’s trip, other vehicles on the road, road conditions, and events such as collisions and hard braking.

Recently formed Texas plaintiff QPrivacy USA LLC has filed its first litigation with a suit against Cisco (2:24-cv-00855) in the Eastern District of Texas. The two asserted patents generally relate to “dynamic management of private data during communication between a remote server and a user’s device”, with the defendant accused of infringement through the provision of certain networking and server devices (i.e., edge networking products, ethernet switches, routers, wireless controllers, and related software products) that support Encrypted Traffic Analytics (ETA) technology.