Headwater Research LLC’s separate Eastern District of Texas cases against Deutsche Telekom (Sprint, T-Mobile) and Verizon (Verizon Wireless) are set for trial this week. Claims from two patents are to be tried against each defendant set, with Headwater docketing its final selection of seven claims from those two patents as to the Deutsche Telekom defendants; and three claims, as to Verizon. In its runup to trial, the Verizon docket has been hammered by recommended resolutions for the parties’ myriad pretrial motions, as well as (mostly sealed) objections thereto, including recommended denials of Verizon’s motions for summary judgment of noninfringement of the two patents to be tried as well as a recommended grant of a Verizon motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of a third patent. Meanwhile, Headwater Research has also just filed a new complaint, this one in the Western District of Texas accusing Amazon (7:25-cv-00286) of infringing two other patents from the large family that Headwater has been litigating since October 2022.

Artax LLC, a plaintiff tied to Texas monetization firm IPValuation Partners, LLC (d/b/a IPVal), has sued Verizon (Verizon Connect) (1:25-cv-03357) in the Northern District of Georgia. Artax targets provision of the Verizon Connect platform, including GPS tracking devices, electronic logging devices (ELDs), on-board mobile devices, and various other “accessories” as used with certain “software applications/features”, targeting functionality related to fleet tracking and route planning (RouteCloud, spelled in the complaint as “Route Cloud”). Three patents received from TeleCommunication Systems (TCS) are asserted.

So far in June, Lab Technology LLC has sued 3CX (3CX USA) (1:25-cv-22704), Mitel Networks (1:25-cv-22712), Sangoma Technologies (Sangoma Technologies US) (1:25-cv-22717) in the Southern District of Florida, as well as u-blox (u-blox America) (4:25-cv-00610) in the Northern District of Texas. In connection with that last case, Lab Technology has filed a document styled as a “Certificate of Interested Persons/Disclosure Statement” as if its contents comply with Northern District of Texas Local Rule 3.1. The document merely discloses that Lab Technology has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns ten percent or more of “its stock”. Note that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case against Mitel Networks two days after filing it.

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 to reverse 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 in the early stage of litigation.

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 the 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).

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.