In a new Eastern District of Texas complaint, coplaintiffs Malikie Innovations Limited (as “the successor-in-interest to a substantial patent portfolio created and procured over many years by [BlackBerry]”) and Key Patent Innovations Limited (KPI, as “the beneficiary of a trust pursuant to which Malikie owns, holds, and asserts the Asserted Patents”) have accused Sophos (2:24-cv-00905) of infringing seven of those former BlackBerry patents. Five of them are new to this campaign, which has now seen complaints filed against Acer, ASUSTek, D-Link, Nintendo, and Sophos, in that order, since March of this year. All cases remain “active”, although a stay has been imposed to facilitate a resolution in the D-Link case, and ASUSTek, the Taiwanese parent company, has mounted a novel challenge to venue in the Eastern District of Texas.

This past August, Eastern District of Texas Judge Sean D. Jordan ruled ineligible one of the three e‑commerce patents that AML IP LLC has been litigating in a campaign that has hit close to 90 defendants since December 2020. The court characterized that patent’s claims as “strikingly similar” to those ruled ineligible in the Alice case itself. AML IP has filed an appeal (apparently in the wrong court), Bath & Body Works has sought a shift of attorney fees, and, its active suits against other defendants now imperiled by the Alice ruling, AML IP, backed by litigation funding, has circled back to file new complaints that assert another patent from the same family, including complaints against existing retail defendants Estee Lauder (Aveda) (7:24-cv-00276), Petco (7:24-cv-00253), Sally Beauty, (7:24-cv-00254), and Sephora (6:24-cv-00546).

Bell Semiconductor, LLC (Bell Semic) has filed a new Eastern District of Texas complaint against Cisco (4:24-cv-00937), this time adding allegations as to a second patent and shifting away from the last highlighted accused product (“the Cisco CATALYST C9200L system board with the Cisco 80-1069-02 semiconductor IC package”) to a different one (“the Cisco 08-1072-03 semiconductor integrated package and the Cisco UCS Virtual Interface Card 1457 system board” allegedly containing it). Bell Semic’s widespread litigation, having hit numerous defendants, now remains active only as to Cisco, NXP Semiconductors, and TI, although a stay has been imposed in the case against TI in light of the parties’ representation that they have reached a resolution.

Last week, in long-running litigation, a Central District of California jury returned a verdict in favor of funded plaintiff SPEX Technologies, Inc., finding that Western Digital infringed a single claim from one patent generally related to securing a peripheral computing device. The jury apportioned damages for the provision of two accused hard disk drives, roughly $194M for the My Book and roughly $122M for the Ultrastar He10. The eight-year run of this case included two stays, a trip up to the Federal Circuit, and the decimation of SPEX’s planned damages case, forcing the plaintiff to present a facts-only theory without the benefit of expert opinion.

In September 2020, Philips filed a raft of district court complaints—one against each of Dell (1:20-cv-01240), HP (1:20-cv-01241), Intel (1:20-cv-01243), Lenovo (1:20-cv-01242), LG Electronics (LGE) (1:20-cv-01244), MediaTek (1:20-cv-01246), and Realtek Semiconductor (1:20-cv-01247) in the District of Delaware, as well as one against Qingdao China Prosperity State-Owned Capital Investment Operation Group (Hisense) (2:20-cv-08546) in the Central District of California—within one day of filing a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC) naming these defendants as proposed respondents. The ITC action ended in no violation established, prompting a subsequent lift of the customary district court stays; however, in July 2024, Philips transferred the asserted patents to Media Content Protection LLC, an entity managed by experienced patent monetization professionals and backed by a prominent litigation funder. The dust has almost entirely settled on the plaintiff swap here, Media Content Protection for Philips.

Back in June, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet heard testimony on developments with respect to IP litigation financed by third-party investors and foreign entities and their potential impact on the country’s IP system and national security. The hearing culminated with Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) announcing that he intended to sponsor a bill requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding (TPLF). Co-sponsored by Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wi.), the “Litigation Transparency Act of 2024” (H.R. 9922) was introduced on October 4; the full text of that bill is now publicly available.

Last week, Intel filed a motion to show cause why VLSI Technology LLC’s recent statements (here and here) have not violated the standing orders of Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly related to corporate disclosure and third-party litigation funding. VLSI filed those statements concurrently with its own motion to dismiss, stay or transfer Intel’s Delaware declaratory judgment action to the Western District of Texas, where District Judge Alan D. Albright is considering the same parties’ submissions concerning whether Intel’s license defense (allegedly arising after Fortress Investment Group LLC acquired Finjan, Inc. in 2020) to VLSI’s patent infringement claims involves any issue for presentation to a jury. Intel argues that VLSI’s motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer should be denied without prejudice while the court focuses instead on compliance with its standing orders.

The third quarter of 2024 saw multiple funded NPEs launch new patent campaigns, with several funded plaintiffs also filing new cases in existing litigation campaigns. In addition, towards the end of the quarter, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded a large verdict to a plaintiff funded by a prominent litigation finance firm.

This summer, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned an $847M verdict in favor of General Access Solutions, Ltd. (f/k/a Access Solutions, Ltd.) (GAS). Despite “great respect for a jury’s considered verdict”, Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, last week, concluded “that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight of the evidence to such a material degree that a new trial is necessary”. The court did so in ruling on a motion filed by Verizon (Verizon Wireless and multiple other subsidiaries) for a new trial, also pointing to multiple arguments that the defendants made in their parallel motion for judgment as a matter of law. Jury selection is now set for December 6, 2024.

Last week, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Pardalis Technology Licensing, L.L.C., awarding $19.5M in damages for infringement of two patents generally related to an “authoring system” for maintaining data. In its original complaint, filed in November 2022, Pardalis accused defendant IBM of infringing seven such patents, through the provision of various IBM Blockchain products. In connection with this, apparently its sole litigation to date, Pardalis Technology Licensing disclosed inventor-controlled Pardalis, Inc. (f/k/a Pardalis Software, Inc.) as its sole member, with the asserted patents subject to a security interest recorded as part of a round of such interests granted by multiple entities to the same Delaware operation.