NPE litigation in the Automotive market sector during the first four months of 2020 was up nearly threefold from the same time period last year. Most recently, 21ST CENTURY GARAGE LLC and Sisvel International S.A. (d/b/a Sisvel Group) have taken aim at companies operating in the sector, but the year so far has seen new campaigns launched by plaintiffs ranging from relatively recent entrants to patent monetization (e.g., Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC) to established players (e.g., Conversant Wireless Licensing, S.à.r.l.), as well as additional cases filed in existing campaigns waged by inventor-controlled Omega Patents, L.L.C. and frequent plaintiff Leigh M. Rothschild. From wireless connectivity to more traditional automotive technologies, something about 2020 has drawn more litigation to the sector.

Conversant Wireless Licensing, S.à.r.l. (f/k/a Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.), a subsidiary of Conversant Intellectual Property Management, Inc. (Conversant IP), has filed two US suits against Tesla (6:20-cv-00323, 6:20-cv-00324) over the provision of its automobiles, including the Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, and Roadster. At issue are “connected products” that allow for the automobiles to have cellular connectivity. Six network communications patents are at issue across the two suits, with Conversant pleading that it received the patents as part of a portfolio of nearly 2,000 assets from Nokia and that the patents asserted in each case are telecommunication SEPs (“standard essential patents”) also offered in the Avanci patent pool, among others.

Yet another set of patents originating with VoiceAge Corporation has now been asserted in NPE litigation, this time in partnership with Fortress Investment Group LLC. In December 2018, VoiceAge announced a “strategic transaction” with Fortress under which the investment firm would license VoiceAge’s portfolio related to the Enhanced Voice Services (EVS) wideband audio codec—with that portfolio assigned to Fortress “affiliate” VoiceAge EVS, LLC. That entity has now asserted five of those patents in litigation, accusing HMD Global (1:19-cv-01945) of infringement through the provision of Nokia-branded smartphones supporting EVS and alleging that the patents-in-suit are essential to that standard. VoiceAge has stated that its transaction with Fortress is designed to “advance . . . [VoiceAge’s] strategic objective of diversifying revenues from [its] IP assets”. This deal follows another partnership between VoiceAge and publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation that appears to have started in 2014, leading to the launch of a litigation campaign that year through Acacia subsidiary Saint Lawrence Communications LLC. That campaign remains active after being revived in August 2018 by licensee EVS Codec Technologies, LLC, with Saint Lawrence later dragged back into the campaign over a standing dispute.

Recent months have seen the Internet of Things (IoT) licensing platform Avanci, LLC announce license agreements with multiple automotive OEMs, including Audi, Porsche, and Volkswagen, to its portfolio of standard essential patents (SEPs) covering cellular technologies. However, despite Avanci’s traction with those OEMs, the company has now begun to see pushback at the supplier level. On May 10, automotive component supplier Continental filed a declaratory judgment (DJ) complaint in the Northern District of California against Avanci and several of the patent owners participating in its licensing program, alleging that by refusing to offer fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licenses to suppliers, they have committed various antitrust violations and breached their contractual FRAND obligations, further seeking equitable relief (5:19-cv-02520). The dispute echoes similar licensing battles that continue to play out in European courts, including litigation involving patent owners Nokia and Broadcom, respectively, and OEM Daimler—which does not appear to have a relationship with Avanci—filed in German courts and before the European Commission. Similar antitrust claims have also been raised in a US DJ action recently filed by u-blox against InterDigital, Inc., which has since seen filings from the US government that reflect a recent shift in antitrust enforcement policy.

Last week, District Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the Northern District of California dealt Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l. (f/k/a Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.) another blow in its long-running litigation campaign over former Nokia patents. An August 2018 Federal Circuit opinion upset an earlier jury verdict and judgment that Apple had infringed two Conversant patents, for which the jury had awarded $7.3M in damages. The appeals court reversed the jury’s finding of infringement as to one patent and vacated the trial court’s determination that the other patent was not unenforceable due to a failure to disclose to a related standard-setting body. On remand, Judge Cousins granted the motion for unenforceability, entering judgment in Apple’s favor. Meanwhile, in Texas, Conversant filed a new case against LG Electronics (LGE) (2:19-cv-00142) over patents at the heart of a recent win before a jury there, the new complaint targeting subsequently released LGE products.

A Texas jury has returned a new damages verdict in litigation brought by Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l. (f/k/a Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.) against LG Electronics (LGE) (2:14-cv-00912). In September 2016, another jury issued a verdict of infringement in the case’s first trial against LGE, but the court granted LGE a new trial on damages in September 2018 due to a series of errors made by the plaintiff’s damages expert. The resulting verdict in that second trial included a damages award of $3.5M.

The UK Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that English courts may hear disputes over standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. In a January 30 opinion, the court held that the UK was the most convenient forum for an ongoing lawsuit filed by Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l. against Huawei and ZTE over their refusal to take a global license to the NPE’s portfolio based on allegedly fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The court’s ruling came despite new evidence offered by the defendants suggesting that China would also be an appropriate forum for the dispute.

The UK High Court of Justice has rejected a jurisdictional challenge in Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l.’s ongoing litigation against Huawei and ZTE. In an April 16 decision, Justice Henry Carr declined to accept arguments by the defendants, both incorporated in China, that the Court lacked jurisdiction because it could not adjudicate the validity of the Chinese patents in Conversant’s portfolio. Rather, Justice Carr held that a FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) license would allow the defendants to challenge validity in parallel, and that such a license’s terms would account for the consequences of an invalidity ruling in another jurisdiction. Justice Carr also rejected the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case due to forum non conveniens and for improper service.

Publicly traded NPEs Acacia Research Corporation and Finjan Holdings, Inc. have each provided updates on litigation filed in Germany as part of their third-quarter earnings announcements. The German infringement suit brought by Acacia’s Saint Lawrence Communications GmbH against Apple proceeds in parallel with invalidity actions brought by Apple and Motorola Mobility, while in the US Apple has pursued its own litigation against Acacia, asserting various claims related to the NPE’s allegedly unfair and anticompetitive licensing practices in that campaign. Meanwhile, a neutral expert has been appointed in Finjan’s German lawsuit against ESET as trial comes to a close in its US litigation against Blue Coat Systems, with invalidity actions also pending for that campaign in Germany and the US.

RPX took note, among the USPTO assignment records made available during the first half of May, of the transfer of patents to frequent plaintiffs Leigh M. Rothschild and IP Valuation Partners (both of which received patents from Intellectual Ventures LLC) and BlackBird Tech LLC. RPX also took note of transfers of patents from multiple assignors to an NPE controlled by patent attorney Brian Yates—a California attorney revealed, by a January sanctions ruling in Texas, as controlling more entities than previously thought. Also among the noted transactions are outbound assignments by Panasonic, Pantech, and ZTE, and a transfer from Allied Security Trust’s Industry Patent Purchase Program involving former IBM and Nokia patents.