So far in December, InfoGation Corporation has voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the last open case from the prior round of suits, filed against MiTAC in July 2024. It has also fired off a new round of litigation, with separate Eastern District of Texas complaints against GM (2:24-cv-01015), HERE Global (2:24-cv-01005), Hyundai (Kia) (2:24-cv-01019), Mapbox (2:24-cv-01027), Mazda (2:24-cv-01020), Nissan (2:24-cv-01021), Stellantis (2:24-cv-01026), TomTom (2:24-cv-01022), and Zhejiang Geely Holding (Volvo) (2:24-cv-01023). The automakers are targeted over the provision of vehicles that utilize their respective “navigation systems”; and the other defendants, over the provision of navigation systems and apps.

After suing Aisin, DENSO (DENSO Ten), and Panasonic (Panasonic Automotive Systems), each for the first time, earlier in May, InfoGation Corporation has added separate suits against Mercedes-Benz (Daimler, Mercedes-Benz USA) (2:24-cv-00363), Volkswagen (Porsche) (2:24-cv-00350), and Subaru (2:24-cv-00362) while hitting Honda again, this time through US subsidiary American Honda Motor (2:24-cv-00346). Vehicle navigation systems are the focus of the active cases in this campaign, which started back in 2016.

InfoGation Corporation continues to target vehicle navigation systems in a new round of cases, the plaintiff suing Aisin (2:24-cv-00301) over the provision of the Toyota Lexus Genuine Navigation system, as well as DENSO (DENSO Ten) (2:24-cv-00302) and Panasonic (Panasonic Automotive Systems) (2:24-cv-00303) over their various respective car navigation systems, including for DENSO Ten its ECLIPSE-series products. Toyota is already a defendant in this campaign, as are fellow automakers BMW, Ford, and Honda. The prior BMW case has been stayed to effect service under the Hague Convention, a delay apparently prompting InfoGation to file a new suit, this one naming BMW of North America (2:24-cv-00304) as the defendant.

InfoGation Corporation has extended its turn to automakers, accusing Ford (via joint venture Changan Ford Automobile) (2:23-cv-00573) in a new Eastern District of Texas complaint of infringing a familiar set of four patents generally related to various aspects of navigation and mapping technologies. Targeted is the provision of certain GPS mapping and navigation technologies within the Ford Sync Technology navigation system and Ford connected services as integrated in its various “EcoSport, Mondeo, Edge, Taurus, Focus, Lincoln Nautilus, and Mustang Mach-E” series automobiles.

InfoGation Corporation returned to litigation this past August, suing BMW and Toyota in separate Eastern District of Texas complaints. This past week, the inventor-controlled plaintiff asserted the same four navigation and/or mapping patents in a new complaint, against Honda (2:23-cv-00513), in the same district. Targeted is the provision of automobile infotainment systems with navigation features. The first rounds in this campaign ran into a client-server joint direct infringement issue that seems to have prompted a litigation pause in June 2022.   

The past year has seen an ongoing back-and-forth between the Federal Circuit and Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright over his substantive handling of convenience transfer motions. Now, following a series of reversals from that appellate court, Judge Albright appears to be adjusting his approach to account for those rulings—adopting a markedly different posture from prior decisions in an April 29 order granting a transfer motion from Google in litigation filed by NPE InfoGation Corporation.

Inventor-controlled InfoGation Corporation has sued Alphabet (Google) (6:20-cv-00366) over the provision of the Google Maps API, targeting features related to route optimization and natural language route description. The case follows two previous suits filed against each of HTC, Huawei, and ZTE over their provision of Android smartphones equipped with Google Maps, as well as a 2016 declaratory judgment action filed by Google against InfoGation. The asserted patent in the new case has been at issue throughout the litigation; it generally relates to producing navigation guidance from turn-by-turn directions generated from natural language output.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw the number of petitions for AIA review in November hold fairly steady at 111 (compared to October’s 128) as the US Supreme Court continued its review of the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Services, for which oral arguments were held on November 27. Among the NPEs targeted by petitions brought in November were publicly traded Quarterhill Inc. and Xperi Corporation, prolific litigant Brian Yates, and several privately held NPEs waging networking campaigns, including Alacritech, Inc.; Iridescent Networks, Inc.; Monument Patent Holdings, LLC; MyMail Ltd.; and Oyster Optics LLC. The PTAB also instituted trial in November for other IPRs against Alacritech and Quarterhill and for an IPR against Plectrum LLC. Final decisions issued by the Board in November include one in the automotive campaign waged by Paice LLC and in IPRs against InfoGation Corporation and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., both of which saw their patents survive review.

In recent weeks, two federal judges have held that the filing of Alice motions and other briefs served as the waiver of an improper venue defense in cases in which defendants had explicitly reserved their right to challenge venue in initial pleadings. On July 5, District Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the Southern District of California denied a motion to dismiss due to improper venue filed by HTC in a case filed by InfoGation Corporation (3:16-cv-01902), citing the defendant’s February motion for judgment on the pleadings under Alice as a dispositive factor. Similarly, on July 11, Magistrate Judge John D. Love of the Eastern District of Texas issued a report and recommendation that a motion to dismiss due to improper venue filed by Carbonite should be denied, in one of the many cases filed by Realtime Data LLC (6:17-cv-00121).

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw petitions for AIA review filed against a variety of prolific litigants in June 2017, including General Patent Corporation, Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), Quarterhill Inc. (f/k/a Wi-LAN Inc.), Realtime Data LLC, Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, and Xperi Corporation (f/k/a Tessera Holding Corporation). Also in June, the PTAB instituted trial for petitions brought against patents asserted in a variety of sprawling campaigns, including some waged by Acacia Research Corporation, IV, Papst Licensing, Quarterhill, and VirnetX Inc. The Board further issued final decisions throughout June in AIA reviews against patents involved in several notable campaigns, including some waged by Document Security Systems, Inc., Elm 3DS Innovations LLC, Empire IP LLC, and Quarterhill.