Mozly Tech LLC has added four new defendants to its sole litigation campaign, accusing HubSpot (2:17-cv-00446), LexisNexis (2:17-cv-00447), RingCentral (2:17-cv-00448), and SAP (2:17-cv-00449) of infringing a single patent (7,367,044) generally related to managing account permissions over a network of secure servers. As in most of its previous complaints, the plaintiff—an affiliate of IP Edge LLC—alleges infringement through the provision of customer relationship management (CRM) software.

In late March, Banertek LLC, an affiliate of monetization firm IP Edge LLC, added yet another round of defendants to the long-running assertion in the Eastern District of Texas of a single patent (6,839,731).  The ‘731 patent generally relates to network-based remote device control and communication. The new defendants are ABB (2:17-cv-00241), Eaton (2:17-cv-00242), Emerson Electric (2:17-cv-00243), Endress + Hauser (2:17-cv-00244), Pepperl + Fuchs (2:17-cv-00245), Siemens (2:17-cv-00246), and SMAR (2:17-cv-00247). Each complaint in this round accuses the defendant of infringement through provision of distributed control systems that include devices that utilize the HART (Highway Addressable Remote Transfer) or the WirelessHART open standard communication protocols. Roughly a month later, a subsidiary of Emerson, Emerson Process Management, has now filed a case (1:17-cv-00395) against Banertek, alleging that the NPE sued the wrong defendant and seeking a declaratory judgment from the Western District of Texas that it does not infringe the ‘731 patent.

Mozly Tech LLC, an apparent affiliate of IP Edge LLC, has filed six new cases in its sole litigation campaign in the wake of multiple dismissals. The NPE’s latest complaints target BMC Software (2:16-cv-01251), Citrix (2:16-cv-01252), Hitachi (2:16-cv-01253), iContact (2:16-cv-01254), NEC (2:16-cv-01255), and Quickbase (2:16-cv-01256) alleging that each defendant’s customer relationship management (CRM) software infringes a single patent (7,367,044) generally related to managing account permissions over a network of secure servers.

A new Texas NPE called Reef Mountain LLC has picked up the assertion of yet another patent (8,239,481) that Olivistar LLC, an entity managed by patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC, has litigated against many defendants in the past. The new complaints target Aviglion (5:16-cv-00132), Edimax Computer (5:16-cv-00133), Flir Systems (5:16-cv-00134), Swann Communications (5:16-cv-00135), TP-Link (5:16-cv-00136), TRENDnet (5:16-cv-00137), Ubiquiti Networks (5:16-cv-00138), and Vivotek (5:16-cv-00139). The ‘481 patent generally relates to the remote control of devices, and the accused devices are networked cameras. Olivistar has now offloaded five of the six patents that it appears to have owned to four new, apparent IP Edge entities, three of which have launched litigation.

Venus Locations LLC has filed four new lawsuits in its sole litigation campaign, asserting a single patent (6,442,485) generally related to translating GPS location data into map data against Actsoft (2:16-cv-00983), InTouch GPS (2:16-cv-00984), Omnitracs (2:16-cv-00985), and Teletrac (2:16-cv-00986). As in Venus’s first round of litigation, which targeted various companies including AT&T, LYFT, Microsoft, SOFTBANK (Sprint), T-Mobile, Trimble Navigation, and Verizon, the NPE’s latest complaints accuse the defendants of infringement through the provision of GPS, navigation, and fleet tracking services. In April 2016, Venus Locations took this campaign over from NovelPoint Tracking LLC, an NPE formed in Texas in January 2012 by Gautham (Gau) Bodepudi, Sanjay Pant, and Lillian Woung, the principals of patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC.

Two newly formed Texas NPEs—Autumn Cloud LLC and Banertek LLC—have launched litigation campaigns on the same day. Each NPE has asserted patents transferred to it from Olivistar LLC, itself an NPE, managed by the three principals of patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC, which has previously litigated the patents in its own name. These latest patent transfers to recently formed entities, followed by new litigation of the same patents under a plaintiff with a new name, appears to be a developing pattern for entities affiliated with IP Edge.