Showing 3 of 3 news articles
Each week, RPX publishes the latest news on patent litigation and market trends. Never miss a headline. Get them delivered right to your inbox.
Major NPE Players Are Among Assignees of Recent Patent Assignments
During the second half of October 2016, RPX took note of eight patent transfers to NPEs. Assignees included two NPEs controlled by Monument Patent Holdings, LLC; a new NPE managed by IP Valuation Partners LLC; and an NPE with apparent ties to Nicolas J. Labbit. Several of the transacted patents have been asserted in litigation filed over the past month.
November 8, 2016
Soteria Encryption Kicks Off Memory Device Campaign
On the heels of its formation in California just two weeks ago, Soteria Encryption, LLC has launched litigation, filing suit against AOK Group (2:16-cv-07947), Apricorn (2:16-cv-07948), BNL Technologies (2:16-cv-07949), Corsair Components (2:16-cv-07950), Data Locker (2:16-cv-07955), Global Silicon Electric (2:16-cv-07956), Lenovo (2:16-cv-07958), and RocStorage (2:16-cv-07960). A single patent (7,069,447), generally related to a data storage device used in conjunction with a “host computer”, is asserted in the campaign, with the accused products being various drives (i.e. flash drives, portable hard drives, etc.) sold by the defendants. These new lawsuits are not the first to assert the ‘477 patent in litigation.
October 27, 2016
Judge Gilstrap Finds Non-Infringement for Mobile Device Makers in Labbit-Managed Iris Connex Campaign
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap has issued summary judgments of non-infringement in the numerous suits filed by Iris Connex, LLC, finding that the mobile device makers targeted by the plaintiff—including Apple, Dell, Huawei, LG Electronics (LGE), Microsoft, and Samsung—have not infringed a single patent (6,177,950) generally related to a portable phone with a multi-position and multi-function camera. Iris Connex, a Texas-based NPE managed by attorney Nicolas J. Labbit, had argued that the ‘950 patent should be read to include a “unified” camera system with front and rear cameras, as found in the accused smartphones and tablets. However, in multiple, identical orders issued on September 2, Judge Gilstrap ruled that the defendants have not infringed after holding that the ‘950 patent required a single, multi-position camera.
September 9, 2016