MediaTek (3:17-cv-04232) is a defendant in the first case to be added to the litigation campaign of Monument Patent Holdings, LLC subsidiary Wireless Switch IP, LLC after its transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The NPE agreed to the move of its earlier cases against Acer, ASUS, and Lenovo and has now sued MediaTek, together with California-based Seeed, over the same two patents (7,356,351; 7,647,070). The patents generally relate to mobile devices that can shut off network connectivity while still providing “local functionality”. MediaTek and Seeed are accused of infringement through the provision of a product they co-developed, LinkIt Assist 2505, an Internet of Things (IoT) and wearables development kit that includes hardware with a switch to turn Wi-Fi functionality on and off.

Monument Patent Holdings, LLC subsidiary Wireless Switch IP, LLC has consented to transfer its entire litigation campaign out of the Eastern District of Texas. In each of its three cases—filed in March against Acer (6:17-cv-00142), ASUS (6:17-cv-00141), and Lenovo (6:17-cv-00140)—the parties filed joint motions to transfer to the Northern District of California in early and mid-June, stipulating that the agreed-upon district is the proper venue in light of the US Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands (2016-0341). Those motions have since been granted by Magistrate Judge John D. Love, and a California docket has since been opened for the suit against ASUS (5:17-cv-03514). In each case, Wireless Switch asserts two patents (7,356,351; 7,647,070) that generally relate to mobile devices that can shut off network connectivity while still providing “local functionality”, which Monument acquired from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) late last year. The accused products include laptops, tablets, and smartphones offering a switch that turns Wi-Fi functionality on and off.

Monument Patent Holdings, LLC has kicked off another litigation campaign asserting patents that it received from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) late last year. As noted in December, Monument subsidiary Wireless Switch IP, LLC received rights in October to a family of six patents (7,356,351; 7,647,070; 8,019,384; 8,175,642; 8,706,161; 9,055,426) generally related to mobile devices that can shut off network connectivity (through a “radio communication” unit) while still providing “local functionality” (through a “computing unit”). Wireless Switch IP has now asserted the ‘351 and ‘070 patents against Acer (6:17-cv-00142), ASUS (6:17-cv-00141), and Lenovo (6:17-cv-00140), accusing the companies of infringement through the manufacture and sale of laptops, tablets, and smartphones having a switch that turns Wi-Fi functionality on and off.

The transfer of multiple patents from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) on October 28, 2016 to various subsidiaries of Monument Patent Holdings, LLC formed the bulk of recorded assignments seen by RPX during the first half of December. A first of those subs (Preferential Networks IP, LLC) has already asserted one of the patents that it received in litigation, while the other two (Equalizer IP, LLC and Wireless Switch IP, LLC) have yet to file suit. Monument recently recorded the assignment of two e-commerce patents to its Landmark Networks, LLC subsidiary, which also just filed suit, as have NPEs Interactive ToyBox, LLC and Vesper Technology Research, LLC, both of which likewise recorded the assignment of patents asserted in early December.

The first of the ten or so Texas NPEs formed by Monument Patent Holdings, LLC since mid-August has now filed litigation, asserting a single patent (7,954,701) in two suits, one filed against each of TGI Friday’s (2:16-cv-01119) and Whole Foods Market (2:16-cv-01120). The plaintiff, Millennium Commerce, LLC, pleads ownership of the ‘701 patent, although no assignment to the NPE has been recorded with the USPTO. One member of a somewhat famous family, the ‘701 patent generally relates to a point-of-sale terminal that processes “cash back” transactions, and the accused products are the defendants’ transaction terminals.