RPX took note, among the USPTO assignment records made available during the first half of March, of the transfer of one set of patents to Fortress Investment Group LLC, after the NPE assignor’s default on a prior financing agreement. Fortress intervened in the campaign asserting some of those patents, bringing the litigation to a relatively rapid close. RPX also took notice of the transfer of patents from multiple assignors to another entity, Knapp Investment Company Limited, a British Virgin Islands entity that has never filed suit. The records made available in early March also contain transfers to frequent plaintiffs, including affiliates of patent monetization firms IP Valuation Partners LLC and Monument Patent Holdings, LLC, as well as Blackbird Tech LLC and Empire IP LLC.

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.