The motion of Traxcell Technologies, LLC (“Traxcell I”) to substitute Traxcell Technologies II LLC (“Traxcell II”) as the plaintiff in a case that the former filed against Verizon (Verizon Wireless) back in December 2020 is now fully briefed, through the sur-reply of Verizon Wireless and the sur-sur-reply of Traxcell I. Traxcell I contends that it sold the patents-in-suit to Traxcell II “in the regular course of business”, which for the Traxcells is patent monetization, and wants District Judge Alan D. Albright to allow a plaintiff swap, lift a stay, and let litigation proceed against not just Verizon Wireless but also other defendants—in part to satisfy a prior award of attorney fees, now north of $500K. Both in opposition to Traxcell I’s motion and in a separate West Texas case (6:24-cv-00163, filed on March 28, 2024), Verizon Wireless argues that the purported patent sale was an ineffective and fraudulent attempt to avoid satisfaction of Traxcell I’s creditor with respect to that attorney fees judgment. That creditor is Verizon itself.

The story of Traxcell Technologies, LLC (“Traxcell I”) has gotten even stranger. Over the past year, that plaintiff—an NPE represented by embattled litigator William P. Ramey III—has made an increasingly frantic set of attempts to avoid paying attorney fees awarded years ago to Verizon (Verizon Wireless) and Deutsche Telekom (Sprint). The saga has involved an unsuccessful Supreme Court appeal, state court actions in which those defendants have sought to force a sale of the patents, and a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case filed by Traxcell I. Now, after the bankruptcy court dismissed Traxcell I’s filing as made in bad faith, in the process confirming the involvement of a litigation funder, the NPE has tried a new tactic: On February 13, Traxcell I assigned its patents to Traxcell Technologies II LLC (“Traxcell II”), moving to substitute it as the plaintiff in a pending West Texas action. While the motion does not state who is behind Traxcell II, the parties’ patent purchase agreement—attached in unsealed form, apparently by mistake—reveals, among other details, that it is controlled by two other familiar figures in patent monetization.

The Northern District of California has tossed a Finnish inventor’s suit against Netflix for lack of standing. On January 8, District Judge Jon S. Tigar held that plaintiff Lauri Valjakka did not own the asserted patent at the time of suit, as he had assigned the preceding application to a company of his that later went bankrupt—applying a Finnish decision that rejected Valjakka’s subsequent attempt to claw back rights to that asset. Judge Tigar also rejected an unusual argument by the plaintiff that urged the court to apply Finnish common law concerning the appropriation of abandoned shipwrecks and piles of discarded leather scraps. The ruling is one of multiple recent setbacks for lead counsel William P. Ramey III, a Texas litigator behind numerous other NPE suits: That very same day, the US Supreme Court both declined to revisit a fee award against another NPE represented by Ramey and rejected his attempt to overturn a ruling that his firm had defaulted on a COVID-19 Payment Protection Program (PPP) loan because he failed to acknowledge a criminal complaint and subsequent arrest in his application.

On June 7, 2023, Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright amended a prior judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a case filed by Traxcell Technologies, LLC against Verizon (Verizon Wireless). The dismissal has been vacated, the case reinstated and stayed to await the outcome of an appeal from a roughly $588K award of attorney fees to Verizon arising from a related Eastern District of Texas suit, as well as resolution within the Texas state court system of an action that Verizon filed to enforce that attorney fees award. Judge Albright notes that a stay is appropriate in the reopened case because the court is “particularly convinced that Verizon will be prejudiced without a stay because it will be forced to argue against the value of the patents that may be sold to make Verizon whole”, i.e., in eventual satisfaction of that attorney fees award.

On April 10, 2023, Traxcell Technologies, LLC asked Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright to amend his prior judgment dismissing its case against Verizon (Verizon Wireless) on the eve of trial for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That order followed an emergency motion to dismiss in light of a Texas state court order that Traxcell’s assets, including its patents, be turned over to a receiver for sale, robbing the plaintiff of substantial rights in the three remaining asserted patents. Additional briefing has gone in to Judge Albright, for and against Traxcell’s motion, each paper reporting eyebrow-raising facts that have continued to shift.

On March 14, 2023, on the eve of trial as to Verizon (Verizon Wireless), Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright dismissed, without prejudice, a case brought by Traxcell Technologies, LLC in December 2020. Verizon had filed an emergency motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that because a Texas state court ordered Traxcell’s assets, including its patents, to be turned over to a receiver for sale, the plaintiff no longer owned the three remaining asserted patents. The Texas state court was enforcing an attorney fee award in an earlier Eastern District of Texas case; Traxcell—represented by litigation counsel (Ramey LLP) disclosed as having a financial interest in the outcome of the campaign—appealed that award but failed to post a bond. Now, Traxcell has moved Judge Albright to amend the prior judgment and reinstate the case.

District Judge Alan D. Albright has dismissed, without prejudice, a case brought by Traxcell Technologies, LLC in December 2020 and headed, until that dismissal, for jury selection and trial in his courtroom on April 3. Sole remaining defendant Verizon (Verizon Wireless) had filed an emergency motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that because a Texas state court ordered Traxcell’s assets, including its patents, to be turned over to a receiver for sale, the plaintiff no longer owned the three remaining asserted patents. The Texas state court was enforcing an attorney fee award in an earlier Eastern District of Texas case; Traxcell—represented by litigation counsel (Ramey LLP) disclosed as having a financial interest in the outcome of the campaign—appealed that award but failed to post a bond. Unless one of Traxcell’s last-ditch efforts to secure relief from this mess is successful, Judge Albright’s ruling might spell the end of this campaign.

Earlier in September, Traxcell Technologies, LLC sued Verizon (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) together with Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung as alleged “equipment providers” for its wireless network. Now, the plaintiff has filed two additional Western District of Texas complaints in the same configuration, this time naming Deutsche Telekom (Sprint, T-Mobile) as the wireless network provider and the same three “equipment providers” (6:22-cv-00991, 6:22-cv-00992). Traxcell followed those two complaints with a gaggle of others, hitting Maplebear (d/b/a Instacart) (6:22-cv-00999), Shopify (6:22-cv-01000), and Verifone (Curb Mobility) (6:22-cv-00998), also in the Western District of Texas; Helbiz (1:22-cv-08128) in the Southern District of New York; and FlightAware (4:22-cv-03258) in the Southern District of Texas, each over the provision of software products that support features for “connecting customers with merchants".

In its latest complaint, Traxcell Technologies, LLC has hit some familiar defendants: Verizon (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) and alleged “equipment providers” for its wireless network Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung (6:22-cv-00976), sued together in a single Western District of Texas case. Four patents—two new to the litigation and two previously in suit, all generally related to using location information within a wireless network—have been asserted. The new case follows a discovery ruling from District Judge Alan D. Albright in a prior case against just Ericsson and Verizon Wireless; a round of suits against AfterShip, Bird Rides, GoShare, HEB (Neighborfavor), and Neutron Holdings, each new to the campaign; and the issuance of a twelfth patent in Traxcell’s asserted family.

Traxcell Technologies, LLC has sued DoorDash (6:22-cv-00691), Grubhub (6:22-cv-00690), Lyft (6:22-cv-00689), Tier Mobility (Skinny Labs d/b/a Spin) (6:22-cv-00688), and Uber (6:22-cv-00687) over the most recent patent to issue in a family that has been in suit in this campaign since 2017. The patent generally relates to providing navigation information on a wireless device, with infringement allegations in these latest complaints focused on features—within the defendants’ respective “technology platform[s] for connecting consumers with” either “local businesses and merchants” or “ride-sharing services”—related to tracking arrival times and locations of drivers (Lyft, Uber), tracking orders (DoorDash, GrubHub), or locating/tracking rental scooters (Spin).