For years, RPX has reported on the intelligence that can be culled from public records about the approach to patent monetization by the large collection of patent plaintiffs linked to IP Edge LLC. That Texas monetization firm has never filed suit itself but has, through its associated LLCs, been the top filer by volume of NPE litigation, both for several years running and by an order of magnitude. The “Series of Extraordinary Events” currently underway—first before Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, but now also the Federal Circuit—appears to have confirmed that body of reporting, based solely on public records, that the founders of IP Edge, through sister entity MAVEXAR LLC, have constructed a business model by which individuals with no prior, cognizable connection to patent monetization take ownership of patents, the assertion of which MAVEXAR manages—all for a small percentage of the proceeds paid back to those individuals.

Last week, RPX raised the possibility of IP Edge LLC’s practices—specifically, the naming of Texas residents with seemingly no discernible connections to patent monetization as managers or managing members of most of its LLCs—sliding under the judicial microscope. On September 12, District of Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly ordered a handful of such individuals to appear, in person, at evidentiary hearings to determine whether a group of apparent IP Edge plaintiffs has complied with his standing order regarding the disclosure of any third-party litigation funding. A similar order has been issued in multiple cases associated with Dynamic IP Deals, LLC (d/b/a DynaIP), Judge Connolly setting an October hearing to determine the accuracy of those plaintiffs’ amended corporate disclosure statements. Perhaps unsurprisingly, voluntary dismissals have been noticed across these cases, ending the court’s jurisdiction over the matters.

Evidence of IP Edge LLC’s frequent practice of naming individuals—seemingly with no discernible connections to patent monetization—as managers or managing members of its various LLCs has long been reported by RPX. Now, with Amazon having recently brought that practice to the attention of Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, and with a raft of amended disclosures filed on the same day last week by a handful of apparent IP Edge plaintiffs litigating before that same judge, the coming months may see the full extent of that setup, and its bearing on standing, come to light.

In recent months, RPX has flagged various approaches that patent litigants are taking to avoid the heightened corporate and third-party funding disclosure requirements in Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly’s courtroom. As shown by his stay in early August of a case filed by VLSI Technology LLC against Intel, and his more recent stay of an IP Edge LLC case against Amazon, parties attempting to circumvent Judge Connolly’s new standing orders should expect to face consequences.

Longbeam Technologies LLC, a plaintiff apparently associated with IP Edge LLC, has begun litigating several patents received from GeoCodex in June 2021, suing Amazon (1:21-cv-01559) in the District of Delaware. Longbeam targets the provision of products (i.e., Amazon Web Services (AWS) and related products, as well as Amazon Video) that support features for geographically limiting access to data and content.