Multiple litigation finance players announced large fundraises during the third quarter, signaling a continued interest in the asset class by institutional investors. Also during Q3, several NPEs began new campaigns financed by third parties, including an established litigation finance firm as well as a hedge fund.

Scramoge Technology Limited, an NPE associated with Atlantic IP Services Limited, has sued Samsung (6:21-cv-00902) again, this time over the provision of a variety of wireless charging devices, including chargers, docks, portable batteries, stands, and trays. Three wireless power transfer patents, originating with LG Innotek, are asserted. While this suit comprises a new campaign as a technical matter, Scramoge Technology and Samsung—as well as Alphabet (Google) and Apple—are already litigating overlapping subsets of nine wireless charging patents acquired as part of the same portfolio pickup from LG Innotek.

Sonraí Memory Limited has sued Kingston Technology (8:21-cv-01039) and Western Digital (8:21-cv-01040) over the provision of devices that contain “SanDisk/Toshiba 64L 3D NAND flash chips”, as well as solid state drives (SSDs) that include Silicon Motion SSD controllers (Kingston) or Marvell SSD controllers (Western Digital). These new suits expand a campaign that started in February of this year with Western District of Texas cases against Alphabet (Google), LG Electronics (LGE), and Samsung and that proceeded with separate additional suits filed against Apple, Dell, and Kioxia in April, also in West Texas. The new litigation, by contrast, has been filed in the Central District of California.

An Eastern District of Texas jury has returned an infringement verdict in litigation filed by Acorn Semi, LLC against Samsung (2:19-cv-00347). On May 19, the jury found that the Samsung had infringed four semiconductor patents through the provision of wafers and processors manufactured using its 14 nm FinFET process technology as well as devices incorporating them, though it concluded that the company’s infringement had not been willful. The verdict also included a $25M damages award.

RPX data and analysis indicate that while approximately 85% of the patent litigation filed each year since 2005 has involved patents that originated with operating companies, the vast majority of defendants in those cases were sued by NPEs. This trend persisted through the first quarter of 2021, with new cases brought by a range of NPEs, including serial filers, a publicly traded NPE, and multiple third-party backed plaintiffs.

This year is off to an active start for a web of Irish NPEs litigating former operating company patents picked up from various sources. In February, Sonraí Memory Limited began two litigation campaigns, a first hitting Oracle over a former HP patent (development work having occurred before the split into HP Enterprise (HPE) and HP Inc.) and a second accusing Alphabet (Google), LG Electronics (LGE), and Samsung of infringing one former Atmel patent and another patent originally developed at HP. Last week, the same Irish NPE added a suit against Dell (6:21-cv-00361) to the latter campaign, accusing it of infringing that Atmel patent, as well as two additional patents, also acquired through Microchip Technology. Meanwhile, Arigna Technology Limited amended its Texas complaint against a fleet of automakers to assert a second former Mitsubishi Electric patent, as well as to add GM as a defendant, and Solas OLED Limited has followed up its recent East Texas trial win against Samsung with a new suit asserting two former Casio patents against BOE Technology (2:21-cv-00121).

On the heels of a recent trial victory, the Solas OLED Limited dispute with Samsung continues to grow. So far in 2021, the Irish NPE has filed another three suits against the tech giant, a first, against Samsung Display (6:21-cv-00185) over AMOLED panel displays that are incorporated into certain Apple products; a second, also against Samsung Display (2:21-cv-00104) over AMOLED panel displays that are incorporated into certain Apple, Dell, HP, Google, and Samsung-branded devices; and a third, against subsidiary Samsung Electronics (2:21-cv-00105) over the incorporation of touch controller chips in certain Samsung laptop computers and Galaxy smartphones and tablets.

Since last July, RPX has highlighted a growing web of Irish NPEs linked to Magnetar Capital—a hedge fund with $12.3B in assets under management—that have acquired and increasingly asserted former operating company patents. One of those NPEs has just taken a case to trial: on March 8, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a partial infringement verdict for plaintiff Solas OLED Limited, finding that Samsung infringed two display patents through the provision of certain smartphones. Solas OLED was awarded a combined $62.7M in damages. However, the jury also concluded that the asserted claims from a third patent are invalid. The patent trial appears to be the first before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap since the expiration of his November order halting all such trials due to COVID-19.

Signs abound that wealthy investors are doubling down on patent litigation. Take for example the new suits recently filed by two NPEs holding large portfolios of former operating company patents, each backed by a private equity firm or hedge fund. As a recent RPX analysis shows, the economic risk posed by these types of NPEs is significant—and may be increasing.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced courts to rethink many aspects of the patent litigation process. While a number of district judges have moved hearings and other procedures online, the nation’s top patent venues effectively suspended jury trials through most of the summer—until District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas resumed patent trials in August after local infection rates began to fall. However, as the pandemic moves further into its second wave, Judge Gilstrap has now taken the notable step of halting all jury trials before him after a coronavirus outbreak during a trial under another judge in the Eastern District. Judge Gilstrap stated that he was doing so “reluctantly” but asserted that he had no alternative—arguing that the face-to-face aspect of in-person trials is essential for due process.