In October 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw the filing of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against a variety of frequent litigants, including publicly traded NPEs Acacia Research Corporation and Xperi Corporation, as well as privately held Monument Patent Holdings, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. The Board also instituted trial in October for IPRs against multiple Acacia subsidiaries, Uniloc, and Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg. In addition, the PTAB issued an IPR final decision cancelling multiple claims from a data compression patent held by prolific plaintiff Realtime Data LLC, including the single claim that Riverbed Technology (one of the petitioners for the IPR) was found to infringe in a $4.3M verdict in May, with other final decisions issued in campaigns waged by TQ Delta LLC and publicly traded Quarterhill Inc. IPRs against IP Bridge, Inc. and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC also ended in termination in October after the patent owners requested adverse judgments.

In September 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw more than ten petitions filed in NPE campaigns involving networking and related technologies such as cybersecurity, including those waged by publicly traded Finjan Holdings, Inc.; prolific private litigant Realtime Data LLC; and Oyster Optics, LLC. Trial was instituted in September for an inter partes review (IPR) against Finjan and in IPRs against other frequent plaintiffs, including MyMail, Ltd. and Sound View Innovations, LLC. The Board issued final decisions in two covered business method (CBM) reviews against Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, the first AIA reviews against the NPE to reach final decisions since March 2016, and only the fourth to date. The PTAB also issued final decisions in IPRs against publicly traded Document Security Systems, Inc. as well as Acceleration Bay, LLC; Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC; and Personalized Media Communications, LLC; among other NPEs.

In February of this year, Bridge and Post, Inc. sued Verizon and Verizon Wireless over two targeted marketing patents. Three months later, another patent issued to the Arkansas NPE as a continuation of one of the two already in suit, and Bridge and Post has now asserted the new patent in a separate complaint filed against Verizon and Verizon Wireless (1:17-cv-01103), with several subsidiaries, including Oath, the entity surviving after the acquisition of Yahoo. This second case comes as the court in the first one considers a motion challenging the first two patents under Alice.

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.

Verizon and Verizon Wireless, with several subsidiaries, including AOL, have been accused in a new complaint filed by Arkansas corporation Bridge and Post, Inc. of infringing two patents (7,657,594; 8,862,747) generally related to targeted marketing over the Internet. Bridge and Post further alleges that Verizon violated two non-disclosure agreements with the company that developed the patents, FEEVA; copied the techniques disclosed in various meetings between the two parties; and sought and received multiple patents (e.g., 8,763,101; 8,832,436) purportedly covering the same subject matter. Bridge and Post’s complaint focuses on two programs as the accused products in the case: Verizon Wireless’s Relevant Mobile Advertising and its Verizon Selects.