In September, Corydoras Technologies, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against retailer Best Buy (2:19-cv-00304) over the sale of a variety of accused products made by others; this past week one of those manufacturers, Amazon (1:19-cv-01095), has asked the Western District of Texas for declaratory judgments of noninfringement of its Fire series tablets, including the Fire HD 10, Fire HD 8, and Fire 7. The patents mentioned in both complaints broadly concern various aspects of a mobile communication device that displays a mirror image of an object taken from a camera facing the direction of the display.

Corydoras Technologies, LLC has shifted gears a bit in its latest lawsuit, tagging retailer Best Buy (2:19-cv-00304) over the sale of a variety of accused products made by Acer, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, BLU Products, Dell (and subsidiary Alienware), HP, Microsoft, or Nokia. The inventor-controlled NPE has previously hit Apple, ASUSTek, Huawei, Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), LG Electronics (LGE), Samsung, Sony, and ZTE, with eight patents from a family of nearly 30 asserted in the campaign. Five of those patents are now at issue against Best Buy, the lot generally related to various aspects of a mobile communications device that displays a mirror image of an object taken from a camera facing the direction of the display. The last case filed in the campaign, in August 2018, ended just this past July with the entry of judgment pursuant to an offer that ASUSTek provided to the court.

Inventor-controlled Corydoras Technologies, LLC has added a case against ASUSTek (2:18-cv-00351) to its litigation campaign, asserting a familiar set of seven patents, all broadly related to various aspects of a mobile communications device that displays a mirror image of an object taken from a camera facing the direction of the display. The new suit joins open cases against Sony, filed just last month, and ZTE, filed in April but subsequently stayed, pending resolution of a remand from the Federal Circuit in a separate case against ZTE that vacated denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue in the Eastern District of Texas. Throughout its campaign, Corydoras has focused its infringement allegations on phones and tablets with a display-side camera.

Its earlier open case, filed in April 2018 against ZTE, having hit a few snags, inventor-controlled Corydoras Technologies, LLC has filed a new case against Sony (2:18-cv-00288). The complaint asserts the same seven patents, generally related to various aspects of a mobile communications device that displays a mirror image of an object taken from a camera facing the direction of the display. Throughout its campaign, Corydoras has focused its infringement allegations on phones and tablets with a display-side camera; the Sony complaint calls out “Sony branded mobile phones that include a front camera”, noting the Xperia smartphones specifically.

On the heels of both a stay of an earlier case against Huawei and a dismissal of an even earlier suit against Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), inventor-controlled Corydoras Technologies, LLC has filed a new case against ZTE (2:18-cv-00127). As in previous complaints, the case against ZTE asserts seven patents generally related to various aspects of a mobile communications device that displays a mirror image of an object taken from a camera facing the direction of the display. Phones and tablets with a display-side camera are the accused products in the Corydoras Technologies campaign.

Inventor-controlled Corydoras Technologies, LLC has filed a new case against Huawei (2:17-cv-00413), asserting the same seven patents (7,778,664; 7,945,236; 7,945,287; 7,996,037; 8,024,009; 8,731,540; 9,197,741) already in suit in the campaign. The patents are generally related to various aspects of a mobile communications device that displays a mirror image of an object taken from a camera facing the direction of the display. Phones and tablets with a display-side camera are at issue in the campaign. Huawei follows Samsung, Apple, LG Electronics, and Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) as defendants, with only the case against Motorola Mobility remaining open.