The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has been a game-changer for patent litigation in Europe since its launch last June, offering plaintiffs the prospect of damages and injunctive relief spanning up to 17 EU countries. However, the UPC’s approach to certain issues has only recently started to solidify—including its application of a rule allowing the court to require plaintiffs to pay a security to cover the defendant’s costs in order to keep litigating. Earlier this year, two UPC Local Divisions reached different conclusions in weighing whether to impose securities against two separate US-based NPEs: The Munich Local Division (“Munich LD”) denied a defendant’s request for a security against one plaintiff, while the Paris Local Division (“Paris LD”) granted a request against another—the latter also rejecting a US insurance policy offered by the plaintiff as a guarantee. Now, the Court of Appeal has reviewed those two decisions, in both instances ruling against the plaintiff-appellants.

Recorded US patent assignments recently made public include several transfers of former operating company patents worth watching, including a transfer of more than 20 US assets into the hands of a newly-formed Delaware entity tied by an experienced monetization team that has run several litigation campaigns with the backing of third-party litigation funding; a transfer from the same source to another Delaware entity of uncertain management but possible connection to a prolific foreign monetization operation; and a transfer between two active NPEs of a couple of wireless communications patents received by one of them from an operating company back in April 2021. Those USPTO records also contain the divestiture of more than two dozen memory patents from an operating company and its acquired subsidiary to a recipient with suggestive ties.

Eastern District of Texas Judges Rodney Gilstrap and Robert W. Schroeder III have each denied a motion to effect alternative service filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST), Judge Gilstrap’s in a case filed against Lenovo, OnePlus, and Samsung, the motion directed at Lenovo, a Chinese defendant, and Judge Schroeder’s in a case filed against Ford, TI, and Volkswagen (including Audi), that motion directed at Volkswagen and Audi, both German defendants. In response, NST has dismissed claims against those foreign defendants, without prejudice, and has filed a new, standalone case against Lenovo (2:23-cv-00167), again accusing the defendant of infringing the same six former Philips patents through the provision of products that allegedly contain Qualcomm Snapdragon system-on-chips (SoCs).

Operating company patents continued to spread among NPEs throughout 2022, including to familiar faces in patent monetization. While a number of those recipients have yet to file any litigation, several did launch new campaigns during the fourth quarter—some with the backing of third-party litigation funding.

Network System Technologies LLC (NST) has launched its inaugural litigation campaign with three district court cases filed in Texas on December 19: the first, against Arteris and Qualcomm in the Western District (1:22-cv-01331); the second, against Ford, TI, and Volkswagen (including Audi) in the Eastern District (2:22-cv-00482); and the third, against Lenovo, OnePlus, and Samsung, also in the Eastern District (2:22-cv-00481). A group of six former Philips patents—from a portfolio of nearly 50—are asserted across all three cases, with infringement allegations trained on certain Systems-on-Chip (SoC) products and automobile infotainment systems or mobile devices that allegedly include such SOCs. Public records indicate that NST has at its helm patent monetization veterans associated with multiple prior campaigns asserting former operating company patents—and they also point to the involvement of third-party litigation funding in this latest endeavor.