Last month’s review of notable patent assignments considered the movement of assets from Avaya to Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC; from Level 3 Communications to Sandpiper CDN, LLC; from Seiko Epson to IPValue’s 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. and Lumitek Display Technology Ltd.; from Transaction Security to a “BioCrypt Access”; from Fortress Investment Group LLC’s KIP Prod P1 LP to Prodea Automation LLC; from EMM Patents Ltd. to Empire IP LLC; from Siemens and Abdelsalam Helal to Rokiot USA LLC; and from Proxicom Wireless, LLC to Secure Communication Technologies, LLC. While a couple of these entities again feature prominently, this month’s review extends well beyond them to cover the movement of patents away from other operating companies, as well as within several repeat monetization players.

By now this general pattern has become familiar: the formation of an LLC in a state where a monetization outfit would like to file suit, the acquisition from an operating company of a patent portfolio over which the outfit would like to sue, the procurement of financial backing for the litigation, and ultimately, one or more complaints filed in US district court in that state over that portfolio with that funding. While some monetization teams are more open about such efforts, others seek to obscure their own identities as well as the identity of their funder. A recent assignment, and its parallels to others, raises questions about whether an unnamed team in the latter camp has been operating over the past year or so.

Recently-formed Texas entity Optronic Sciences LLC has filed suit against BOE Technology (2:23-cv-00549) over the provision of various LCD panels, including as integrated into certain Dell laptops and Hisense TVs, as well as OLED panels as integrated into the Apple iPhone 14. Asserted in the new Eastern District of Texas complaint are six patents that currently available USPTO records still indicate are held by AU Optronics. Optronic Sciences pleads that it is now the owner by assignment of those patents.