Traxcell Technologies II LLC (Traxcell II) has sued Juniper Networks (1:25-cv-00360), in what appears to be the first infringement suit filed in this plaintiff’s own right, after being previously substituted as the plaintiff in litigation originally filed by Traxcell Technologies, LLC (Traxcell I). In the Southern District of New York complaint, Traxcell II targets the provision of certain wireless access points, including the AP63 Series, that support the Juniper Mist Wi-Fi Assurance cloud platform. At issue are network management features such as generating location information for MU-MIMO-capable devices based on wireless signals, as well as related functionality including storing Wi-Fi performance metrics and/or captured packet data in the cloud and optimizing RF settings in real-time based on changing conditions (that last feature branded as “AI-Native Radio Resource Management”).

The motion of Traxcell Technologies, LLC (“Traxcell I”) to substitute Traxcell Technologies II LLC (“Traxcell II”) as the plaintiff in a case that the former filed against Verizon (Verizon Wireless) back in December 2020 is now fully briefed, through the sur-reply of Verizon Wireless and the sur-sur-reply of Traxcell I. Traxcell I contends that it sold the patents-in-suit to Traxcell II “in the regular course of business”, which for the Traxcells is patent monetization, and wants District Judge Alan D. Albright to allow a plaintiff swap, lift a stay, and let litigation proceed against not just Verizon Wireless but also other defendants—in part to satisfy a prior award of attorney fees, now north of $500K. Both in opposition to Traxcell I’s motion and in a separate West Texas case (6:24-cv-00163, filed on March 28, 2024), Verizon Wireless argues that the purported patent sale was an ineffective and fraudulent attempt to avoid satisfaction of Traxcell I’s creditor with respect to that attorney fees judgment. That creditor is Verizon itself.