Bell Semiconductor, LLC (Bell Semic) has filed a new Eastern District of Texas complaint against Cisco (4:24-cv-00937), this time adding allegations as to a second patent and shifting away from the last highlighted accused product (“the Cisco CATALYST C9200L system board with the Cisco 80-1069-02 semiconductor IC package”) to a different one (“the Cisco 08-1072-03 semiconductor integrated package and the Cisco UCS Virtual Interface Card 1457 system board” allegedly containing it). Bell Semic’s widespread litigation, having hit numerous defendants, now remains active only as to Cisco, NXP Semiconductors, and TI, although a stay has been imposed in the case against TI in light of the parties’ representation that they have reached a resolution.

Last week, Bell Semiconductor, LLC (Bell Semic) and Synopsys asked Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly to stay the case between them through December 19, given the parties’ work on a settlement agreement. The court granted the stay, pausing preparation for a January 2024 trial, including taking off calendar a December 20 pretrial hearing. One week earlier, Judge Connolly had ordered the parties to be prepared to discuss his recent grant of partial summary judgment of no indirect infringement—as well as potential attorney fees to be awarded to Synopsys because Bell Semic’s arguments in opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment “were so obviously devoid of merit”.

This past week, Bell Semiconductor, LLC (Bell Semic) sued Cisco (4:23-cv-00971), Fortinet (4:23-cv-00978), Juniper Networks (4:23-cv-00974), and Palo Alto Networks (4:23-cv-00976), each in the Eastern District of Texas. One of the four circuit design patents is now in suit against all four of these defendants, with subsets of three others asserted as well against Fortinet and Juniper. Bell Semic targets Cisco over the provision of networking switch boards; Juniper, of line cards; and Palo Alto Networks, of firewall appliances, each containing certain semiconductor integrated circuit (IC) packages, while Fortinet is targeted over the provision of certain secure processors.

Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) (4:23-cv-00910) is the latest defendant to be added to the sole litigation campaign of Bell Northern Research, LLC (BNR), which launched in August 2018 with suits against Huawei, Kyocera, Coolpad Group (Coolpad Technologies, Yulong Computer), and ZTE. The Hilco Inc. (d/b/a Hilco Global) plaintiff asserts 11 patents, each acquired from Broadcom, the set broadly directed to battery conservation, mobile alarms, and/or wireless communications. T-Mobile is accused of infringement through the provision of a wide array of smartphones, with features ranging from the incorporation of proximity sensors to compliance with various networking standards at issue.

Bell Northern Research, LLC (BNR) has filed suit against AT&T (AT&T Mobility, Cricket Wireless, Emblem Software) (4:23-cv-00789) in the Eastern District of Texas. The Hilco Inc. (d/b/a Hilco Global) plaintiff has been asserting patents received from Broadcom since August 2018, here alleging infringement of more than a dozen of them through the provision of a long list of mobile phones. The new case follows the withdrawal of an International Trade Commission (ITC) complaint as to Qualcomm (as well as the dismissal of a parallel district court case against Qualcomm), leaving ASUSTek—together with Laird Connectivity, MediaTek, and NXP Semiconductors—as respondents in that investigation.

Last month, Bell Northern Research, LLC (BNR), a Hilco Inc. (d/b/a Hilco Global) plaintiff asserting patents received from Broadcom, produced another burst of litigation, filing in the first half of the month a Western District of Texas complaint against NXP Semiconductors (1:23-cv-00633) and a Central District of California complaint against MediaTek and Qualcomm, together with D-Link, Linksys, NETGEAR, TP-Link, and Unizyx (ZyXel) (8:23-cv-01065). In the back half of June, BNR targeted ASUSTek (4:23-cv-00573) with an Eastern District of Texas complaint and then named ASUSTek—together with Laird Connectivity, MediaTek, NXP, and Qualcomm—as proposed respondents in a complaint filed before the International Trade Commission (ITC) (337-TA-3684). In that last complaint, BNR pleads a domestic industry through the activities of its “domestic licensee” Samsung, which allegedly practices the asserted patents in its Galaxy-series smartphones.

Bell Northern Research, LLC (BNR) has filed two new cases so far in June, a first, filed in the Western District of Texas, accusing NXP Semiconductors (1:23-cv-00633) of infringing three wireless communications patents through the provision of certain systems-on-chip (SoCs) and related devices, including the NXP 88W8997 2.4/5 GHz Dual-Band 2x2 Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac) + Bluetooth 5.3 SoC. The same three patents are asserted in a second complaint, this one filed in the Central District of California against chipmakers MediaTek and Qualcomm, together with alleged customers D-Link, Linksys, NETGEAR, TP-Link, and ZyXel (8:23-cv-01065). Targeted there are certain MediaTek or Qualcomm “chips and/or chipsets that are used to communicate over wireless networks using the Wi-Fi 6E, Wi-Fi 6, Wi-Fi 5, 802.11ax, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11n standards”, with the remaining defendants tagged over “downstream products” (e.g., access points, mesh nodes, range extenders, routers, and wireless communication dongles and cards) that incorporate the accused MediaTek and Qualcomm products.

This past week, Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly heard oral argument related to motions for a preliminary injunction against Bell Semiconductor, LLC (Bell Semic), which has been filing multiple cases in various districts targeting the provision of semiconductor devices that are manufactured using certain design tools provided by Cadence, Synopsys, and/or Siemens. Cadence and Synopsys together filed a declaratory judgment (DJ) action in Delaware, as Siemens separately has, asking Judge Connolly to stop Bell Semic from pursuing its customer suits, filed both in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC responded to those motions by intervening to oppose any interference with the conduct of its investigations, and Bell Semic responded to the DJ complaints themselves with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Entries on the case docket provide clues as to how the hearing went.

Bell Semiconductor, LLC (Bell Semic) has filed a second Eastern District of Texas suit against Texas Instruments (4:23-cv-00128), roughly two years after its last one was dismissed with prejudice in light of a noticed settlement. A familiar set of six patents are asserted in the new complaint, with Bell Semic targeting the provision of semiconductor devices that are manufactured using certain design tools provided by Cadence, Synopsys, and/or Siemens. Cadence and Synopsys have together filed a declaratory judgment (DJ) action in the District of Delaware, as Siemens separately has, over those same patents, asking Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly for a preliminary injunction to stop Bell Semic from pursuing its large number of customer suits, filed both in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC has responded to those motions by intervening to oppose any interference with the conduct of its investigations, and Bell Semic has responded to the DJ complaints themselves with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Recent months have seen Bell Semiconductor, LLC (Bell Semic) file an ongoing flood of litigation targeting chipmakers over semiconductor products made using Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools from Cadence Design Systems, Synopsys, and/or Siemens. Now, Cadence and Synopsys have responded with a jointly filed declaratory judgment complaint against Bell Semic (1:22-cv-01512), seeking a judgment of noninfringement and invalidity for six semiconductor design patents asserted against their customers throughout the plaintiff’s “sprawling” campaign. Meanwhile, Bell Semic has continued to pile up new complaints throughout November since suing Silicon Laboratories on the first, filing additional complaints against Ambarella (3:22-cv-00323), Analog Devices (1:22-cv-11901), Infineon (1:22-cv-11926), Marvell (4:22-cv-11906), NVIDIA (1:22-cv-11933), NXP (3:22-cv-01794), Qualcomm (3:22-cv-01796), Rockchip Electronics (4:22-cv-00962), Socionext (2:22-cv-12749), and Western Digital (8:22-cv-02083)—each of which has been sued by Bell Semic before.