PanOptis Patent Management, LLC; Optis Cellular Technology, LLC; Unwired Planet, LLC; and Unwired Planet International Limited (collectively, PanOptis) have sued Ford (2:22-cv-00133) in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting a group of former Ericsson or Panasonic patents and targeting connected vehicles alleged to communicate according to the 4G/LTE cellular network standard. PanOptis appears to be the latest to join a line of Avanci, LLC licensors taking aim at Ford.

The Fifth Circuit has ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by automotive component supplier Continental against Internet of Things (IoT) licensing platform Avanci, LLC and several licensing partners. On February 28, the court determined that the plaintiff was not an “intended beneficiary” of the Avanci patent owners’ contractual commitments to license their standard essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. As a result, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the company had not suffered a sufficient injury from the defendants’ refusal to grant it a license, which in turn deprived it of Article III standing.

Recent months have seen the Internet of Things (IoT) licensing platform Avanci, LLC announce license agreements with multiple automotive OEMs, including Audi, Porsche, and Volkswagen, to its portfolio of standard essential patents (SEPs) covering cellular technologies. However, despite Avanci’s traction with those OEMs, the company has now begun to see pushback at the supplier level. On May 10, automotive component supplier Continental filed a declaratory judgment (DJ) complaint in the Northern District of California against Avanci and several of the patent owners participating in its licensing program, alleging that by refusing to offer fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licenses to suppliers, they have committed various antitrust violations and breached their contractual FRAND obligations, further seeking equitable relief (5:19-cv-02520). The dispute echoes similar licensing battles that continue to play out in European courts, including litigation involving patent owners Nokia and Broadcom, respectively, and OEM Daimler—which does not appear to have a relationship with Avanci—filed in German courts and before the European Commission. Similar antitrust claims have also been raised in a US DJ action recently filed by u-blox against InterDigital, Inc., which has since seen filings from the US government that reflect a recent shift in antitrust enforcement policy.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw activity in AIA reviews against a variety of familiar plaintiffs in September, including validity challenges brought in campaigns targeting wireless communications technology and mobile devices. Among the NPEs hit with petitions for inter partes review (IPR) in September were Intellectual Ventures LLC, which continues to pursue its existing litigation as it divests other parts of its portfolio; and entities controlled by Fortress Investment Group LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, both of which have kept up a barrage of new litigation asserting former Pendrell Corporation patents. Also in September, the PTAB instituted trial in IPRs against Quarterhill Inc. and an NPE related to PanOptis Equity Holdings LLC, and issued final decisions against private plaintiffs including General Patent Corporation.