In a new District of Delaware suit, Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (OAC) has accused Panasonic (1:19-cv-01921) of infringing a single “multimedia” mobile device patent from a family of 30-plus members, targeting the mirroring features of the company’s Viera-series televisions. OAC asserted the same patent, together with others from the same family, in an August 2018 case in the same district against Roku, which responded with a quick motion to dismiss under Alice. Delaware District Judge Maryellen Noreika teed that motion up for argument on June 14, 2019—just five days short of the five-year anniversary of the Alice decision itself—in an omnibus hearing that addressed five Section 101 motions filed in cases before her, the others filed by OpenPrint LLC, Sandboxed Software, LLC (d/b/a Sandbox Software, LLC), TrackTime LLC, and EncodiTech LLC. Judge Noreika’s treatment of these motions on a “Section 101 Day” tracks the procedure already used in Delaware a couple of times this year by District Judge Leonard P. Stark. OAC is now suing Panasonic, begging the question: how did that Roku motion fare? More broadly, four months later, how did Judge Noreika’s “Alice day” affect the progress of those other NPE campaigns?

TrackTime, LLC has filed its first lawsuit, suing Amazon (Audible) (1:18-cv-01518) over two patents generally related to generating and displaying on a mobile device a “synchronization index” providing text for audio from a multimedia file. The NPE is apparently backed by the sole named inventor of the asserted patents. TrackTime accuses first Amazon alone, and in the alternative Amazon and Audible jointly, of infringement through the provision of “software and applications supporting X-Ray Lyrics and/or X-Ray Music functionality, including but not limited to its ‘Amazon Music’ software application” and through the provision of its Amazon Kindle software and applications “supporting features referred to by Amazon as ‘Whispersync for Voice,’ ‘Kindle Books with Audible Narration,’ and/or ‘Immersion Reading’”. The plaintiff pleads extensively in support of its allegation that Amazon and/or Audible have been aware of the patents-in-suit, as applications before and as patents after issuance in October 2014.