In October 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw the filing of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against a variety of frequent litigants, including publicly traded NPEs Acacia Research Corporation and Xperi Corporation, as well as privately held Monument Patent Holdings, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. The Board also instituted trial in October for IPRs against multiple Acacia subsidiaries, Uniloc, and Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg. In addition, the PTAB issued an IPR final decision cancelling multiple claims from a data compression patent held by prolific plaintiff Realtime Data LLC, including the single claim that Riverbed Technology (one of the petitioners for the IPR) was found to infringe in a $4.3M verdict in May, with other final decisions issued in campaigns waged by TQ Delta LLC and publicly traded Quarterhill Inc. IPRs against IP Bridge, Inc. and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC also ended in termination in October after the patent owners requested adverse judgments.

In September 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw more than ten petitions filed in NPE campaigns involving networking and related technologies such as cybersecurity, including those waged by publicly traded Finjan Holdings, Inc.; prolific private litigant Realtime Data LLC; and Oyster Optics, LLC. Trial was instituted in September for an inter partes review (IPR) against Finjan and in IPRs against other frequent plaintiffs, including MyMail, Ltd. and Sound View Innovations, LLC. The Board issued final decisions in two covered business method (CBM) reviews against Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, the first AIA reviews against the NPE to reach final decisions since March 2016, and only the fourth to date. The PTAB also issued final decisions in IPRs against publicly traded Document Security Systems, Inc. as well as Acceleration Bay, LLC; Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC; and Personalized Media Communications, LLC; among other NPEs.

In August 2016, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 14 cases involving Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (d/b/a MTel, LLC), including three declaratory judgment actions, for pretrial proceedings before District Judge Leonard Stark in Delaware. Several of the cases were transferred in from the Eastern District of Texas, including a case filed against Cox Communications. In that suit, before transfer, Cox filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over it in Texas. (Judge Stark recently granted that motion, dismissing the action against Cox as well as a second case, against Bright House Networks). MTel has now responded with a new case filed against Cox (1:17-cv-00463), asserting the same three wireless telecommunications patents (5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210) from the earlier case.

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (d/b/a MTel, LLC) has sued Cellco (Verizon Wireless) (2:16-cv-01324) in the wake of significant setbacks at trial, accusing the company of infringing four wireless communication patents (5,581,804; 5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210). Verizon is alleged to infringe through its LTE network and through the provision of devices that use certain wireless connection and transmission standards, including MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output) and OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing). MTel’s newest complaint comes after two unfavorable jury verdicts earlier this year, with findings of non-infringement issued for BlackBerry (3:12-cv-01652) in July (with respect to the ‘804 patent) and HTC (2:13-cv-00948) in September (of the 5,754,946 patent). However, the impact of those verdicts was blunted by settlements reached with both defendants prior to the entry of judgment: the BlackBerry case has been stayed since September after the parties reached an agreement, while the HTC case was dismissed on December 6.

The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued an order centralizing 14 cases involving Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (MTel) for pretrial proceedings before District Judge Leonard Stark in Delaware. In early January, MTel filed separate complaints in Texas asserting three patents (5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210) against Bright House, Brocade, Charter, Cox, HPE (Aruba Networks), Juniper Networks, and Time Warner Cable. Three months later, ARRIS, Bright House, and UBEE Interactive filed declaratory judgment actions in Delaware, shortly after which MTel filed affirmative complaints back in Texas against Aerohive, Firetide, Ruckus Wireless, UBEE, and Xirrus. Under the Panel’s order, all of these cases will now be transferred to Delaware where MTel’s accusations against the defendants’ 802.11 standard compliant products will proceed.

Weeks after Bright House Networks, ARRIS, and UBEE Interactive filed declaratory judgment actions against Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (MTel) in Delaware, MTel has added five new Texas suits to its wireless communications campaign, including an affirmative case against UBEE (2:16-cv-00461). The other four defendants are Aerohive Networks (2:16-cv-00468), Firetide (2:16-cv-00474), Ruckus Wireless (2:16-cv-00466), and Xirrus (2:16-cv-00471). Each new complaint asserts the same three patents (5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210), targeting the defendants’ 802.11 standard compliant products.

Each of three plaintiffs has filed a complaint in Delaware seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement of several wireless communications patents (5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210) owned by Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (MTel). ARRIS (1:16-cv-00259) and Ubee Interactive (1:16-cv-00260) both allege jurisdiction based on MTel’s accusations in separate lawsuits, filed roughly three months ago in Texas, against Bright House Networks, Charter, Cox, and Time Warner Cable, all of which are customers of the two declaratory judgment plaintiffs’ 802.11 standard compliant products. On March 18, 2016, Bright House filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas, one month later filing its own declaratory judgment action (1:16-cv-00277) against MTel in Delaware.

With nine new suits filed in the past week, Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (MTel) has roughly doubled the number of defendants in its campaign litigating former SkyTel patents. The nine patents asserted thus far (5,559,862; 5,581,804; 5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,754,946; 5,786,748; 5,809,428; 5,894,506; 5,915,210) generally relate to various aspects of communication within a wireless network. The patents, issuing between 1996 and 1999, were developed alongside SkyTel’s two-way paging network. The defendants sued this past week include Google and Microsoft (accused of infringing the ‘506, ‘428, ‘804, and ‘946 patents), as well as Bright House Networks, Brocade, Charter, Cox, HP (Aruba), Juniper, and Time Warner Cable (accused of infringing the ‘891, ‘403, and ‘210 patents). Over the course of the campaign, MTel’s complaints have targeted equipment used to facilitate mobile communications, from mobile phones and tablets to WiFi access points.

Several months after Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (MTel) lost its first suit against Samsung, the entity filed a second suit (2:15-cv-00183) that asserts a different group of patents. The complaint asserts six patents, all of which have been previously used in MTel’s litigation campaign (5,581,804; 5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,754,946; 5,809,428; 5,915,210). At issue in this case are Samsung’s devices, including smartphones, TVs, and wearables, that run operating systems with messaging applications or services. The complaint also mentions MTel’s trial win over Apple in November 2014 as evidence of infringement. Specifically, it notes that features in Samsung’s devices are similar to features in Apple devices that were found to infringe MTel’s patents.

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (MTel) sued Apple for the second time (2:14-cv-01057), asserting patents used in the previous suit against the company (5,754,946; 5,809,428). The patents relate to transmitting truncated messages to a mobile phone, such as an e-mail header, and delivering the rest of the message upon user request. The patents-in-suit are part of a group of seven patents asserted by MTel, against Apple, in April 2013. That case went to trial earlier this month with six patents still at issue. The jury found that Apple infringed five of the asserted patents, including the two patents asserted in this new litigation. The previous suit accused Apple’s mobile devices and tablets that support messaging services of infringing the patents-in-suit, and the newer versions of those products are accused in this suit.