Eight months after a settlement ended years-long litigation against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas, and three months after suing Apple in that same district, Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP (Rembrandt WT) has filed a pair of Central District of California lawsuits, one each against Broadcom (8:19-cv-00708) and Qualcomm (8:19-cv-00705). Both companies are accused of infringing two wireless communications patents through the provision of various semiconductor products that implement Bluetooth—from single-chip Bluetooth products to full systems-on-chip—and that allegedly support various versions of the Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) specification, including “Version 2.0 + EDR, Version 2.1 + EDR, Version 3.0 + HS, Version 4.0 + LE, Version 4.1, Version 4.2, or version 5”. Meanwhile, Rembrandt affiliates and the remaining defendants in a separate campaign have submitted competing approaches in Delaware for dealing with a Federal Circuit remand of a $51M attorney fees award against the NPEs.

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP (Rembrandt WT) has filed suit against Apple (2:19-cv-00025), accusing the company of infringing the same two wireless communications patents first asserted against Samsung in 2013. That earlier case ended this past August in a dismissal with prejudice after the parties notified the Eastern District of Texas of their settlement—following a jury verdict in Rembrandt WT’s favor, a Federal Circuit appeal of the resulting judgment, and multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs) of the two patents. As in the Samsung case, Rembrandt WT targets products implementing versions of the Bluetooth protocol that support Enhanced Data Rate (EDR), including “Version 2.0 + EDR, Version 2.1 + EDR, Version 3.0 + HS, Version 4.0 + LE, Version 4.1, Version 4.2, or version 5”, this new complaint listing Apple products allegedly offering Bluetooth EDR support, including certain iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches, iPod Nanos, Apple Watches, Apple TVs, Airport Extremes, AirPods, HomePods, and Beats wireless headphones and speakers.

An individual inventor has filed suit against Apple, Huawei, and TSMC, alleging that the three companies have infringed four patents (6,518,668; 6,924,226; 7,199,052; 7,282,445) generally related to semiconductor fabrication (1:17-cv-00189). In a single complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas, plaintiff Uri Cohen accuses TSMC of infringement for manufacturing certain mobile Systems-on-Chip (SoCs) for Apple and Huawei using its 16nm and 20nm processes, with Apple and Huawei alleged to infringe through the provision of smartphones incorporating those SoCs.

International License Exchange of America, LLC (ILEA), an affiliate of Equitable IP Corporation, has added Nokia and subsidiary Alcatel-Lucent to its networking campaign, accusing the two companies of infringing five former Nortel patents (6,222,848; 6,578,086; 6,697,325; 7,158,515; RE40,999). At issue in the complaint are various types of enterprise-grade networking hardware offered by Alcatel-Lucent, including access multiplexers for DSL and fiber optic networks, routers, and switches (1:16-cv-01077). Nokia has already been dismissed without prejudice, on December 1, just over a week after the case was filed.

International License Exchange of America, LLC (ILEA), an entity apparently managed by Equitable IP Corporation subsidiary Equitable IP Holdings, LLC, has added DragonWave (1:16-cv-00797), Fortinet (1:16-cv-00795), and GTT Communications (1:16-cv-00796) to its new networking campaign. ILEA’s latest complaints assert the same former Nortel patent (RE40,999) as in all but one of its initial filings, which hit a host of cable and satellite companies (Cablevision, Echostar (Echostar Corp., Hughes), Frontier Communications, ViaSat) and telecommunications providers (SOFTBANK (Clearwire, Sprint) in mid-August. Cincinnati Bell, also targeted in that first round of lawsuits, is alleged to infringe two additional Nortel patents (6,970,461; 7,478,167) from different families, along with the ‘999 patent. As in those earlier suits, DragonWave, Fortinet, and GTT have been accused of infringement through the provision of various types of hardware and services related to enterprise networking and broadband.