Wi-LAN Inc. (WiLAN) has announced a seismic restructuring of its business model, de-emphasizing patent licensing and refocusing on the acquisition of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) businesses. Monday’s announcement follows a year in which WiLAN actively acquired patent portfolios from operating companies, including Eastman Kodak, GlobalFoundries, and Panasonic, boosting its patent portfolio to over 11,000 assets. It also comes after several other public NPEs, including Acacia Research Corporation and Unwired Planet (now Great Elm Capital Corp.) have made similar moves to diversify their activities.

Iron Gate Security, Inc., a subsidiary of FORM Holdings Corp. (f/k/a Vringo, Inc.), has filed a sixth case, this one against APX Holdings (Vivint) (1:17-cv-01911), in the campaign that it began in September 2013. As in the prior five cases, the complaint asserts a single patent (6,288,641) generally related to mobile apps and surveillance equipment used for remote monitoring of, e.g., a home or office. The accused products are cameras, backend servers, control interfaces, and mobile apps used in concert for remote surveillance.

Quantum Stream, Inc., a subsidiary of FORM Holdings Corp. (f/k/a Vringo, Inc.), seems to be developing a familiar pattern, filing a new complaint against Charter Communications (1:17-cv-01696) on the heels of a dismissal (without prejudice) in the case that it filed in November 2016 against Altice (Cablevision). The same three content distribution patents are again asserted (9,047,626; 9,117,228; 9,349,136), with Charter accused of infringement through the provision of digital entertainment systems through various identified receivers, including those sold under the Arris, Atlanta Scientific, Cisco, and Motorola brands, among others.

Following a settlement with DIRECTV in September, Quantum Stream, Inc. has filed its second infringement suit to date. On November 4, the NPE—which is a subsidiary of FORM Holdings Corp. (f/k/a Vringo, Inc.)—lodged a complaint against Cablevision (including CSC Holdings and Neptune Holdings) (1:16-cv-08604), accusing the company’s digital entertainment systems of infringing three content distribution patents (9,047,626; 9,117,228; 9,349,136). In particular, Quantum is targeting Cablevision’s Optimum brand of services and products, and set-top boxes manufactured by Atlanta Scientific or Samsung, and used in connection with Optimum TV, are referenced in the complaint (although neither company is named as a defendant).

GroupChatter LLC has expanded the scope of its former smart energy grid campaign by filing a new case against Facebook (6:16-cv-00382). Two (8,588,207; 9,014,659) of the four patents already in suit are again asserted against Facebook’s social networking services (including Messenger), as is another patent (9,294,888) in that same family, which issued in late March 2016, as well as a new patent (7,945,249). The ‘249 patent is not related to the others in suit, originally issuing to Alcatel-Lucent before passing through Vringo, Inc.’s hands before assignment to GroupChatter in April 2016.

Throughout November 2015, an inordinate number of cases were filed by NPEs apparently motivated to get to court before December 1 to avoid changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that took effect on that date. Among those filing November cases were several subsidiaries of publicly traded patent assertion entities (PAEs), including Collabo Innovations, Inc. (a subsidiary of Wi-Lan Inc.); Iron Gate Security, Inc. (a subsidiary of Vringo, Inc.), and Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. (a subsidiary of Endeavor IP, Inc.).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated two Vringo, Inc. patents, reversing a 2012 jury verdict that ordered AOL, Gannett, Google, IAC Search & Media, and Target to pay the NPE $30M. I/P Engine, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Vringo since July 2012, sued the companies in September 2011 alleging infringement of two patents related to search engine capabilities (6,314,420;6,775,664). The lawsuit centered on Google’s search advertising systems, including AdWords and AdSense. AOL and IAC partner with Google on search advertising, and Gannet and Target are Google customers.

Vringo, Inc. continues to spend increasing amounts of cash on its litigation campaigns and for the fifth consecutive quarter it has reported a net loss of more than $10.0M. The NPE released its Q2 2014 financial results last week, reporting revenue of $0.8M compared to $1.1M during the same period last year. At the end of the second quarter, Vringo had a cash balance of $31.7M. The entity primarily attributes its Q2 expenditures to costs related to litigation with ASUS, Google, ZTE, and certain affiliates and customers of those companies, and to other planned enforcements of intellectual property. Legal expenses totaled $6.0M, up from $4.8M in Q2 2013.

Vringo has released its 2013 year-end financial results. The company reported 2013 revenue at $1.1M, up from last year’s $100,000 as a result of a $1M, one-time payment from Microsoft in connection with a license and settlement agreement. No other license or settlement agreements were reported for 2013. In October 2013 Alacatel-Lucent transferred six patents to Vringo relating to navigation systems, social networking, broadcasting, display, and multimedia databases (5,689,252, 5,986,622, 6,021,432, 6,285,317, 7,203,693, 7,945,249). Vringo’s 10-K disclosed a net loss of $52.4M in 2013, compared to $20.8M in 2012, and reported an average monthly use of cash from operations at $2M in fiscal 2013. Cumulative cash used in operating activities totaled $23.4M in 2013, an increase from $14.4M in 2012. At year-end, the entity had $33.6M in cash and cash equivalents.

AOL Inc., Google Inc., Target, and others have been ordered to pay I/P Engine supplemental damages and interest totaling more than $18 million. I/P Engine, a wholly owned subsidiary of Vringo, Inc. since July 2012, filed suit in September 2011 alleging infringement of two patents related to search engine capabilities (6,775,664, 6,314,420). In November 2012, a jury ruled that all five defendants infringed claims in both the ‘664 and ‘420 patents and awarded I/P Engine a total of $30 million in damages (2:11cv00512). I/P Engine challenged the verdict by filing postjudgment motions with the district court for higher royalty rates and interest, and the presiding judge responded favorably.