Since late 2019, Apple and Intel have pursued claims against Fortress Investment Group LLC and a variety of affiliated NPEs, arguing in part that they have violated antitrust and unfair competition laws by aggregating and asserting a “massive but obscured” patent portfolio in order to charge supracompetitive royalty rates. The plaintiffs have now filed a second amended complaint (SAC) in that case, addressing certain pleading deficiencies flagged earlier this year by Northern District of California Judge Edward Chen but also adding a variety of additional facts providing context for the defendants’ alleged anticompetitive “scheme”. Perhaps the most significant newly disclosed information pertains to the 2018 deal in which Fortress acquired the assets and monetization business of Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited—including key financial terms that Fortress and Uniloc had previously fought to keep under seal in other litigation.

Following the withdrawal of its October suit against Fortress Investment Group LLC, Intel has filed a second antitrust case against Fortress, this time joining Apple as a coplaintiff and targeting a wider set of defendants—including, among others, Inventergy Global, Inc.; IXI IP, LLC; and two subsidiaries of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. Building on Intel’s original complaint (in-depth coverage of which is available here), the new suit alleges that Fortress reached agreements with various parties that have resulted in inflated royalties, increased prices, and reduced innovation and quality for electronic devices.

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.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw petitions for AIA review filed against a variety of prolific litigants in June 2017, including General Patent Corporation, Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), Quarterhill Inc. (f/k/a Wi-LAN Inc.), Realtime Data LLC, Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, and Xperi Corporation (f/k/a Tessera Holding Corporation). Also in June, the PTAB instituted trial for petitions brought against patents asserted in a variety of sprawling campaigns, including some waged by Acacia Research Corporation, IV, Papst Licensing, Quarterhill, and VirnetX Inc. The Board further issued final decisions throughout June in AIA reviews against patents involved in several notable campaigns, including some waged by Document Security Systems, Inc., Elm 3DS Innovations LLC, Empire IP LLC, and Quarterhill.

DSS Technology Management, Inc. sued Samsung, SK Hynix, and Qualcomm over patents developed by Cypress Semiconductor. The NPE’s complaint against Qualcomm asserts two patents generally related to semiconductor fabrication (5,965,924, 6,784,552) and accuses the company’s processors and devices made via a 20 or 28 nanometer process of infringement. DSS’s complaints against Samsung and SK Hynix, which assert only the ‘552 patent, focus on DRAM products made with a 28 or smaller nanometer process.

The first infringement suit filed in 2015 by DSS Technology Management, Inc. (DSS) asserts two semiconductor patents not previously seen in litigation (5,965,924, 6,784,552). At issue are computers and servers that incorporate Intel microprocessors and that are manufactured or sold by AT&T, Conn’s, Dell, GameStop, and Wal-Mart. All six of these companies are named as defendants in DSS’s complaint.

DSS Technology Management (DSS), a subsidiary of Document Security Systems Incorporated, has filed a lawsuit against NEC, Samsung, and Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC). DSS alleges defendants are directly infringing and/or inducing others (end users, manufacturers, and retailers) to infringe a patent related to a lithographic patterning process for semiconductor fabrication (5,652,084). DSS’s complaint targets semiconductors made via TSMC’s and Samsung’s 28 nanometer node processes. Accused products include TSMC’s Snapdragon processors and Cyclone V SoCS and Samsung’s Exynos processor and Galaxy Note 3. This appears to be the first time ‘084 has been litigated.

DSS Technology Management, a subsidiary of Document Security Systems, named Apple as the defendant in the entity’s first lawsuit (5,699,357; 6,128,290). The case asserts two patents that have not been previously seen in litigation. Both patents relate to a network system for coordinating a plurality of electronic devices on a single system. In the complaint, Apple’s computers are accused of infringing the patent for providing wireless Bluetooth connectivity to a multiple peripheral devices, such as a mouse and keyboard. The patents-in-suit originated with BBN Corporation and were eventually assigned to Stragent in 2008. RPX reviewed the asserted patents as part of an open market opportunity offered by Stragent in February 2013. They were then transferred to Lexington Technology Group in July of this year and a month later, assigned to DSS Technology Management. The entity publicized this acquisition in late November. At the time, it also mentioned acquisition of a second portfolio related to semiconductor manufacture. Those patents have not yet been seen in litigation. Document Security Systems has a number of subsidiaries but DSS Tech is only the second to file patent assertion litigation. The other is Bascom Research, an entity that filed a number of suits in late 2012, most of which have since ended. 11/26, Eastern District of Texas, 6:13cv00919