MOSAID Technologies Inc. has filed a second Western District of Texas complaint against Infineon Technologies (1:25-cv-00436), following the suit it filed against the company earlier this month. Infineon is here targeted over the provision of certain microprocessors (“including at least the TRAVEO T2G series”) and certain flash memory products (“including at least the Serial NOR Flash, HYPERFLASH, and SEMPER Flash families”). The accused products are described as “for use in a variety of end-products in the communications, IoT, automotive, computer, and/or consumer electronics industries”.

In its latest complaint, filed against Infineon Technologies (1:25-cv-00358) in the Western District of Texas, MOSAID Technologies Inc. (f/k/a Conversant Intellectual Property Management) targets the provision of processors (i.e., programmable systems-on-chip) and wireless connectivity SoCs (i.e., the AIROC Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Combo products) that are used in a “a variety of end-products in the communications, IoT, automotive, computer, and/or consumer electronics industries”. The plaintiff pleads that the alleged infringement has been willful, contending that “between at least November 2017 and August 26, 2024”, MOSAID and Infineon and/or Cypress (acquired by Infineon in 2020) “engaged in many discussions” regarding the infringement of MOSAID’s patents.

MOSAID Technologies Inc. (f/k/a Conversant Intellectual Property Management Inc.) has sued MediaTek (2:23-cv-00129) over the provision of certain processors used in devices such as smartphones and tablets, including the “MT6755 (Helio P10), MT6797 (Helio X20), MT6853 (Dimensity 720), and the MT6983 (Dimensity 9000)”. Seven patents—each generally related to various aspects of power management in an integrated circuit and three new to this long-running campaign—are asserted in the new Eastern District of Texas complaint. MOSAID’s last active US patent litigation, a pair of cases filed against Tesla, ended in December 2020.

Conversant Wireless Licensing, S.à.r.l. (f/k/a Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.), a subsidiary of Conversant Intellectual Property Management, Inc. (Conversant IP), has filed two US suits against Tesla (6:20-cv-00323, 6:20-cv-00324) over the provision of its automobiles, including the Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, and Roadster. At issue are “connected products” that allow for the automobiles to have cellular connectivity. Six network communications patents are at issue across the two suits, with Conversant pleading that it received the patents as part of a portfolio of nearly 2,000 assets from Nokia and that the patents asserted in each case are telecommunication SEPs (“standard essential patents”) also offered in the Avanci patent pool, among others.

Yet another set of patents originating with VoiceAge Corporation has now been asserted in NPE litigation, this time in partnership with Fortress Investment Group LLC. In December 2018, VoiceAge announced a “strategic transaction” with Fortress under which the investment firm would license VoiceAge’s portfolio related to the Enhanced Voice Services (EVS) wideband audio codec—with that portfolio assigned to Fortress “affiliate” VoiceAge EVS, LLC. That entity has now asserted five of those patents in litigation, accusing HMD Global (1:19-cv-01945) of infringement through the provision of Nokia-branded smartphones supporting EVS and alleging that the patents-in-suit are essential to that standard. VoiceAge has stated that its transaction with Fortress is designed to “advance . . . [VoiceAge’s] strategic objective of diversifying revenues from [its] IP assets”. This deal follows another partnership between VoiceAge and publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation that appears to have started in 2014, leading to the launch of a litigation campaign that year through Acacia subsidiary Saint Lawrence Communications LLC. That campaign remains active after being revived in August 2018 by licensee EVS Codec Technologies, LLC, with Saint Lawrence later dragged back into the campaign over a standing dispute.

Recent months have seen the Internet of Things (IoT) licensing platform Avanci, LLC announce license agreements with multiple automotive OEMs, including Audi, Porsche, and Volkswagen, to its portfolio of standard essential patents (SEPs) covering cellular technologies. However, despite Avanci’s traction with those OEMs, the company has now begun to see pushback at the supplier level. On May 10, automotive component supplier Continental filed a declaratory judgment (DJ) complaint in the Northern District of California against Avanci and several of the patent owners participating in its licensing program, alleging that by refusing to offer fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licenses to suppliers, they have committed various antitrust violations and breached their contractual FRAND obligations, further seeking equitable relief (5:19-cv-02520). The dispute echoes similar licensing battles that continue to play out in European courts, including litigation involving patent owners Nokia and Broadcom, respectively, and OEM Daimler—which does not appear to have a relationship with Avanci—filed in German courts and before the European Commission. Similar antitrust claims have also been raised in a US DJ action recently filed by u-blox against InterDigital, Inc., which has since seen filings from the US government that reflect a recent shift in antitrust enforcement policy.

Last week, District Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the Northern District of California dealt Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l. (f/k/a Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.) another blow in its long-running litigation campaign over former Nokia patents. An August 2018 Federal Circuit opinion upset an earlier jury verdict and judgment that Apple had infringed two Conversant patents, for which the jury had awarded $7.3M in damages. The appeals court reversed the jury’s finding of infringement as to one patent and vacated the trial court’s determination that the other patent was not unenforceable due to a failure to disclose to a related standard-setting body. On remand, Judge Cousins granted the motion for unenforceability, entering judgment in Apple’s favor. Meanwhile, in Texas, Conversant filed a new case against LG Electronics (LGE) (2:19-cv-00142) over patents at the heart of a recent win before a jury there, the new complaint targeting subsequently released LGE products.

A Texas jury has returned a new damages verdict in litigation brought by Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l. (f/k/a Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.) against LG Electronics (LGE) (2:14-cv-00912). In September 2016, another jury issued a verdict of infringement in the case’s first trial against LGE, but the court granted LGE a new trial on damages in September 2018 due to a series of errors made by the plaintiff’s damages expert. The resulting verdict in that second trial included a damages award of $3.5M.

The UK Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that English courts may hear disputes over standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. In a January 30 opinion, the court held that the UK was the most convenient forum for an ongoing lawsuit filed by Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l. against Huawei and ZTE over their refusal to take a global license to the NPE’s portfolio based on allegedly fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The court’s ruling came despite new evidence offered by the defendants suggesting that China would also be an appropriate forum for the dispute.

The UK High Court of Justice has rejected a jurisdictional challenge in Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l.’s ongoing litigation against Huawei and ZTE. In an April 16 decision, Justice Henry Carr declined to accept arguments by the defendants, both incorporated in China, that the Court lacked jurisdiction because it could not adjudicate the validity of the Chinese patents in Conversant’s portfolio. Rather, Justice Carr held that a FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) license would allow the defendants to challenge validity in parallel, and that such a license’s terms would account for the consequences of an invalidity ruling in another jurisdiction. Justice Carr also rejected the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case due to forum non conveniens and for improper service.