Earlier this month, District of Delaware Judge Gregory B. Williams denied a motion from BMW to intervene in a case filed by Arigna Technology Limited, a plaintiff operating under the umbrella of Dublin-based monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited, against Longford Capital Fund III, LP (“LCF”), an entity controlled by Chicago-based litigation finance firm Longford Capital. The court did so without prejudice, pointing to its decision the day before to stay the case to allow an arbitrator to decide whether Arigna’s claims against Longford should be subjected to arbitration. Meanwhile, District of DC Judge Rudolph Contreras has granted Susman Godfrey L.L.P.’s motion to withdraw from its representation of Arigna in a declaratory judgment action filed by BMW against it there.

Briefing is now complete on a motion to intervene brought by BMW in the District of Delaware case that Arigna Technology Limited, a plaintiff operating under the umbrella of Dublin-based monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited, filed against Longford Capital Fund III, LP (“LCF”), an entity controlled by Chicago-based litigation finance firm Longford Capital, this past December. Arigna and Longford dispute the extent to which the latter is owed proceeds from a “global settlement” with an unnamed defendant sued across litigation run by multiple Atlantic IP-tied plaintiffs, not just Arigna. BMW has jumped in based on allegations that a “German court will be expected to award BMW from Arigna . . . between $380,000 and $1.1 million” in costs and fees there and that “Arigna has demonstrated an ability and willingness to reduce its capital abroad to insulate itself from paying fees to BMW in Germany”. BMW further argues that its involvement in this case is necessary because it is “the only party interested in shedding light on the possible violation of Irish champerty litigation financing laws” here.

Separate assignments of patent assets from five entities operating under the umbrella of Dublin-based patent monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited to a sixth such entity were recently recorded and made public by the USPTO. The transfers leave each of those divestors without any US patent holdings, at least according to currently available assignment records. Two Atlantic IP plaintiffs have notified the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the change in real party-in-interest in proceedings before it.

Longford Capital Fund III, LP has moved to compel arbitration of the disputes raised in the District of Delaware complaint filed by Arigna Technology Limited this past December. The redacted version of Longford’s opening brief characterizes the “two-contract structure” of the funding arrangement between Arigna (a plaintiff operating under the umbrella of Dublin-based monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited), Longford (controlled by Longford Capital, a litigation finance firm based in Chicago, Illinois), and Susman Godfrey, LLP (litigation counsel for Arigna) as suggested by Arigna “for the stated purpose of best addressing the tax laws of Ireland”. Arigna and other Atlantic IP plaintiffs completed a “global settlement” with an unnamed defendant. Longford contends that Arigna violated that “two-contract structure” by failing to move all related “Proceeds”—including those received in connection with settlements with Arigna “Affiliates”—into a required escrow account controlled by Arigna, Longford, and Susman and by failing to submit any disputes to arbitration.

Arigna Technology Limited, one of more than a dozen plaintiffs associated with Dublin-based patent monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited, has filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against litigation finance firm Longford Capital. Surprisingly, a complete and unredacted copy of a funding agreement between Longford and Arigna’s litigation counsel, Susman Godfrey, LLP, was included as an exhibit to Arigna’s December 18 complaint (which has since been sealed), providing a look at the budget for an expansive patent litigation effort that has targeted automotive makers as well as mobile device makers across multiple venues in the US and Germany.

Plaintiffs tied to monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited have launched multiple litigation campaigns with cases most often filed in the Western District of Texas. A frequent defendant, Apple, has responded with repeated motions to transfer, for convenience, to the Northern District of California, with various results: several remain in limbo before District Judge Alan D. Albright after the Federal Circuit issued a writ of mandamus requiring that the transfer motions be adjudicated before the end of discovery; another was stricken in its entirety as a discovery sanction; and other such motions have been granted—with a bit of an asterisk, that is, over extensive criticism of a repeat venue declarant. Most recently, Judge Albright has outright denied an Apple motion to transfer in one Atlantic IP-tied suit, and, in an order newly made public, transferred another of those cases—but not to the Northern District of California, as Apple had requested.

Delaware plaintiff NexGen Control Systems LLC has filed its first litigation, suing NXP Semiconductors in two separate Eastern District of Texas complaints, one targeting the provision of various automobile computing products, including the Peripheral Sensor Interface 5 (PSI5) system, FXOS8700CQ series devices, and the MC33789 Airbag System Basis Chip and related inertial sensors (5:23-cv-00022); and the other targeting the provision of various devices such as chipsets, controllers, drivers, and integrated circuits (5:23-cv-00025). All six patents now in suit share a development history, at Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO), multiple assigned portfolios of which have spawned recent litigation.

MEL NavIP LLC, a Texas plaintiff managed by a familiar patent monetization figure, has filed its first litigation, suing Toyota (2:22-cv-00152) over the provision of infotainment systems in certain automobiles. Four patents are asserted in the new Eastern District of Texas complaint, all developed at Mitsubishi Electric. This portfolio is one of many, according to publicly available USPTO assignment records, to leave Mitsubishi Electric for NPE hands over the past several years.

Atlantic IP Services Limited has begun litigating the former Siemens patents that it received from a Fortress Investment Group LLC vehicle this past October. The Dublin-based monetization firm’s Ollnova Technologies Limited has filed suit against Alphabet (Google) (6:22-cv-00246) in the Western District of Texas, Carrier (9:22-cv-80388) in the Southern District of Florida, and ecobee (2:22-cv-00072) in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the respective provision of various smart home products (primarily thermostats) with overlapping subsets of five such former Siemens patents. With these suits, Ollnova joins eight other Atlantic IP entities to litigate former operating company assets, including Arigna Technology Limited, which recently added a case against TCL (6:22-cv-00217) to one of its many such campaigns, and Sonraí Memory Limited, which just hit AMD (6:22-cv-00229) with a former Atmel patent following additional lawsuits filed against existing defendants Amazon (6:22-cv-00225), Dell (6:22-cv-00188), Kingston Technology (6:22-cv-00192), LG Electronics (LGE) (6:22-cv-00187), and Samsung (6:22-cv-00189).

Arigna Technology Limited has filed a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC), naming as proposed respondents the same defendants that it recently sued in the Western District of Texas: Alphabet (Google), Apple, Lenovo, Microsoft, OnePlus, Samsung, and TCL (337-TA-3605). A single patent, originating with Mitsubishi Electric, is asserted, Arigna pleading a domestic industry based on the US activities of licensee Microchip Technology.