Stingray IP Solutions, LLC has filed an Eastern District of Texas case against HP Enterprise (HPE) (2:24-cv-00868) that targets the provision of “networking, IoT, and security solutions, products, components, software, services, and processes related to same that generally connect to other devices in a network or other networks using a wireless protocol, such as ZigBee and/or Wi-Fi”. The Acacia Research Corporation plaintiff describes the three asserted patents as covering “various aspects of monitoring, detecting intrusions, and encrypting and decrypting wireless communications networks”. The exemplary accused products include access points, controllers, gateways, and related accessories and software products.

On May 10, 2024, Orange (f/k/a France Telecom) assigned five US patents to IP monetization firm Transpacific IP Group Limited. This divestiture echoes a fateful acquisition by Transpacific IP from Orange back in 2017—an acquisition that led to a failed deal with monetization shop Slingshot Technologies LLC, a completed deal with publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation, a litigation campaign from Acacia’s Monarch Networking Solutions LLC that remains active today, and Delaware state court litigation between Slingshot and Acacia that has persisted in parallel, through the present day. In June 2024, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis denied Acacia’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, with the presence of a prominent figure in litigation funding on Acacia’s board figuring in the disputed factual predicate for Slingshot’s persistent trade secret misappropriation and companion tort claims.

Stingray IP Solutions, LLC, a subsidiary of publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation, has filed an Eastern District of Texas suit against ASSA ABLOY (2:24-cv-00159), targeting the support of certain wireless communications standards (i.e., Wi-Fi and ZigBee) within a wide array of devices, including bridges, card readers, gateways, modules, and smart locks, as well as related software products. After multiple strategic shifts, Acacia—in partnership with its majority shareholder Starboard Value—now characterizes itself as “an opportunistic capital platform that purchases businesses based on the differentials between public and private market valuations” but maintains a legacy “Patent Licensing, Enforcement and Technologies Business” that has not “obtain[ed] control of any new patent portfolios” since 2021.

NRG Energy (Vivint) (2:23-cv-00503) and Leedarson IOT Technology (Leedarson Lighting) (2:23-cv-00499) are the latest defendants to be sued by Stingray IP Solutions, LLC in its wireless communications campaign, initiated in February 2021. At issue in each of the new East Texas complaints are four patents described by the plaintiff, a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, as covering “various aspects of monitoring, detecting intrusions, and encrypting and decrypting wireless communications networks”. The defendants are accused of infringement through the provision of Internet of Things (IoT) and smart home products that support certain wireless networking protocols (i.e., Wi-Fi and ZigBee).

R2 Solutions LLC, a subsidiary of publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation, has sued Cloudera (1:23-cv-01205) over a single patent generally related to distributed database processing. Targeted in the new Western District of Texas complaint is the support for Apache Hadoop, Apache Hive, Apache Spark, Apache Impala, Apache Flink, Apache Kafka, and Apache Phoenix within the Cloudera Data Platform (CDP). This suit is the first from R2 Solutions since last December.

The Eastern District of Texas jury that recently returned a roughly $37.5M verdict against TP-Link in favor of Atlas Global Technologies LLC received into evidence US sales data that the plaintiff, not the defendant, produced. That data originated with independent third-party International Data Corporation (IDC) and was deemed unassailable at trial as the sales data for the jury to use as an “appropriate remedy” for the prejudice imposed on Atlas Global for the failure to timely receive actual US sales data for the accused products. TP Link protested that reliance on the IDC data could hike any lump sum damages award against it by as much as $18.5M and characterized the use of that data as clear error, suggesting a basis for a future appeal.

This past week, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a verdict against TP-Link, awarding plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies LLC nearly $37.5M in lump sum damages. The verdict followed a relatively unusual runup to trial that included deeming sales data from an independent third-party source as established facts (which TP-Link argued is a clear error that might inappropriately hike any lump sum damages award by about $18.5M), removing multiple prior art references from the case as not predating certain provisional applications, and rejecting an eleventh-hour attempt to postpone the trial to December. Atlas Global, a subsidiary of publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation, sued TP-Link back in November 2021, alleging infringement of eight former NEWRACOM patents (five of which were tried to the recent jury) through the provision of certain Wi-Fi 6-compliant devices. Active defendants in this campaign include Acer, also sued in the Eastern District of Texas, and ASUSTek, Dell, D-Link, HP, OnePlus, Sercomm, and Unizyx (Zyxel), all sued in the Western District of Texas.

Acacia Research Corporation has expanded litigation over its Wi-Fi 6 portfolio, subsidiary Atlas Global Technologies LLC suing Dell (6:23-cv-00050) and HP Inc. (6:23-cv-00349) in separate Western District of Texas complaints. Ten former NEWRACOM patents are asserted in each new complaint. The cases look headed to the courtroom of District Judge Alan D. Albright, who is already presiding over 2021 suits in this campaign filed against ASUSTek, OnePlus, and Sercomm, as well as over 2022 suits against D-Link and Unizyx (Zyxel). Over in the Eastern District of Texas, active litigation continues in a 2021 case filed against TP-Link and in a 2022 case filed against Acer after suits against Samsung (back in December 2021) and Arcadyan Technology (this past April) have ended.

Plenty of ink has been spilled in the last few years over the Federal Circuit’s caselaw on venue—an issue frequently in the spotlight due to the court’s sparring with District Judge Alan D. Albright over convenience transfers. However, a different, venue-adjacent issue was at the center of a new precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit—that of general personal jurisdiction, or a court’s power to hear any claim against a certain defendant, over foreign corporations. While general personal jurisdiction exists for a US company in the state where it is “at home”, a different rule applies for non-US residents. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), general personal jurisdiction can be established over a defendant who “is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction”—i.e., a nonresident defendant, one not at home in any state—for a claim arising under federal law. Such a defendant can only challenge 4(k)(2) jurisdiction by identifying an alternate forum where the suit against it could have been brought. Yet the Federal Circuit’s January 9 In re: Stingray IP Solutions decision dealt with an even narrower edge case: whether a defendant can defeat 4(k)(2) jurisdiction solely by unilaterally consenting to jurisdiction in a different venue. The court held that it cannot do so.

On December 30, 2022, Acacia Research Corporation issued a press release announcing an internal investigation into “apparent misconduct” by Clifford Press, who had been the company’s CEO as recently as October of this past year. Per the press release, the investigation is to consider allegations that Press “provided inaccurate information on certain submissions of corporate expenses”; “misused corporate funds for personal use, including travel and entertainment with people not associated with Acacia”; “made substantial charitable donations in his own name using corporate funds”; and “failed to follow the Board’s directive in relation to a material contract”. Also on December 30, Press filed suit against Acacia in the Delaware Chancery Court “to confirm that he remains a lawful member” of its board of directors. Late last year, Acacia filed an 8-K with the SEC disclosing that Press had resigned both as the company’s CEO and as a member of its board on November 1 and that his resignation was “not due to any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating to its operations, policies, practices or otherwise”. Press contends in the new lawsuit that this public announcement was materially false and misleading, that he did not resign either as Acacia’s CEO or as a member of its board, and that there actually was “a serious disagreement between Mr. Press and the Company on matters relating to its operations, policies, practices, or otherwise”.