Showing 2 of 2 news articles
Each week, RPX publishes the latest news on patent litigation and market trends. Never miss a headline. Get them delivered right to your inbox.
Hospitality Networking Litigation Heats Up Again
New Patent Litigation
SolutionInc Limited, a Canadian provider of networking products for the hospitality industry, has filed a February round of lawsuits—against Avaya (1:20-cv-00185), Cisco (1:20-cv-00145), Extreme Networks (1:20-cv-00186), Huawei (1:20-cv-00146), Nokia (1:20-cv-00187), and Samsung (1:20-cv-00147)—following four December 2019 cases, hitting ARRIS (Ruckus Networks f/k/a (Ruckus Wireless)), HP Enterprise (HPE) (Aruba), NETGEAR, and Zyxel. Targeted are features within the defendants’ Wireless LAN solutions that allow guest access to a Wi-Fi network: for example, using a captive portal page, using the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) to verify that traffic is being sent to the correct IP address, etc. As SolutionInc’s campaign gains steam, two other full-blown patent infringement disputes—one in the guise of a lawsuit over the breach of a prior license agreement—have also been ramping up between two other hospitality networking service providers, Guest-Tek and Nomadix. Nomadix launched a large campaign in this space roughly a decade ago in which it sued a host of defendants, including both Aruba and SolutionInc—a campaign that Nomadix, under new ownership, has also recently revived.
February 7, 2020
Messy Aftermath: One Reason for a Plaintiff to Prefer Lump Sums over Running Royalties
Patent Litigation Feature
Years ago, plaintiff Nomadix and defendant Guest-Tek, both providers of mobile network connectivity in hospitality settings (e.g., hotels or airports), entered into a set of agreements to end litigation over a set of Nomadix patents. The plaintiff alleges in a subsequent lawsuit (2:16-cv-08033), filed in the Central District of California before District Judge Andre Birotte Jr., that Guest-Tek stopped reporting sales and paying royalties under their license agreement. In its answer, Guest-Tek challenged the invalidity of the Nomadix patents and alleged patent misuse, among other defenses—to which Nomadix cried foul, eventually moving for partial summary judgment based on a “Covenant Not to Challenge Licensed Patents” clause in the agreement. Guest-Tek opposed the motion by pointing to the last sentence of that clause, which provides an escape hatch “in the event that Nomadix later asserts any of the [licensed patents]” against Guest-Tek. Would Judge Birotte find an issue of material fact as to whether the Nomadix lawsuit, brought to enforce the terms of the license agreement itself, amounts to Nomadix “later asserting” the licensed patents against Guest-Tek?
February 5, 2020