Last month’s review of notable patent assignments considered the movement of assets from Avaya to Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC; from Level 3 Communications to Sandpiper CDN, LLC; from Seiko Epson to IPValue’s 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. and Lumitek Display Technology Ltd.; from Transaction Security to a “BioCrypt Access”; from Fortress Investment Group LLC’s KIP Prod P1 LP to Prodea Automation LLC; from EMM Patents Ltd. to Empire IP LLC; from Siemens and Abdelsalam Helal to Rokiot USA LLC; and from Proxicom Wireless, LLC to Secure Communication Technologies, LLC. While a couple of these entities again feature prominently, this month’s review extends well beyond them to cover the movement of patents away from other operating companies, as well as within several repeat monetization players.

In 2020-2021, K.Mizra LLC launched six litigation campaigns. Five of those had gone dormant—until last week, when K.Mizra revived one of them by filing a Northern District of Illinois case accusing Konica Minolta (1:23-cv-03367) of infringing four former Sharp patents through the provision of multifunction printers and toner cartridges. Two other defendants in this campaign, HP and Ninestar (Lexmark), exited via relatively quick noticed settlements, while litigation against a third, Toshiba, persisted through claim construction, several months after which a settlement was also noticed. The new case against Konica Minolta comes as Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright has docketed, sua sponte, a “set of standard limine rulings to be applied mutually to both parties” in the first case that K.Mizra filed, against Cisco, in the other active campaign. Trial there is set for August 1.

On the heels of a settlement in a January 2021 case against Lexmark, K.Mizra LLC has filed a new complaint, this one asserting an overlapping set of former Sharp patents against HP (2:21-cv-00226). The plaintiff targets the provision of certain multifunction printers as well as toner cartridges. The lawsuit keeps K.Mizra’s number of active campaigns, waged either directly or through managed subsidiary Ginegar LLC, at four.

Ginegar LLC has filed its first lawsuits, accusing Oracle (6:21-cv-00134) and Slack (1:21-cv-00494) of infringing two separate sets of former IBM patents that the NPE plaintiff received from Daedalus Blue LLC last year. In the first case, filed in the Western District of Texas, Ginegar targets Oracle’s VM Server for SPARC and Oracle Business Process Management (BPM) Suite, while accusing Slack of infringement through the provision of its “communication platform” in the other complaint, filed in the District of Colorado. Ginegar is managed by another NPE that has itself filed recent cases, one last November, against Cisco, and another just last month, against Lexmark.