In June 2020, the International Trade Commission (ITC) dealt a blow to INVT SPE LLC when it affirmed a final initial determination that certain cellular networking patents asserted against HTC were neither standard essential nor infringed by certain HTC smartphones. The Federal Circuit has now affirmed that setback for the plaintiff, an entity controlled by Fortress Investment Group LLC, by upholding that ruling—albeit on a different basis. In an August 31 precedential decision, the court held that the ITC erred in construing the remaining patent claim as requiring that an accused product actually perform the claim limitation at issue to infringe, rather than merely being capable of doing so, but nonetheless agreed on the same record as to essentiality and infringement.

Since late 2019, Apple and Intel have pursued claims against Fortress Investment Group LLC and a variety of affiliated NPEs, arguing in part that they have violated antitrust and unfair competition laws by aggregating and asserting a “massive but obscured” patent portfolio in order to charge supracompetitive royalty rates. The plaintiffs have now filed a second amended complaint (SAC) in that case, addressing certain pleading deficiencies flagged earlier this year by Northern District of California Judge Edward Chen but also adding a variety of additional facts providing context for the defendants’ alleged anticompetitive “scheme”. Perhaps the most significant newly disclosed information pertains to the 2018 deal in which Fortress acquired the assets and monetization business of Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited—including key financial terms that Fortress and Uniloc had previously fought to keep under seal in other litigation.

Following the withdrawal of its October suit against Fortress Investment Group LLC, Intel has filed a second antitrust case against Fortress, this time joining Apple as a coplaintiff and targeting a wider set of defendants—including, among others, Inventergy Global, Inc.; IXI IP, LLC; and two subsidiaries of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. Building on Intel’s original complaint (in-depth coverage of which is available here), the new suit alleges that Fortress reached agreements with various parties that have resulted in inflated royalties, increased prices, and reduced innovation and quality for electronic devices.

In January 2018, shortly after securing $2.4M in debt financing from a hedge fund, Inventergy Global, Inc. (through affiliate Inventergy LBS LLC) opened up a new campaign, targeting GPS tracking devices. Perhaps feeling the pressure of the steep repayment demands of its deal with TCA’s Global Credit Master Fund, Inventergy recently escalated its litigation efforts, filing seven new cases in the past six weeks. Each of the new cases asserts at least one of three related patents generally concerning communication with a tracking device; the patents were developed by GTX Corp, a self-described “pioneer in the GPS wearable tech industry”.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw activity in August 2018 involving a variety of frequent litigants. This included petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed against two NPEs controlled by Fortress Investment Group LLC, INVT SPE LLC and Uniloc 2017 LLC, the latter of which has in recent months cofiled a barrage of lawsuits with subsidiaries of Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited (Uniloc). The PTAB also instituted trial in August for IPRs against Uniloc 2017 and some of its campaign coplaintiffs, and in an IPR against an NPE controlled by patent attorney Brian Yates, whose US litigation has waned as he pursues a new patent licensing initiative through his company iPEL, Inc. Finally, the PTAB issued final decisions in August for IPRs against Uniloc, Empire IP LLC, and Quarterhill Inc.

RPX took notice, among the USPTO assignment records made available during the second half of August, of transfers to several frequent plaintiffs in litigation, including affiliates of Leigh M. Rothschild, IP Edge LLC, and Monument Patent Holdings, LLC.

The second quarter of 2017 saw the financial decline of three publicly traded NPEs—Crossroads Systems, Inc.; Marathon Patent Group, Inc.; and Inventergy Global, Inc.—all of which have struggled in the aftermath of agreements signed with Fortress Investment Group LLC.

RPX took notice, among the USPTO assignment records made available during the first half of July, of a patent transfer involving over 160 assets to Fortress Investment Group LLC. Other assignees of note included IP Edge LLC, the most prolific patent plaintiff in 2017 thus far, and Rondevoo Technologies, Inc., which appears to be on the precipice of launching its first litigation campaign.

Last Monday, the US Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision returned a key portion of the patent venue statue, one that allows infringement suits to be brought where a defendant corporation “resides”, to its prior interpretation: such a defendant “resides” only in its state of incorporation. Three days later, two February cases filed in Delaware by Inventergy, Inc. and controlled by Fortress Investment Group LLC, one each against Apple and HTC, were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Fortress refiled those two suits, accusing Apple (2:17-cv-03738) and HTC (2:17-cv-03740) of infringing the same seven mobile telecommunications patents (6,466,563; 6,611,676; 6,760,590; 7,206,587; 7,760,815; 7,764,711; 7,848,439), but this time in New Jersey. Fortress did so through an entity (INVT  SPE LLC) that it had created in March and with much more specific allegations supporting its contention that venue is proper in New Jersey.

Following a restructuring agreement signed in the fourth quarter of last year, publicly traded NPE Inventergy Global, Inc. says it has given Fortress Investment Group LLC sole discretion over the monetization of nearly 750 telecommunications patents. The announcement follows Inventergy’s launch in February of a new campaign targeting mobile telecommunications patents—its first litigation in just over a year.