Last week, Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright posted a couple of orders resolving Apple motions to transfer to the Northern District of California. One, docketed but sealed, denied a transfer of a case filed by Theta IP, LLC, while the other transferred a suit brought by inventor-controlled S.M.R Innovations Ltd and Y.M.R Tech Ltd in July 2023. Reporting in this second opinion, filed publicly, has focused on the plaintiffs’ attempt to hinge the “local interest” factor of a convenience transfer analysis on local tax breaks for Apple, but language elsewhere in the order continues to suggest a dissatisfaction with how the Federal Circuit has mandated that “court congestion” should be weighed, at least in certain cases.

In their new case against Apple (6:23-cv-00479), inventor-controlled S.M.R Innovations Ltd and Y.M.R Tech Ltd have asserted the same two patents previously in suit against Samsung, LG Electronics (LGE), and Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) (sued in that order) but this time have added two more. The lot generally relates to “rerouting data including multimedia data” to the “most convenient” of a plurality of nearby wireless devices, with infringement allegations targeting the provision of certain smartphones, tablets (including certain iPads and iPods), and laptops with preinstalled or installable apps (e.g., Amazon Prime, Apple Music, Apple TV, Hulu, Roku, Spotify, etc.) that support AirPlay, as well as and smartwatches that provide notifications of incoming calls and messages from a paired phone.

S.M.R Innovations Ltd and Y.M.R Tech Ltd have filed their third case, hitting Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) (1:22-cv-00592), again over two patents generally related to “rerouting data including multimedia data” to the “most convenient” of a plurality of nearby wireless devices, but this time in the District of Delaware. The inventor-controlled coplaintiffs target the provision of certain smartphones with preinstalled or installable apps that support the Google Chromecast media casting service and certain smartwatches with features for providing notifications of incoming calls and messages from a paired phone. S.M.R and Y.M.R filed basic corporate disclosures that do not appear to meet the new, heightened requirements of Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, to whom the new case has been assigned.

In recent days, several plaintiffs have had their District of Delaware cases assigned to Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, who posted two new standing orders related to that courtroom’s disclosure requirements in mid-April: one requiring litigants to disclose details related to any nonrecourse funding arrangements with third parties and a second requiring all “nongovernmental joint ventures, limited liability corporations, partnerships or limited liability partnerships” to include in disclosure statements “the name of every owner, member and partner of the party, proceeding up the chain of ownership until the name of every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest in the party has been identified”. None of the new plaintiffs has yet filed a disclosure under the requirements now governing their cases.

In a new Eastern District of Texas complaint, S.M.R Innovations Ltd and Y.M.R Tech Ltd. have together alleged that Samsung (4:20-cv-00641) infringes two patents generally related to “rerouting data including multimedia data” to the “most convenient” of a plurality of nearby wireless devices. The two plaintiffs, each controlled by one of the patents’ named inventors, target the provision of certain Galaxy S and Galaxy Note mobile devices over their support of Google Cast, also targeting certain Galaxy smartphones over their ability to remotely send device notifications to a paired Samsung Galaxy Watch.