Only 24 new lawsuits were filed last week, making it a fairly low district court week for patent applications. The impact of lower filing rates from IP Edge is starting to show in the overall numbers (link behind paywall). The week also saw the average number of all inter partes reviews (IPRs) submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
A number of pending IP Edge disputes were resolved last week. At first glance, the lawsuit against Bell Semiconductor/Hilco Capital looks like the entire semiconductor industry is beginning to settle. RPX and other mechanisms are unknown, but could be a group contract for so many parties to simultaneously resolve such a wide range of disputes. Some Jeff Gross entities resolved, but not more than usual. Google dropped a suit on his Jawbone in his Fortress vehicle, but it looks like a refining. The same week, Zoom laid off 1,300 of his employees and was tagged in another lawsuit. This time by AK Meeting IP LLC, funded/managed by the Pueblo Nuevo LLC Group and on several patents. Target, BestBuy, and other retailers were targeted wearing scattered suits. Finally, Oracle has filed what appears to be his sealed DJ lawsuit against his longtime litigant Vilox Technologies LLC for several patents.
Qualcomm and Samsung have filed IPRs for Intel’s Daedalus Prime portfolio (run by Ed Gomez) this week, which didn’t surprise anyone. Amazon has filed an IPR against Jawbone. Jawbone is a Fortress IP entity claiming patents from a now-defunct speaker company. Apple has filed an IPR against Speir Technologies, which is backed by Magnetar Capital.
IP Edge Asks, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Denies Order of “Adversary” Chief Justice Connolly, In Light of Desire to Seek Supreme Court Review: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has dismissed a full forum appeal from the panel’s earlier denial of the Mandams warrant from Nimitz Technologies, LLC, an affiliate of IP Edge. In his 80-page ferocious order after Nimitz asked Mandoms, Judge Connolly explained his reasons behind enforcing the disclosure requirement for litigation funds and how his courts have been affected by various subsidiaries related to IP Edge. Remember what I disclosed about the dozens of submissions to not disclosed as IP Edge recently sought a stay of its mandate in light of its public statements that it wants a Supreme Court hearing, but was denied. look motion to maintain the mandate of Nimitz Technologies LLC; Nimitz Tech. LLC vs. Bloomberg et al.No. 23-103, ECF 59 (2 February 2023; Order, Nimitz Tech. LLC vs. Bloomberg et al., No. 23-103, ECF 62 (7 February 2023). It is worth noting that IP Edge appears to be pitching its litigation activities to litigation funders and investors through his private equity fund manager Tecumseh Alternatives, LLC.
ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY ALLEGATIONS GRANTED IN THE NETLIST DIRECTORS REVIEW INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: In a case recently granted review by the USPTO Director, Fortress’ IP-backed netlist was reversed, and the district court’s findings and commentary linked a potential time bar associated with the 10-year-old claim. tended to indicate the existence of relevant indemnification agreements.the case is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. vs. Netlist, Inc.(an entity sponsored and funded by Fortress IP), IPR2022-00615, which includes complex fact patterns of products sold, district court complaint disclosures and timing.
PTABs (25)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
district court (24) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
