Longhorn IP L2 Mobile Files Latest Complaint Under Seal – Patent | Techy Kings


To print this article, simply register or log in to Mondaq.com.

Delaware District Judge Richard G. Andrews granted plaintiff L2 Mobile Technologies LLC’s request to file its latest complaint (and related exhibits) under seal. The defendant is
TCL (TCT mobile) ( 1:22-cv-01306 ), L2 Mobile alleges that the complaint contains information subject to the 2019 May. the parties’ confidentiality agreement because it purportedly discloses information related to negotiations for a potential patent license and specific terms. license. The case challenges three wireless patents, including patents that L2 Mobile said were essential to the practice of the 3G standard.

Two of those patents (8,054,777; 8,179,913) were filed in previous L2 Mobile complaints, one filed in the Western District of Texas v.
Alphabet (Google) in 2021 in April, and another in Delaware County before
Ford last October. Google’s case was moved to the Northern District of California, where little happened until 2022. July. it was dismissed with prejudice. Last June, Ford’s lawsuit was voluntary and inviolable. L2 Mobile is now asserting a third patent (8,483,144) against TCL, the ‘144 patent making its debut in litigation.

A redacted version of L2 Mobile’s complaint, filed ten days after the version was sealed, reveals that TCL is accused of infringing on those patents by supplying smartphones and tablets that are either 3G-only or 3G and 4G-compliant. A number of sample devices were provided, including products sold under the defendant’s own brand, as well as products from Alcatel, BlackBerry and T-Mobile. While much of the parties’ negotiations over licensing details were omitted, the public complaint alleges that TCL did not respond to emails from L2 Mobile’s attorney. letters sent in 2017 in February, and that the parties only started negotiations in 2019, when L2 Mobile sent a demand letter to one of TCL’s customers.

in 2016 In December, Texas-based L2 Mobile acquired a portfolio of 19 patents. Innovative Sonic Limited-who took patents from
ASUSTek— in 2017 month of January. The patents appear to belong to a portfolio described on the website of patent monetization firm Longhorn IP LLC as “world-renowned consumer electronics companies” and includes more than 150 assets related to “3G and 4G/LTE cellular technologies.” “. Christian (“Chris”) Dubuc and Khaled Fekih-Romdhane, both former executives of Acacia Research Corporation, founded Longhorn IP, also in 2016, also in Texas. Dubuc left the company (and founded Harfang IP Investment Corp).

Longhorn IP identifies its “portfolios” through the Texas entities that own them: Carthage Silicon Innovations LLC (holds patents issuing or SK hynix or
Magnachip); Dido Wireless Innovations LLC (described on Longhorn IP’s website as “holding patents for LTE and 5G standards,” an asset not yet listed in publicly available USPTO records); Hamilcar Barca IP LLC (managed by the former
MediaTek patents); HANNIBAL IP LLC (holding patents issuing
FG Innovation Company Ltd. (f/k/a FG IP Innovation Company Ltd.)); Katana Silicon Technologies LLC (controlling and litigating ex Samsung, Spicyand Toshiba portfolios); L2 Mobile (holds prior ASUSTek patents from Innovative Sonic); Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC (owning and litigating multiple patents from AMD); Nordic Interactive Technologies LLC (received more than 20 US patents from Intellectual Ventures LLC that originally developed Firepad,
Voicecraftor Nokia); Nyckel UI Technologies LLC (holds five patents from a pair of separate inventors); Ox Mobile Technologies LLC (holding several patents from ZTE); and Trenchant Blade Technologies, LLC (operating and currently litigating the former TSMC property).

As noted, Fekih-Romdhane and Longhorn IP are involved in lawsuits filed by various of these entities, as well as escalating a long-running battle withMicron Idaho City vs. SK hynix Action for Declaratory Judgment in Northern California. Micron is accusing the money-making company of violating Idaho’s largely untested law against fraudulent patent assertions, seeking damages from Longhorn IP and asking the court to award it $15 million. USD deposit. For details on this line, see “Idaho’s bad faith assertion statute not federally preemptive, state argues in Longhorn IP lawsuit” (September 2022). Longhorn IP, as well as Hamilcar Barca IP and Trenchant Blade, contested jurisdiction – Longhorn IP both in person and in rem; and the other two, personal only, in response to SK hynix’s DJ complaint, in response to which SK Hynix filed an amended complaint alleging additional jurisdictional facts based on, inter alia, notices sent to the District. For more information on the case, see “SK hynix files for Longhorn IP and two of its portfolio entities” (July 2022).

Although L2 Mobile’s case against TCL was originally assigned to Judge Andrews, it was later transferred to Chief Justice Colm F. Connolly. The litigants in Judge Connolly’s courtroom are subject to several recent standing orders, including one governing the disclosure of any third-party litigation funding and another requiring detailed corporate disclosure. To see how these requirements have been enforced (strictly) and how some plaintiffs have responded (by dismissing cases), see “NPE Beats Quick Exit As Executives Ordered To Appear In Person Before Judge Connolly” (September 2022). 10/4, Delaware County.

Initial publication date: 2022 October 12

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the topic. A specialist should be consulted for your specific circumstances.

TOP ARTICLES: Intellectual Property from the United States

When are Compulsory Copyright Licenses Compulsory?

McDermott Will & Emery

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld in part a district court’s summary judgment ruling that audio and video recordings of live concerts fall outside the Copyright Act’s mandatory…

Previous “Use Analogous to Brand Use” may win.

Cowan Liebowitz and Latman PC

You may be able to claim “analogous use of the trademark” to claim priority over someone else who actually technically used a confusingly similar trademark or service mark before you.


Source link