IP Edge Denied Stay of Mandate Pending Potential SCOTUS Bid; Director Review Granted Regarding Indemnification Agreement

It was a rather light district court week for patent filings, with just 24 new cases filed last week—we are starting to see the effects of a depressed rate of filing from IP Edge in the overall numbers (link behind paywall). The week also saw an average number of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings, all inter partes reviews (IPRs).

A number of IP Edge pending disputes settled last week; it looks like the Bell Semiconductor/Hilco Capital suit against seemingly the entire semiconductor industry has started to settle out, with some big names dismissing cases pursuant to settlement, including Kioxia, Nvidia, Micron, and many others—whether pursuant to a bulk license through RPX or some other mechanism is unknown, but it’s likely to be some group deal for so many parties to settle at the same general time in such a far-ranging dispute. Some Jeff Gross entities settled, but no more than usual; Google dropped a suit with Fortress vehicle Jawbone, but it looks like a refiling; and the same week Zoom laid off 1,300 employees it was tagged in another suit, this time by AK Meeting IP LLC, as funded/controlled by the Pueblo Nuevo LLC group, on a couple of patents; and Target, BestBuy, and other retailers were targeted in scattered suits. Lastly, Oracle filed what looks like a sealed DJ action against longtime litigant Vilox Technologies LLC on a few patents.

Qualcomm and Samsung filed IPRs against the Intel-originated Daedalus Prime portfolio (as run by Ed Gomez) this week, in a surprise to no one; Amazon filed IPRs against Jawbone, the Fortress IP entity that is asserting patents from the now-defunct speaker company; Apple filed IPRs against the Magnetar Capital- backed Speir Technologies.

IP Edge Asks, is Denied by Federal Circuit for Stay of ‘Adversary’ Chief Judge Connolly’s Order in Light of Desire to Seek Supreme Court Review: The Federal Circuit denied an appeal for en banc review of their earlier panel denial of a writ of mandamus from Nimitz Technologies, LLC, an IP Edge affiliate. Recall that Judge Connolly, in a blistering 80-page order after Nimitz sought mandamus, laid out his reasoning behind enforcing a litigation funding disclosure requirement, and what it had revealed regarding dozens of filings in his court by various subsidiaries tied to IP Edge, though not disclosed as such. IP Edge most recently sought, and was denied a stay of the mandate in light of their professed desire for Supreme Court review. See Nimitz Technologies LLC’s Motion to Stay Mandate, Nimitz Techs. LLC v. Bloomberg et al, No. 23-103, ECF 59 (Feb. 2, 2023; Order, Nimitz Techs. LLC v. Bloomberg et al, No. 23-103, ECF 62 (Feb. 7, 2023). It’s worth noting that IP Edge has apparently been pitching their litigation activity to litigation funders and investors via private equity fund manager Tecumseh Alternatives, LLC, per publicly available materials from their website.

 Netlist’s Director Review Motion for Additional Discovery Granted on Indemnification Agreement: In a case recently granted USPTO director review, the Fortress IP-backed Netlist earned reversal, where district court discovery and commentary tended to show there existed a potentially relevant indemnification agreement related to a potential time bar related to a decade-old assertion.  The case is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc. (an entity backed and funded by Fortress IP), IPR2022-00615, and involves a complicated fact pattern of a divested product, district court complaint disclosures and timing.