Nine new filings and campaigns, a marking requirement that reaches licensees, and a dismissal for lack of standing.

Headwater Research LLC — a Texas limited liability company, 110 North College Avenue, Suite 1116, Tyler, Texas. The complaint pleads that Headwater was formed in 2011 and has been in continued existence and operation since that time.

Russ August & Kabat — Marc Fenster (CA Bar 181067), who signed the complaint; Reza Mirzaie; Brian Ledahl; Dale Chang; Kristopher Davis; Paul A. Kroeger; James N. Pickens; James S. Tsuei; Jason M. Wietholter; Ryan K. Lundquist (CO). From the firm's Dallas office, Qi (Peter) Tong (TX Bar 24119042). No attorney is designated local counsel in the signature block.

The complaint pleads that Headwater 'is the owner of' the '804 patent with full rights to recover past and future damages. No assignment chain, acquisition, or prior owner is identified; the complaint refers to 'Headwater and its predecessors in interest' only in its 35 U.S.C. §287(a) marking allegation. As background it pleads that Dr. Raleigh formed Headwater in 2008 to develop mobile operating systems and cloud technology. No notice letter, licensing approach, or demand is alleged and no notice date is given. Knowledge is instead pleaded from the patent's issuance on April 30, 2024, and in any event from the filing and service of the complaint, together with alleged portfolio monitoring from no later than March 2023. The complaint recites an extensive list of related Headwater actions, including four prior cases against Google in this District (7:25-cv-00231, -00367, -00372 and -00380) and a long series against Samsung entities in the Eastern District of Texas.

Pleaded as 'Google Cloud servers and services,' including Google Cloud services and infrastructure supporting online cloud storage, compute and database management, and all related identity, policy, authorization, access-control, usage-metering, notification, and billing and cost-management functionality. Exhibit 2 names, among others, Google Cloud Service Infrastructure (Service Management API, Service Control API, Service Usage and Service Consumer Management APIs); Cloud Endpoints and API Gateway (Extensible Service Proxy and ESPv2); Cloud Identity and Access Management; Organization Policy Service; VPC Service Controls; Cloud Quotas; Cloud Billing; Cloud Monitoring; Cloud Armor; Cloud Load Balancing; Cloud Next Generation Firewall; Compute Engine; Kubernetes Engine; Cloud Run; Cloud Functions; and App Engine. Exhibit 2 charts at least claim 1, using Google Cloud Service Infrastructure as the primary exemplar and Google Compute Engine as the illustrative single named service.

A single count on the '804 patent. Direct infringement is pleaded factually — making, using, operating, importing, selling and offering for sale — though the complaint does not cite §271(a) by subsection. Inducement under §271(b) and contributory infringement under §271(c) are expressly pleaded, the latter with an allegation that the accused instrumentalities are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses. Infringement is alleged literally and equivalently. Willfulness is pleaded from issuance on April 30, 2024, and pleaded in the alternative as willful blindness. §285 is pleaded in the prayer. Compliance with §287(a) is pleaded.

Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement and that the patent is valid and enforceable; past and future damages of no less than a reasonable royalty, with costs, expenses and pre- and post-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §284; an accounting and supplemental damages; a judgment of willfulness with enhanced damages; and an exceptional-case finding under §285 with fees. No injunction is requested. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38.

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a); venue under §§1391 and 1400(b). The complaint pleads that Google provides the accused Cloud services to customers in the District including Austin; that Google employs engineering, product-operations, sales and customer-engineering personnel at its Austin campus, including personnel working on Google Cloud; that Google invested $20 million to build a corporate office at 500 West 2nd Street, Austin, and operates a retail store at 11701 Domain Blvd., Austin; and that Google has admitted or not contested venue in this District in other patent actions.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. — Delaware corporation, 500 Kendall Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, holder of BLA No. 125476 (ENTYVIO intravenous) and BLA No. 761133 (subcutaneous); and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG — Swiss corporation, Glattpark-Opfikon, Zurich, its exclusive licensee to the asserted patents.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP — Harvey Bartle (Princeton, New Jersey), who alone signed the complaint and the Local Civil Rule 11.2 certification and is identified as Attorney for Plaintiffs. Of counsel, all noted as pro hac vice forthcoming: Michael J. Abernathy, Christopher J. Betti, Amanda S. Williamson, Wan-Shon Lo, Maria Doukas and Michael T. Sikora (Chicago); Julie S. Goldemberg, Margaret A. McGreal and Anna Johnson (Philadelphia); and Christian D. Boettcher (Costa Mesa).

The suit follows Polpharma's submission to the FDA of abbreviated Biologics License Application No. 761558 under 42 U.S.C. §262(k), seeking approval of a vedolizumab biosimilar for intravenous infusion. The reference product is ENTYVIO (vedolizumab), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody binding human alpha4beta7 integrin, approved intravenously in May 2014 and subcutaneously in April 2024. Takeda pleads that Polpharma declined the information exchanges under 42 U.S.C. §262(l) and invokes §262(l)(9) and 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(2)(C)(ii) as the resulting authorization to sue. Polpharma gave a Notice of Commercial Marketing under §262(l)(8)(A) on June 18, 2026, stating that marketing would begin no earlier than 180 days from that notice, which Takeda computes as as early as December 15, 2026. The complaint further pleads that Polpharma's copying efforts began as early as 2021, that a Phase III ulcerative colitis trial was initiated on or around July 24, 2023, and that Polpharma's counsel has said FDA approval is expected in May 2027.

PB016, Polpharma's proposed vedolizumab biosimilar for intravenous infusion, the subject of aBLA No. 761558 and referred to throughout as the aBLA Product.

Twelve counts, two per patent: a count of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(2)(C)(ii) and a parallel declaratory-judgment count of infringement, the latter under 42 U.S.C. §§262(l)(8)(B) and 262(l)(9)(B) with 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202. Future-conduct infringement is pleaded under §271(b) and §271(c), with direct infringement attributed to healthcare providers and patients and Polpharma alleged to induce and contribute through its label and promotion. No §271(a) count is pleaded. Infringement is alleged literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The complaint pleads knowledge and willful blindness as to each patent but does not plead a willfulness count or seek enhanced damages by name.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment and declaration of infringement or inducement of infringement before patent expiration; preliminary and permanent injunctions; a declaration that the case is exceptional with fees, costs and expenses under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(4) and §285; and any available damages under §284. No 30-month stay is sought — this is a BPCIA rather than a Hatch-Waxman case — and, notably, no order under §271(e)(4)(A) setting the effective date of FDA approval no earlier than patent expiry is requested. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38.

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). Personal jurisdiction pleaded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) and the New Jersey long-arm rule, relying on the June 18, 2026 Notice of Commercial Marketing excluding no state, the Fresenius Kabi agreement excluding no state, nationwide distribution coordination, Fresenius Kabi's distribution network in the District, and a Fresenius Kabi job posting for a Senior Account Manager for New Jersey. Venue under 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400(b) on the ground that Polpharma is a foreign entity suable in any judicial district.

QuickVault, Inc. — a corporation formed under the laws of Georgia with its principal office at 1400 Marketplace Blvd., Suite 226, Cumming, Georgia. The complaint pleads that QuickVault created its CloudVault Health business unit in 2015 and deployed patented technology to mitigate risks to healthcare providers sharing patient records, but does not allege that it practices the asserted patents or competes with IBM.

Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP, Atlanta — David K. Ludwig (Georgia Bar No. 616971), who signed the complaint as Counsel for Plaintiff. No Texas local counsel and no pro hac vice notation appears in the signature block.

Each patent is pleaded as having issued to inventors Bacastow and Heuss with QuickVault as assignee, and QuickVault as the owner of the entire right, title and interest — an original assignee rather than an acquirer. No prior or co-pending litigation is mentioned anywhere in the complaint. Pre-suit knowledge is pleaded on information and belief 'including via a license offer made in early 2026,' with no date, author or recipient stated, and actual notice is pleaded no later than receipt of QuickVault's written notice of June 5, 2026 identifying the asserted patents and the allegations concerning IBM Guardium.

IBM Guardium, defined as a portfolio of data-security products and services and pleaded to include Guardium Data Security Center; Guardium Data Protection; Guardium Discover and Classify; Guardium Insights; Guardium Vulnerability Assessment; Guardium File Activity Monitoring; S-TAP and other Guardium agents; and Guardium Data Encryption, together with related appliances, components, services and integrations. The accused functionality is the deployment of software agents on endpoints and servers to detect, classify and track data, collect and transmit metadata to Guardium appliances, and enable administrators to monitor, analyse, report, alert and remediate policy violations. The same product definition is asserted against all six patents; a separate claim chart directed to claim 1 is attached for each patent as Exhibits G through L.

Twelve counts — a direct and an indirect count for each of the six patents. Direct infringement under §271(a) is pleaded on making, using, selling, offering to sell and importing, on IBM's own internal use, and on a divided-infringement theory that customers perform claim steps under IBM's direction and control. Inducement under §271(b) is pleaded for all six patents. Contributory infringement under §271(c) is not pleaded anywhere. Infringement is alleged literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Willfulness is pleaded for all six patents with enhanced damages under §284, and §285 is pleaded in the prayer.

Plaintiff seeks judgment of infringement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, of each asserted patent; damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 including enhanced damages for willfulness; an accounting of damages from six years prior to filing through entry of final judgment; pre- and post-judgment interest; and an exceptional-case finding under §285 with fees. No injunction is requested. Jury trial demanded.

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a). Venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) on allegations that IBM has committed acts of infringement in the District and has a regular and established place of business there, including its Austin office at 11501 Burnet Road. No employee, revenue or customer-specific allegations for the District are pleaded.

Outleads Inc. — a New York corporation with a principal place of business at 22 Franklin Place, Great Neck, New York, founded in 2014 by Dorin Rosenshine.

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, Virginia — Elliot C. Cook (VA Bar No. 76,621), who signed the complaint, and Deanna C. Smiley (VA Bar No. 97,234). No separate local counsel is designated.

The complaint pleads that Outleads holds all right, title and interest in each patent including the right to sue and recover past, present and future damages, and that Salesforce is not licensed expressly or impliedly. No notice letter or licensing demand is pleaded. The dispute is framed instead around prior dealings: in 2014 the founder applied to join the Salesforce ISV program, submitting a business summary stating that the technology was patent-pending, which the complaint alleges on information and belief was reviewed by Salesforce's legal team; in October 2015, at a Direct Marketing Association competition, a then Salesforce Vice President of Advertising Products served as a judge assessing Outleads and received explanations that the technology was patented. The complaint alleges that only after that conference did Salesforce begin replicating the technology. Marking compliance under §287(a) is pleaded through patent numbers published on the plaintiff's website.

Salesforce's Web-to-Lead and Web-to-Case technologies and services, pleaded as linking, harmonising and enriching CRM data and supporting the Salesforce platform, together with the agents, platforms and other technologies that draw on such enriched data. The complaint also references Sales Cloud automation, Service Cloud automation, Experience Cloud and Hyperforce, and identifiers including the Google Analytics Client ID and the Salesforce Experience Cloud UUID. A separate claim chart is attached for each patent as Exhibits M through S.

Seven counts, one per patent, all affirmative infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271. Each count pleads direct infringement under §271(a) literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, inducement, contributory infringement and willfulness, together with §285. Damages are pleaded under §§284, 286 and 287. There is no declaratory-judgment count of non-infringement or invalidity, and no non-patent count.

Plaintiff seeks declarations that Salesforce has infringed and is infringing one or more claims of each of the seven patents; damages under §§284, 285, 286 and 287 with pre- and post-judgment interest, no less than a reasonable royalty and/or lost profits, including a post-judgment running royalty in lieu of a permanent injunction; a permanent injunction; a declaration that infringement has been willful since at least as early as 2016 with enhanced damages under §284; costs and expenses; and an exceptional-case finding with fees under §285. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38.

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a) and (b). Venue under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b), supported by pleaded facts including a Salesforce office at 8280 Greensboro Drive, McLean, Virginia occupying the third and fourth floors for sales and technical support; a Herndon, Virginia presence with active hiring; Salesforce-managed data centres described as Virginia North and Virginia South; and Hyperforce instances served from the AWS US East (N. Virginia) region. The complaint also pleads that conference organisers and third-party employees with relevant knowledge reside in the District.

Malikie Innovations Ltd. — an Irish entity with registered offices at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin; together with Key Patent Innovations Ltd., an Irish entity at the same address, pleaded as the beneficiary of a trust under which Malikie owns, holds and asserts the patents.

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Patrick Colsher (lead attorney) and Khue V. Hoang (New York); Matthew G. Berkowitz (Redwood Shores); Naveed Hasan (Washington, D.C.). Local counsel: Claire Abernathy Henry (Texas State Bar No. 24053063), Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, Texas, who signed the complaint by permission.

The complaint pleads that Malikie is the successor-in-interest to a patent portfolio created and procured over many years by BlackBerry Ltd., formerly known as Research in Motion Ltd., and its predecessor, subsidiary and affiliated companies, and that Malikie is the assignee of and owns all right and title to the four patents. No assignment instrument, recordation or transfer date is pleaded. The licensing history pleaded runs: an October 1, 2020 letter from BlackBerry Corporation to Sercomm's General Counsel offering a licence including the '980 and '212 patents; an October 4, 2023 Malikie letter offering a licence to patents acquired from BlackBerry, again including the '980 and '212; element-by-element claim charts on December 1, 2023; a video call and presentation on July 2, 2024; a Sercomm email on October 22, 2025 requesting further information; continued outreach from November 2025 through March 2026; notice of the '856 and '260 patents on January 2, 2026; and, on or about May 24, 2026, global FRAND rates and a specific royalty rate offered for all patents essential to IEEE 802.11. The complaint pleads that Sercomm has neither accepted the rate nor counteroffered a rate it believes is FRAND, and that after close to three years Malikie was left with no choice but to sue. The complaint recites that BlackBerry participated in IEEE standards development and submitted public Letters of Assurance as to certain 802.11 standards.

Named accused products are the Sercomm G5SE, G4SE and SBE1V1R. By patent: the '980 and '212 against devices compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards implementing LDPC, naming all three products; the '856 against products implementing multiple access schemes, naming all three; and the '260 against products implementing registration for external networks, naming the G5SE and SBE1V1R only. Claim charts are attached as Exhibits 5 through 8. The complaint also references routers and gateways supplied through T-Mobile and Spectrum to customers in Marshall, Texas.

Four counts. Direct infringement under §271(a), inducement under §271(b) and contributory infringement under §271(c) are pleaded for all four patents, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. Asserted claims are identified: '980 claims 1 and 32; '212 claims 13 and 20; '856 claims 1 and 14; '260 claim 12. Willfulness is pleaded for all four, with alleged knowledge from October 1, 2020 for the '980 and '212 and from January 2, 2026 for the '856 and '260. §285 is pleaded in the prayer. The '980 and '212 counts are pleaded throughout in the past tense while the '856 and '260 are pleaded as continuing; the complaint does not explain the difference.

Plaintiff seeks judgment that Sercomm has infringed each asserted patent and will continue to infringe the '856 and '260 patents unless enjoined; a judgment of willfulness; damages for past infringement of each patent and present and future infringement of the '856 and '260 with interest and costs under §284; pre- and post-judgment interest; enhanced damages under §284; ongoing royalties for post-judgment infringement of the '856 and '260 only; an exceptional-case finding with fees under §285; and further relief including equitable relief. No stand-alone injunction is requested, and no FRAND rate determination or declaratory relief on FRAND terms is sought. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38(b).

Subject-matter jurisdiction pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332 and 1338(a). Personal jurisdiction pleaded under the Texas long-arm statute. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)-(c) on the alien-venue rule — that a foreign corporation not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district under §1391(c)(3), citing In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Section 1400(b) is not cited and no regular and established place of business is pleaded. Supporting facts include accused products sold through the T-Mobile store at 1806 East End Boulevard North, Suite 100, Marshall, Texas, and routers and gateways supplied by Spectrum and T-Mobile to customers in Marshall.

Malikie Innovations Ltd. — an Irish entity with registered offices at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin; together with Key Patent Innovations Ltd., an Irish entity at the same address, pleaded as the beneficiary of a trust under which Malikie owns, holds and asserts the patents.

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Khue Hoang and Patrick Colsher (New York); Matthew Berkowitz (Redwood Shores); Connor S. Houghton and Naveed Hasan (Washington, D.C.). Local counsel: Claire Abernathy Henry (Texas State Bar No. 24053063), Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, Texas, who signed the complaint by permission. No lead attorney is designated.

The complaint pleads that Malikie is the successor-in-interest to a patent portfolio created and procured over many years by BlackBerry Ltd., formerly known as Research in Motion Ltd., and its predecessor, subsidiary and affiliated companies, that the asserted patents were developed by inventors working for BlackBerry, and that Malikie is the assignee of and owns all right and title to the four patents. No assignment instrument, recordation or transfer date is pleaded. The licensing history pleaded runs: a February 11, 2025 letter offering a portfolio licence and specifically identifying the '847 and '906 patents with exemplary infringing products and services, delivered by courier and email, to which the complaint says no one from the defendant initially responded; a February 24, 2025 letter specifically identifying the '598 patent; a period the complaint describes as nearly eighteen months of licensing discussions; and an April 10, 2026 communication identifying the '205 patent and attaching a claim chart. The complaint pleads that because the defendant was unwilling to agree to a licence, Malikie was left with no choice but to sue.

The OnlyFans platform at www.onlyfans.com, pleaded as a subscription platform allowing users to subscribe to content creators to view videos and photos and hold one-to-one chats. The complaint identifies accused functionality per patent rather than naming product versions: for the '847, detecting whether a touch or contact is in the active area of a selectable object; for the '906, multifaceted scanning of data streams using a plurality of scanning aspects in a wireless environment; for the '598, delivering or streaming media content over HTTP based on requests for portions of media, such as the platform's video streaming service; and for the '205, providing streaming data, such as the platform's video streaming service. Claim charts are attached as Exhibits 5 through 8B.

Four counts. Direct infringement under §271(a), inducement under §271(b) and contributory infringement under §271(c) are pleaded for all four patents, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. Asserted claims are identified: '847 claim 14; '906 claims 13 and 14; '598 claim 1; '205 claim 1. Willfulness is pleaded for all four, with alleged knowledge from February 11, 2025 for the '847 and '906, February 24, 2025 for the '598, and April 10, 2026 for the '205. Each count also pleads in anticipation that the claims are directed to non-abstract ideas and recite inventive concepts and technological improvements. §285 is pleaded in the prayer.

Plaintiff seeks judgment that the defendant has infringed each asserted patent and, unless enjoined, will continue to infringe; a judgment of willfulness; damages adequate to compensate for past, present and future infringement with interest and costs, in no event less than a reasonable royalty under §284; pre- and post-judgment interest; enhanced damages under §284; ongoing royalties for post-judgment infringement; an exceptional-case finding with fees under §285; and further relief including equitable relief. No stand-alone injunction is requested. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38(b).

Subject-matter jurisdiction pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332 and 1338(a). Personal jurisdiction pleaded under the Texas long-arm statute. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)-(c) on the alien-venue rule — that a foreign corporation not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district under §1391(c)(3), citing In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Section 1400(b) is not cited. Supporting facts pleaded include purposeful direction of online sales into Texas and a cited news report that Texas was the platform's second largest state by revenue, with residents spending nearly $250 million in 2025.

Convergence LLC — pleaded as a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Mexico with its principal place of business at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE STE n, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110.

Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago — Isaac Rabicoff, who signed the complaint as sole counsel for plaintiff. No local counsel appears in the signature block.

The chain of title is a single sentence: the complaint pleads that the plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in the patent, including all rights to enforce and to collect damages for all relevant times, and accordingly has the exclusive right and standing to sue. No prior owner, assignor, assignment date or recordation reference is pleaded. The complaint states that the application leading to the patent was filed on December 18, 2008. No pre-suit notice of any kind is pleaded; the complaint instead places knowledge at service, stating that service of the complaint together with the attached claim charts and cited references constitutes actual knowledge of infringement.

The complaint body names no accused product. It pleads only 'the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count,' defined as the Exemplary Defendant Products, and incorporates the Exhibit 2 claim chart by reference. The Exhibit 2 chart in the lead case, read this cycle, identifies the accused instrumentality as Stack Overflow Internal, charted against claim 1 and describing Stack Overflow Internal Private Teams, the reporting and metrics interface presenting participant votes, statistics and ranking, and the integration with Microsoft Teams that delivers a weekly summary digest. The claim charts in the three companion cases were not read this cycle, so the accused products in those cases are not reported here.

A single count on the '079 patent. Direct infringement is pleaded on making, using, offering to sell, selling and importing, and separately on the defendant's employees internally testing and using the products; the complaint does not cite §271(a) by subsection. Induced infringement is pleaded by substance under its own heading but without citing §271(b), and is expressly limited to conduct 'at least since being served by this Complaint.' Contributory infringement under §271(c) is not pleaded — the word 'contributory' does not appear. Infringement is alleged literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. Willfulness is not pleaded, and no enhanced damages are sought; the only pleaded knowledge date is the date of service. §285 is requested in the prayer.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable; a judgment of direct and indirect infringement; an accounting of all damages not presented at trial; damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 for continuing or future infringement up to entry of judgment, with pre- or post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements; and, within a paragraph introduced as an accounting, an exceptional-case declaration under §285 with reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. No injunction, preliminary or permanent, is requested, and no enhanced or treble damages are sought. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38(b).

Subject-matter jurisdiction pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), described as exclusive. Personal jurisdiction is pleaded on systematic and continuous business activities in the District together with acts of infringement there; no office, agent, distributor or sales-channel facts are pleaded. Venue is pleaded solely under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) on the ground that the defendant is a foreign corporation, together with allegations of infringing acts and harm in the District. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), is never cited.

Prosus N.V. (2:26-cv-00751)  ·  Kialo GmbH (2:26-cv-00750)  ·  Kahoot! AS (2:26-cv-00749)  ·  Interview Street Technologies (2:26-cv-00748)

Storage Vectors LLC — pleaded as a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Mexico with its principal place of business at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE STE n, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110. The pleading describes an LLC as a corporation.

Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago — Isaac Rabicoff, who signed each complaint as sole counsel for plaintiff. No local counsel appears in either signature block read.

A single patent is asserted in both complaints read, and the chain of title is one conclusory sentence: the plaintiff is pleaded as the assignee of all right, title and interest in the patent with all rights to enforce and to collect damages, and accordingly the exclusive right and standing to sue. No prior owner, assignor, assignment date or recordation reference is named. The complaint states that the application leading to the patent was filed on June 18, 2015, and gives no technical description of the invention beyond its title. No pre-suit notice is pleaded; the complaint places knowledge at service, stating that service of the complaint together with the attached claim charts and cited references constitutes actual knowledge of infringement.

Neither complaint body names an accused product; both plead only 'the Defendant products identified in the charts' and incorporate Exhibit 2 by reference. The PICO Exhibit 2 chart, read this cycle, identifies the accused product as the PICO 4 Ultra Enterprise and charts claim 1 against its UFS 3.1 storage device, citing the JEDEC JESD220E Universal Flash Storage specification. The Advantech Exhibit 2 is not available in RECAP, and the Nothing Technology complaint and exhibits are not available, so no accused product is reported for those two cases.

A single count in each complaint read. Direct infringement is pleaded on making, using, offering to sell, selling and importing, and separately on the defendant's employees internally testing and using the products, without citing §271(a) by subsection. Induced infringement is pleaded by substance under its own heading without citing §271(b), and is expressly limited to conduct 'at least since being served by this Complaint.' Contributory infringement is not pleaded. Infringement is alleged literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. Willfulness is not pleaded and no enhanced damages are sought; the only pleaded knowledge date is the date of service. §285 is requested in the prayer.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable; a judgment of direct and indirect infringement; an accounting of all damages not presented at trial; damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 for continuing or future infringement up to entry of judgment, with pre- or post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements; and, within a paragraph introduced as an accounting, an exceptional-case declaration under §285 with fees, costs and expenses. No injunction is requested and no enhanced damages are sought. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38(b).

Subject-matter jurisdiction pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), described as exclusive. Personal jurisdiction is pleaded on systematic and continuous business activities in the District together with acts of infringement there, with no office, agent, distributor or sales-channel facts pleaded. Venue is pleaded solely under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) on the ground that the defendant is a foreign corporation, together with allegations of infringing acts and harm in the District. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), is never cited.

Advantech Co., Ltd. (2:26-cv-00730)  ·  Nothing Technology Limited (2:26-cv-00731)  ·  PICO Immersive Pte. Ltd. (2:26-cv-00737)

InnoMemory, LLC — pleaded as a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Texas that maintains its principal place of business at 261 West 35th Street, Suite 1003, New York, New York.

Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago — Isaac Rabicoff, who signed the complaint as sole counsel for plaintiff. No local counsel appears in the signature block.

The chain of title is a single sentence: the plaintiff is pleaded as the assignee of all right, title and interest in the patent, including all rights to enforce and to collect damages for all relevant times. No prior assignee, assignment date or recordation reference is named. The complaint states that the application leading to the patent was filed on July 29, 2003. No pre-suit notice of any kind is pleaded — no notice letter, no notice date, and no pre-suit communication appears anywhere in the complaint.

The complaint body names no product, defining the Exemplary Defendant Products solely by reference to the Exhibit 2 charts. The Exhibit 2 chart in the lead case, read in part this cycle, names the Kontron SMARC-sAMX7 as the accused product and charts claims 1, 22 and 23 against its DDR3 SDRAM self-refresh operation, citing an archived Kontron product page listing up to 2 GByte DDR3, a Nanya Technology DDR3(L) 2Gb SDRAM datasheet, and JEDEC JESD79-3F as evidence of how the accused product operates. The Nanya part numbers are cited as evidence and are not themselves pleaded as accused products. The accused products in the three companion cases were not retrieved this cycle.

A single count on the '960 patent. Direct infringement is pleaded on making, using, offering to sell, selling and importing, and separately on the defendant's employees internally testing and using the products. Inducement and contributory infringement are not pleaded — neither word appears. Infringement is alleged literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. Willfulness is not pleaded and no knowledge date is alleged anywhere. §285 is requested in the prayer. The infringement allegations are pleaded throughout in the past tense and damages are sought only for past infringement, with no ongoing or future-conduct allegation.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable; a judgment of direct infringement; an accounting of all damages not presented at trial; damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 for past infringement; and, within a paragraph introduced as an accounting, an exceptional-case declaration under §285 with reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. No injunction is requested, no enhanced damages are sought, and no pre- or post-judgment interest is requested. Jury trial demanded under Rule 38(b).

Subject-matter jurisdiction pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), described as exclusive. Personal jurisdiction is pleaded on systematic and continuous business activities in the District together with acts of infringement there, with no distributor, customer, office or sales facts pleaded. Venue is pleaded solely under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) on the ground that the defendant is a foreign corporation. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), is not cited, and the only established place of business pleaded is the defendant's in Germany.

Kontron Europe GmbH (2:26-cv-00747)  ·  DFI Inc. (2:26-cv-00745)  ·  IEI Integration Corp. (2:26-cv-00746)  ·  Acrelec Group SAS (2:26-cv-00743)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, No. 1:24-cv-00708-PTG-LRV, Judge Patricia T. Giles. Inventor-advocacy organizations and patent holders sued the Patent and Trademark Office and its director under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the statement on the cover of every issued patent — that the patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale or selling the invention — is misleading after eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), because injunctive relief is no longer automatic. They sought an order compelling notice-and-comment rulemaking to change the cover language, an injunction against the current language, and a declaration that it is unlawful. The district court dismissed for lack of standing and denied leave to amend as futile.

No patent claims were at issue. The appeal concerned Article III standing and the denial of leave to amend. Three of the six plaintiffs defended their standing on appeal: US Inventor, Inc., the Inventor's Association of South Central Kansas, and Inventors Network of Minnesota.

The Federal Circuit held that the appellants failed to plead a threat of future injury and therefore lacked standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. On organizational standing, the court applied FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), and found the theory lacked the elements of Havens Realty: the alleged future injury does not directly affect the organizations, which acknowledge they are aware of eBay; the injury does not resemble a traditional tort, because the organizations do not pass the alleged misinformation on but rather advise inventors to disregard it; and the cover language does not impede their core business activities. What they alleged was the diversion of resources that Alliance held inadequate. On associational standing, the court held that the three member declarants — who each stated they were misled but also that they have now learned that injunctive relief is not guaranteed after eBay — face no sufficient likelihood of being wronged again in a similar way under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, and that the other two organizations never pleaded an associational theory at all, having alleged only organizational injury with no member declarations. The district court therefore correctly considered associational standing for US Inventor alone. On amendment, the only change the appellants proposed was to clarify that the associational argument was advanced for the other two organizations as well, which would fail for the same reason, and they never asserted they could add facts curing the absence of an imminent threat of future injury; amendment was therefore futile and the denial of leave was not an abuse of discretion.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 4:23-cv-02961, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal. VDPP sued Volkswagen in 2023 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452. The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice, denied leave to amend as futile, denied a Rule 59(e) motion, awarded Volkswagen $207,543.60 in attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. §285, and sanctioned VDPP's counsel William P. Ramey, III under 28 U.S.C. §1927 and the court's inherent power, holding VDPP and Mr. Ramey jointly and severally liable for the fees.

U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452, relating to electrically controlled spectacles. The appeal turned on pleading compliance with the marking and notice provision of 35 U.S.C. §287(a) rather than on any claim construction or validity question.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal without leave to amend, affirmed the fee award, and dismissed the sanctions portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On amendment, the court held that because VDPP sought pre-suit damages it bore the burden of pleading compliance with §287(a) including compliance by its licensees, citing Arctic Cat v. Bombardier, 950 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2020). VDPP had entered into eleven settlement agreements licensing the '452 patent, and its proposed amended complaint alleged only that it is an entity with no products to mark and that all statutory requirements and conditions precedent were met — bare legal conclusions the court declined to accept under Twombly. The court rejected the argument that licenses entered to settle litigation are different for marking purposes, citing TransCore for the proposition that a license is in essence a promise not to sue and that the distinction between a covenant not to sue and a license is one of form rather than substance, and rejected the argument that a licensee's failure to admit infringement matters, citing Lubby Holdings. All eleven agreements were fashioned as standard licensing agreements and one expressly specified that the licensee had no obligation to mark, while VDPP continued to maintain that the licensed products infringe. The court also noted that VDPP had implicitly agreed not to amend in exchange for an extension of time and then filed a proposed amended complaint anyway. On fees, the court found no abuse of discretion in the exceptionality determination, which rested on positions the district court found frivolous and objectively unreasonable — including seeking future damages and an injunction on an expired patent, seeking past damages despite an inability to allege marking, failing to disclose relevant settlement agreements, and prolonging the litigation with false statements about them. Applying Octane Fitness, the court held that conduct need not be independently sanctionable to support a fee award, and that under SFA Systems a district court may consider a patentee's pattern of litigation where adequate evidence of an abusive pattern is presented, while reiterating that filing many suits does not by itself justify an inference of improper motive. On the sanctions, the court held that Mr. Ramey's notices of appeal named only VDPP as appellant and so failed Rule 3(c)(1)(A)'s jurisdictional requirement, that his later corrected notices were untimely under Rule 4, and that VDPP lacks standing to contest sanctions imposed on its counsel; the court therefore did not reach whether the sanctions were an abuse of discretion.