In a new Eastern District of Texas complaint, coplaintiffs Malikie Innovations Limited (as "the successor-in-interest to a substantial patent portfolio created and procured over many years by [BlackBerry]") and Key Patent Innovations Limited (KPI, as "the beneficiary of a trust pursuant to which Malikie owns, holds, and asserts the Asserted Patents") have accused Sophos (2:24-cv-00905) of infringing seven of those former BlackBerry patents. Five of them are new to this campaign, which has now seen complaints filed against Acer, ASUSTek, D-Link, Nintendo, and Sophos, in that order, since March of this year. All cases remain "active", although a stay has been imposed to facilitate a resolution in the D-Link case, and ASUSTek, the Taiwanese parent company, has mounted a novel challenge to venue in the Eastern District of Texas.
With those seven patents (7,917,829; 8,583,980; 8,699,999; 9,147,085; 9,294,470; 9,313,065; 9,426,145), KPI and Malikie target the provision of a wide array of products, including Wi-Fi enabled products that implement LDPC technology via Qualcomm Wi-Fi chipsets; the Sophos Mobile Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) solution, which supports the use of Android Enterprise Work Profile mode; and Sophos XGS firewall appliances that support the Application Filter feature. All but the '980 and '065 patents are newly asserted; for further background concerning those two patents, as well as concerning the '829 patent, which is related to the '980 patent, see "Malikie, Together with Key Patent Innovations, Sues Nintendo" (September 2024).
The '999 patent generally relates to using a security management module on a mobile device; the '085 patent, to "establishing plural modes of operation on a mobile device"; and the '470 and '145 patents, to "creating a certificate store in a memory of a device". Infringement allegations as to all four are directed at the provision of Sophos XGS firewall appliances that support the Application Filter feature. In addition to damages, the plaintiff seeks an injunction and a judgment of willful infringement, pleading that it had sent Sophos a letter offering a license to its portfolio as early as June 2024.
Malikie filed its early original complaints in this campaign without KPI, which characterizes itself on its public website as "an Irish-based company that identifies and invests in high value patent-based opportunities", listing a team of directors headed by Angela Quinlan. She has been in the role of KPI managing director since July 2020, listing past positions with Dublin-based monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited ("Vice President of Licensing and Acquisitions" from September 2019 to July 2020); with one of Atlantic IP's portfolio of plaintiffs, Solas OLED Limited ("Vice President of Licensing and Associate General Counsel" from April 2019 to July 2020); and with patent advisory firm IPValue Management (d/b/a IPValue) subsidiary Longitude Licensing Limited (patent attorney from March 2014 through April 2019).
KPI advertises three portfolios, one held by each of Malikie (the former BlackBerry patents), Pictiva Displays International Limited (former OSRAM patents), and Valtrus Innovations Limited (former HP Enterprise (HPE) patents). Valtrus has been litigating its portfolio since early 2022, and last fall, Pictiva began litigating, suing Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. KPI's ownership model for these portfolios—with each litigating plaintiff holding their respective portfolios in trust (under Irish law) for the benefit of KPI—has come under intense pressure in the Valtrus campaign: Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap is in receipt of motions (at least partially redacted) to dismiss a Valtrus case for lack of standing, to amend the complaint there to add KPI as a plaintiff, to transfer that case elsewhere, and to dismiss a belt-and-suspenders action filed with KPI; and District of Delaware Judge Gregory B. Williams is in receipt of a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment complaint pleading a violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act (with related state law claims for relief). Per Valtrus, "what should have been a straightforward patent infringement case in EDTX is now mired in procedural chaos, excessive and wasteful venue-related litigation, and an unnecessary drain on the resources of two different Courts".
The ASUSTek suit so far has centered around a defendant motion to dismiss the case for improper venue in which ASUSTek contends that because the plaintiffs pleaded that it—ASUSTek Computer, the Taiwanese parent—operates as a single enterprise with its US subsidiary ASUS Computer International (in order to impute allegedly infringing activities from the sub to the parent), that supposition should be taken as true for the purposes of venue. By this logic, ASUSTek is not a foreign entity against which venue lies anywhere, but rather should be treated as its sub, i.e., as a domestic company with insufficient ties to the Eastern District of Texas. ASUSTek asks that the case against it be dismissed or, in the alternative, transferred to the Northern District of California, where ASUS Computer International is headquartered. KPI/Malikie attack the motion as contrary to existing law and precedent. The motion has been briefed through a surreply; a ruling has yet to issue.
The case against Nintendo was filed in the Western District of Washington, where it was assigned to District Judge James L. Robart; the suit against Sophos, to Judge Gilstrap. Reichman Jorgenson Lehman and Feldberg LLP represents KPI/Malikie in this campaign. 11/6, Eastern District of Texas.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
