Last December, RPX noted the November 2024 transfer of roughly 100 US patents from AMD, via subsidiary ATI Technologies, to Onesta IP LLC. The recipient has now launched litigation over a subset of those assets, both in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). In one Western District of Texas complaint, Onesta IP accuses Qualcomm, Nothing, and OnePlus ( 1:25-cv-00587) of infringing five patents, Qualcomm via provision of certain Snapdragon-series processors, with Nothing and OnePlus targeted over smartphones that incorporate the accused processors. In another, Onesta IP accuses NVIDIA ( 1:25-cv-00586) of infringing four of those patents plus a fifth, through the provision of certain “integrated circuits, circuit board assemblies, graphics cards, and computers”. The ITC complaint ( 337-TA-3823) names all four district court defendants as proposed respondents, with all six patents asserted there.
Of those patents (7,717,350; 8,854,381; 9,116,809; 9,519,943; 11,741,019; 11,841,803), only the ‘381 patent appears to have been previously litigated, in an AMD campaign running from March 2014 through this past summer. In an ITC investigation in that campaign, Realtek Semiconductor and TCL (the latter referring collectively to a long list of affiliated entities located in China, Hong Kong, or Mexico) were found to have infringed claims 19-20 of the ‘381 patent. (Infringement of claims 15-17 of the ‘381 patent was also established; however, those claims were ruled invalid.)
The domestic industry products in the investigation were graphics processing units (GPUs) “designed and sold by AMD which include specialized circuit[r]y and programming to render three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional screen”. The accused products consisted of “GPUs, GPUs incorporated onto printed circuit boards, and digital televisions that include those GPUs from Realtek and TCL”. Upon review, the Commission affirmed a Section 337 violation as to claims 19-20 of the ‘381 patent, justifying a limited exclusion order (LEO) “barring the importation of ‘(a) integrated circuits that incorporate one or more graphics processing units (GPUs); (b) printed circuit board assemblies containing the same; and (c) digital televisions containing the same' that infringe one or more of claims 19 and 20 of the ‘381 patent”.
That LEO (together with a set of Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) against each of the TCL respondents) issued in January 2024. Realtek asked for, but was denied, a limitation on these orders to only GPUs supplied by nonparty ARM because “AMD never accused any products with a non-ARM GPU ‘even though it is public knowledge that Realtek uses GPU architectures designed and supplied by Imagination, which have their own proprietary structure, function, and operation'”. After several attempts to comply with Commission rules, the remedial orders against the TCL entities were rescinded based on a settlement, after which AMD and Realtek sought and received rescission of the LEO, also based on a settlement. By the end of last summer, the investigation, as well as Realtek's appeal from the final initial determination, had wrapped up.
AMD transferred the portfolio from which the asserted patents are drawn to Onesta IP on November 8, 2024, the bulk of which (see here and here) was recorded one week later. A single additional patent was assigned from ATI to Onesta IP on April 11, 2025. The patents generally relate to variety of topics, including processor and/or memory operation, semiconductor configuration, video streaming, neural networks, graphics processing, and more.
Onesta IP was formed in Delaware on August 20, 2024, with little information concerning its management or personnel is available in public records. In connection with the new Western District of Texas cases, in a document styled a “certificate of interested parties”, Onesta IP discloses only that no publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of the interest in it. In assignment records, it provides a residential address in Wayne, Pennsylvania owned by Marino Reynolds Family Trust.
Note that in its various complaints, Neo Wireless LLC (f/k/a CFIP NCF LLC), an entity associated with Fortress Investment Group LLC, is described as a Delaware entity based in Wayne, Pennsylvania, where its CEO, David Loo, also works and resides. Loo is described as having “over a decade of experience as a licensing executive and patent attorney with a well-established track record of assisting companies, inventors and patent holders to ensure they are fairly compensated for their inventions”. On social media, Loo reports having founded Vector2LLC, for which he performs “patent prosecution and technical expert services” as well as holding a past position as vice president of acquisition at Pragmatus, LLC, a patent assertion entity run by former executives at Altitude Capital Partners, Bill Marino and Anthony Grillo. On the public website of investment bank EuroScope Capital, Marino is identified as its “Special Counsel: Intellectual Property”. He appears to be married to Elizabeth Reynolds.
The new complaints are signed by Michael T. Renaud of Mintz Levin (over a signature block that includes Miller Fair Henry PLLC). Renaud and Mintz Levin represented AMD in the long-running campaign mentioned above, in particular before the ITC investigation outlined. The West Texas suits have yet to be assigned to a judge. 4/17, Western District of Texas, 4/18, ITC.
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.
