Patent Filings Roundup: Denial of Me-Too Joinder under General Plastics; Magnetar Sub, Wielding LG Wireless Charging Patents, Sues Volkswagen

A light district court week saw just 37 new patent filings (I believe, the lowest week of the year to date); statistically, the beginning of the year, month, and quarter are generally lower than the rest of the year in terms of patent filings, due primarily to the filing patterns of megafiler IP Edge and their proclivity to ramp up filings at the ends of months and quarters. There were 78 terminations (just above average). Frequent filer, RFC Lenders of Texas LLC, ensnared yet another local Texas company, this time Texas Southern Tire Mart LLC, in volume patent litigation; Intellectual Ventures refiled their new automotive OEM campaign outside of the Eastern District of Texas, moving to the Northern for certain OEMs; and Jack Henry Associates, as provider to many banks and websites of check deposit software, filed a declaratory judgment action against frequent filer, Lupercal LLC.

Magnetar Sub Targets Auto OEM on LG Wireless Charging Patents: Atlantic IP/Magnetar Capital subsidiary Scramoge has moved on from suing charging and phone companies to suing automotive manufacturers, adding Volkswagen to a new suit (their seventh on these patents) in the Eastern District of Michigan (further evidence of the fallout from the Federal Circuit’s venue ruling on mandamus). The patents all came from LG but were sold or spun off to the funded subsidiary before being asserted against charging device manufacturers like Anker, Belkin, Morphie, Google, and of course Apple and Samsung (both seemingly accused in all of Magnetar’s 11 suits to date). As discussed here previously, the Qi standard—wireless charging for devices—is ripe for assertion, as the standard/patent picture is murky at best and most devices implement the nonetheless simple technology. Volkswagen is accused of infringing based on wireless charging pads built into their newer models.

Me-Too Joinder Denied Under General Plastics: In IPR2022-00053, the Board denied a joinder motion to an instituted case where the petitioner Apple, a defendant in litigation on the patent, had agreed not to participate actively and to be bound by the filer’s arguments, and had added no new matter. The Board reasoned that the joinder was a serial attempt, and that the possibility that the main party would settle out and the petitioner would then take over would be unfair. It’s worth noting that, had they been allowed to join, they would also have been estopped by the results of the proceeding, and it would have made complete resolution of the pending district court challenge far more efficient; they’re now free to raise identical grounds in district court if they so choose.

Image Source: Depsoit Photos
Author Zerbor
Image ID: 69425507