IPCom Gmbh & Co KG has opened up a new litigation campaign in the US, filing suit against AT&T (multiple subsidiaries, including AT&T Mobility) (2:20-cv-00321), Deutsche Telekom (including Sprint) (2:20-cv-00322), and Verizon (including Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) (2:20-cv-00323) in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff targets the defendants' alleged use of certain devices, features, and services in their various wireless telecommunication networks, IPCom pleading details concerning relationships with third-parties Ericsson and Nokia (Alcatel), which allegedly supply telecommunications equipment, and Mavenir, which allegedly provides such equipment, as well as messaging services. IPCom's new complaints assert up to six patents, received from Robert Bosch and apparently subject to separate security agreements with Fortress Investment Group LLC (in 2008) and Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg (in 2013).

Based in Munich, Germany, IPCom is controlled in part by managing director Bernhard Frohwitter-a US-trained, German patent attorney hired by Robert Bosch (Bosch GmbH) in the mid-2000s to license a portfolio of patents relevant to mobile technologies. Frohwitter formed IPCom in 2007 with financing from Fortress and acquired that same portfolio from Bosch. This campaign is not the first to arise from the portfolio; between 2008 and 2019, IPCom litigated patents from it in courts in Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, as well as in the US, against Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, HTC, LG Electronics, Nokia, and/or T-Mobile (which merged with Sprint earlier this year).

The US leg of that prior campaign, hitting BlackBerry and HTC, ended after the claims against the HTC were dismissed with prejudice from the District of DC on October 2, 2019 following a reexam of the last patent-in-suit, twice appealed to the Federal Circuit, resulted in the cancellation of claims as obvious in light of certain prior art. For more information about that prior litigation, as well as about IPCom's formation and control, see "Recent European NPE Activity Includes Rulings in German Cases Filed by US Plaintiffs" (July 2017).

Here, IPCom asserts five patents (6,813,261; 6,983,147; 7,006,463; 7,333,822; 10,382,909) in all three new complaints, with a sixth patent at issue against AT&T alone (7,778,310). Three of those patents-the '147, '822, and '909 patents-were among those acquired from Bosch back in 2007.

Comprising a single-member family, the '147 patent issued to Bosch in January 2006 with an estimated priority date in August 1999. All three defendants are accused of infringing the '147 patent through the use of eNodeB devices (i.e., devices that communicate directly with mobile devices) in their wireless networks; at issue are the Dual Connectivity and handover features.

The '822 and '909 patents issued in February 2008 and August 2019, respectively, as part of a three-member family having earliest estimated priority date in February 2000. IPCom accuses each of the defendants of infringement through the use of Multimedia Messaging Service Centers (MMSCs) and/or related telecommunications equipment (compliant with "relevant industry 3GPP, 3GPP2, and OMA messaging standards") to transmit messages over their respective wireless networks.

The original development work for the other three patents-the '261, '463, and '310 patents-was conducted at Hitachi. The '261 and '310 patent families were assigned as part of a 50-asset transfer dated in January 2008 from Hitachi Communication Technologies to FIPA Frohwitter Intellectual Property AG, an IP consultancy founded by Frohwitter and based in Munich. In March 2010, Hitachi Communication Technologies assigned the '463 patent to Tently Ltd., an entity formed in Guernsey, one of the British Channel Islands, and dissolved in November 2014, moving from Tently to FIPA Frohwitter, as part of a dozen patent transaction, in June 2014. Michael Thomas Cahill and Peter Francis Griffin signed the document filed with the USPTO to substantiate that second transfer, as Tentley's directors. IPCom pleads full ownership of the patents.

The '261 patent issued in November 2004 with an estimated priority date in August 1996. It is a part of a six-patent family with issue dates ranging from August 2000 to September 2013. AT&T is accused of infringing through the use of 3G base stations in its UMTS network, and all three defendants are accused of infringement through the use of eNodeB devices in their LTE networks. At issue is the performance of random access procedures compliant with certain 3GPP standards.

The most recent patent in a three-member family, the '463 patent issued in February 2006 with estimated priority in December 1996. AT&T is targeted over the use of base stations in its UMTS Network to "control uplink power" in accordance with certain 3GPP standards; Sprint and Verizon Wireless, over the use of base stations in their CDMA networks to "control uplink power" in accordance with certain 3GPP2 standards.

Finally, the '310 patent issued as part of a seven-member family in August 2020, with an estimated priority date in May 1998. As noted, only AT&T is accused of infringement, through the use of 3G base stations, complaint with certain 3GPP standards, for "wirelessly communicating with user equipment".

In its complaints, IPCom describes itself as "an intellectual property licensing and research & development company" that "creates inventions and files patent applications for those inventions, collaborates with others to develop and patent inventions, and acquires and licenses patents from individual inventors and other institutions". IPCom further contends that its current patent portfolio encompasses over 200 patent families in the field of mobile communications, with more than 1,000 patents registered in Europe, the US and Asia. Currently available USPTO records identify over 125 US patent assets held by the plaintiff.

IPCom is represented by Dechert LLP. 10/1, 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.