Patent Risk Digest

Patent Litigation Goes International

Patent litigation in China has become an unavoidable prospect for many international companies. A series of systemic reforms—and the temptation of readily available injunctive relief—have turned Chinese courts into attractive forums for patent plaintiffs. Additionally, it has historically been difficult for companies to assess their risk in China, given what little has been known about the judicial system there both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Point of Sale Campaign Expands Targeting New Retailers

Vindolor, LLC has expanded its sole litigation campaign with new suits targeting a variety of retailers, including children’s, home goods, and auto supply stores. Defendants throughout the campaign have been targeted over their use of NFC-enabled point-of-sale terminals offering contactless payments.

The asserted patent generally relates to using biometric authentication to create an “access code” based on a resulting identification profile. Vindolor alleges the companies are infringing its patents due to the POS terminals’ compatibility with various payment platforms. Since beginning the campaign in April 2018, the patent plaintiff has sued eight retailers.

Headphones Under Attack in Recent Campaign

Patent licensing company Kaddan Entertainment, Inc. revived its sole litigation campaign in August when it accused an electronics manufacturer of infringing four patents through its sale of various neckband headphones, which allow earbuds to be secured magnetically to the device’s body. Previously, the non-practicing entity (NPE) targeted another manufacturer of headphones over that company’s offering of magnetic earbuds that snap together.

The five asserted patents generally relate to a system for securing headphone transducers using magnets and belong to a family of eight patents that issued between October 2008 and November 2017, sharing an estimated priority date in July 2004. Kaddan’s most recent complaint explicitly alleges that each of the accused devices was released after that priority date and that the devices do not serve as prior art to the patents-in-suit.