Atlantic IP’s Arigna Technology Sues Seven Defendants Over Qualcomm Parts – Intellectual Property


United States: Atlantic IP’s Arigna technology sues seven defendants over Qualcomm parts

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to

Arigna Technology Limited, one of several plaintiffs associated with the Dublin-based patent monetization firm
PI Atlanticfiled a single complaint against
Alphabet (google),
Apple, Lenovo,
Microsoft, OnePlus,
Samsungand TCL (6:22-cv-00151) in the Western District of Texas. Qualcomm is not named as a defendant in the case, but the infringement charges in Arigna’s complaint relate to various devices and computers (for example, desktops, laptops, tablets and smartphones) of the defendants regarding their alleged incorporation of the Qualcomm QET4100 and/or QET5100 envelope tracking modules. Targeting end product suppliers over the alleged inclusion of the same part has become a pattern for Arigna.

Consisting of a single family, the only claimed patent (7,183,835) largely relates to a semiconductor device “controlling a drive of an insulated-gate transistor”. It was issued in February 2007 with an estimated priority of January 2004, based on a Japanese filing. In February 2020, Mitsubishi Electric awarded the ‘835 patent to Arigna, along with about 30 others, whose portfolio was joined by nine others that another Atlantic IP entity, Sonrai Memory Limited, had picked up from Microchip technologypassing them to Arigna in March 2020.

Many of the defendants in Arigna’s fifth legal campaign to date are already on trial with the Irish NPE, having been prosecuted, from last September, in its fourth campaign: first Apple and Samsung, sued together in a only complaint, then Google, LG Electronics (LGE) and OnePlus in separate cases (all filed in the Western District of Texas, except for the lawsuit against LGE, which is pending in the District of Delaware). Two patents are claimed, one received from Microchip Technology and the other from Mitsubishi Electric, with infringement allegations centering on the alleged incorporation of the Qualcomm HG-11PG660-200 RF semiconductor device, as well as the Qualcomm SDR865 transceiver and/or SkyworksSKY58258-11 front end module.

Arigna is part of a growing network of affiliated Irish NPEs that have acquired and asserted patents from major operating companies under the Atlantic IP banner. Atlantic IP describes itself on its website as “specialized and focused on patent monetization, from patent review, screening, drafting, valuation and acquisition financing, to all phases of licensing from market research, takedowns, negotiations and, if necessary, litigation”. The company also touts its support in
Capital of Magnetar, a hedge fund with $13.5 billion in assets under management as of March 31, 2021, stating on its website that Magnetar has “co-invested in a number of Atlantic IP Services intellectual property portfolios.” According to that same site, the portfolios under Atlantic IP’s management include several already in dispute by the aforementioned network of Irish plaintiffs. For additional coverage of the connections between these plaintiffs and back to Atlantic IP and Magnetar, see “Kingston and Western Digital Caught in Web of Irish NPE Litigation” (June 2021).

Arigna has begun to assert its former Microchip and Mitsubishi Electric portfolios in the automotive sector, launching three campaigns in early 2021, the first of which spanned from the Federal District Court to the International Trade Commission (ITC) at the end of Last year. However, the brakes have been pumped on parts of this litigation, with suspensions imposed to await news from the federal circuit regarding whether district dealerships can provide a foothold for associated automakers. To explore this issue and these campaigns, see “Mandamus Petitions Put the Brakes on Multiple Automotive Campaigns” (February 2022).

Arigna’s new case, involving the ‘835 patent, has been assigned to District Judge Alan D. Albright. 2/10, West District of Texas.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property

Employee/manager held personally liable for patent infringement

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP

In Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, the Federal Circuit ruled that officers and employees who actively assist in the violation of their company may be personally liable for instigating the violation even without piercing the corporate veil.


Comments are closed.