Cyberfone Systems, LLC is a patent assertion entity formerly headquartered in Longview, Texas. Previously named LVL Patent Group, LLC, the company was acquired by Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA), a patent monetization firm now known as MARA Holdings, by April 2013. As a non-practicing entity (NPE), Cyberfone Systems does not have any products or operations; its business is centered on licensing and litigating a patent portfolio.
The company's patent portfolio, attributed to inventor Dr. Rocco Martino, generally covers digital communications and data transaction processing. Key patents asserted in its campaigns include U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382, titled "Data Transaction Assembly Server," and U.S. Patent No. 8,019,060. The technology was described in court filings as relating to a method for obtaining data transaction information from a single telephone transmission and sending different parts of that data to different destinations. Marathon Patent Group stated the portfolio consisted of ten U.S. patents and 27 foreign patents.
Cyberfone's patent-litigation posture is exclusively that of a plaintiff. As the provided case data shows, it has filed at least 13 lawsuits against various companies without ever appearing as a defendant. Its campaigns were filed in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. The company pursued an aggressive and broad litigation campaign, with one court memorandum noting that Cyberfone had asserted its patents against a total of 175 defendants across 21 related cases.
Cyberfone targeted a wide range of industries. The case list includes major financial institutions such as The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Capital One Financial Corporation, Bank of America Corp., and Wells Fargo & Company. It also sued telecommunications giant AT&T Inc. and several airlines, including American Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. A notable event in its campaign occurred when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court's ruling that the claims of its '060 patent were invalid because they were directed at an abstract idea, a significant setback for its assertion efforts against dozens of defendants.