Another possibility is DM is working hard to research the products of new infringers before filing. The cookie cutter language seen below is from Doc 01 of the Texas Seven lawsuit.
Upon information and belief, the Defendants have infringed and, if not enjoined, will continue to infringe one or more claims of the ‘774 Patent by performing, without authority, one or more of the following acts: (a) making, using, offering for sale, or selling within the United States the invention as claimed in one or more claims of the ‘774 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (b) importing into the United States the invention as claimed in one or more claims of the ‘774 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); (c) inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ‘774 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and (d) contributing to the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘774 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (the “acts of infringement of the ‘774 Patent”).
The language is the same for the other three patents in Doc 01. As we saw with Samsung, DM needs to do better research on exactly which products of defendant companies are actually infringing. This could be the holdup if we're talking 15-20 new defendants.
