The two sides had discussions but then things stalled. “Omni has not produced any responsive documents to the amended subpoena nor offered any witness for a deposition,” she wrote.
In its own court applications, MPH Technologies makes no mention of Omni Bridgeway, instead presenting itself as the successor to another Finnish firm that created the patents in the 2000s and early 2010s.
Some Apple watchers have accused MPH Technologies of being a “patent troll”, which is a term to describe a company that buys little known intellectual property rights solely to sue other firms for ostensibly using them. Judgments in intellectual property cases, especially against large technology firms such as Apple, can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars or result in product sales being halted.
Omni Bridgeway’s annual report shows it put almost 10 per cent of its funding towards intellectual property litigation last year. It describes its uses as including “monetising patent litigation assets for company purposes”.
But it also argues the financing can help companies protect their rights while preserving money for research and development. In the litigation funding model, Omni Bridgeway provides money up front for lawyers and expenses in exchange for a share of any cash judgment from the courts.
Omni’s lawyer, Jennifer Kash of Warren Kash Warren, told Ms Cannom that her client was not a part of the underlying proceedings. She said that it could not respond to the subpoena because its scope was unclear.
“Omni objects to the subpoena on the grounds that the requests are so unreasonably broad in scope as to be unduly burdensome,” Ms Kash wrote.
It said the subpoena could cover privileged information or documents that were not readily accessible to the company and issued further objections on that basis.
Delaware judge Colm Connolly has not yet issued a ruling. Neither Apple nor Omni Bridgeway responded to a request for comment.