Cogent Insights Files Six Suits in Marshall on Its Multifactorial Optimization Patent Against Taiwan and China Companies.

The six cases

All six cases are in the Marshall Division and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. They are Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. v. Associated Industries China, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00955, against a company the complaint places in Taipei, Taiwan; Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. v. Cincoze Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00956, against a company the complaint places in New Taipei City, Taiwan; Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. v. Hitron Technologies Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00957, against a company the complaint places in Hsinchu, Taiwan; Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. v. IBASE Technology Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00958, against a company the complaint places in Taipei, Taiwan; Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. v. Neousys Technology Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00959, against a company the complaint places in New Taipei City, Taiwan; Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. v. SIMO Holdings, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00960, against a company the complaint places in Shenzhen, China.

Each complaint describes Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. as a Canadian corporation based in Nelson, British Columbia. Each is signed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC in Chicago, Illinois. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c), on the ground that each defendant is a foreign corporation.

The patent

The only patent asserted is U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797, titled Multifactorial Optimization System and Method, which issued October 17, 2017 from an application filed October 28, 2014. Each complaint says Cogent is the assignee of all right, title and interest in the patent, including the right to sue for infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times. Google Patents lists the patent as active, with an adjusted expiration date of January 2, 2027.

Each complaint identifies the asserted claims and the accused products through Exhibit 2, which it says includes charts comparing exemplary claims of the patent to products it calls the Exemplary Defendant Products, and incorporates those charts by reference. Exhibit 2 is not on the public docket in any of the six cases.

The allegations

Each complaint alleges direct infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) by making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing the charted products, and also by having the defendant's employees internally test and use them. Each alleges that service of the complaint, with the attached claim charts, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement. Each alleges that, at least since service, the defendant has induced infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)) by selling the products to customers for use in end-user products, and alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant has continued to sell the products and distribute product literature and website materials that induce end users to use them in a way that infringes.

The relief sought

Each complaint asks for a judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable and that the defendant has infringed it directly and indirectly, an accounting of damages, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 with interest and costs, and, if the court finds the case exceptional, attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. Each demands a jury.

Earlier suits on the '797 patent

Cogent filed nine earlier suits on the '797 patent in the Eastern District of Texas on August 20, 2026, Nos. 2:26-cv-00714 through 2:26-cv-00722, and another, No. 2:26-cv-00790, against Radisys Corporation on September 4, 2026. The court has entered orders dismissing four of them: No. 2:26-cv-00721 on September 9, No. 2:26-cv-00715 on September 11, No. 2:26-cv-00714 on October 8, and No. 2:26-cv-00790 on October 14, 2026. Hisense USA Corporation filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the '797 patent against Cogent in the Northern District of Georgia on December 29, 2025, No. 2:25-cv-00414.