Reports

Patent Dispute Report: Q3 2025 in Review

Following new guidelines introduced in February and March 2025, discretionary denials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reached an all-time high in the third quarter of 2025. These changes, including a bifurcated review process, expanded discretionary denial factors and revival of the Fintiv test, have also caused the overall institution rate to drop. 

In addition, the USPTO has said recently that patents that have been issued for more than six years (or sometimes, less) can create "settled expectations," such that IPR (inter partes review) challenges should be denied.  But the vast majority of challenged patents at the PTAB have been well beyond six years of age. And NPE (non-practicing entity) patents have been materially older—a result of older patents changing hands later in life and being asserted well after their useful life by operating companies. In fact, the data indicates that the average age for a challenged NPE patent in the PTAB is 16.3 years, while the average age for a challenged OpCo (operating company) patent in the PTAB is 12.6 years.

The settled expectations theory leads naturally to NPEs having a far lower institution rate—i.e., petitioners challenging NPE patents are far more likely to be denied—given they are materially older. 

As a result, while the institution rate against NPEs historically has been higher than the institution rate against operating companies, this trend has reversed, with the NPE institution rate now significantly lower.

Despite the decrease in institutions, PTAB petition filings saw only a modest 3.5% decrease between Q2 and Q3. The future volume of filings is uncertain, especially with new PTAB rules effective September 1, 2025 that restrict the use of “general knowledge,” such as expert testimony, common sense, or applicant-admitted prior art. 

In contrast, requests for ex parte reexaminations reached an all-time high during the first nine months of 2025, jumping by 46% between Q2 and Q3, suggesting that would-be PTAB petitioners were looking for an alternative venue to challenge patents. 

Meanwhile, in the federal district courts, the number of patent filings dipped 8.9% between Q2 and Q3. The Eastern District of Texas continues to be the most popular venue for patent case filings, including filings by NPEs.

Additional takeaways:  

  • Based on the first nine months of 2025, PTAB, ex parte reexamination, and district court filings currently remain on pace to exceed 2024’s numbers. 

  • The W.D.Tex. remains the second most popular venue for patent filings and NPE patent filings in the first nine months of 2025. However, it is a distant second to the E.D.Tex. Combined, the E.D.Tex. and the W.D.Tex. accounted for 40% of all patent cases filed in the first nine months of 2025 and 62.8% of all NPE cases filed during the same time period.

  • In the Unified Patent Court, the number of infringement actions filed in the third quarter of 2025 increased 42% over the first half of 2025. 

Procedural Denials in PTAB Increase Significantly: The PTAB issued a record-high 254 denials in the third quarter of 2025. This marks a 77.6% increase over the first half of the year and a 206% increase in procedural denials compared to all of 2024.

PTAB Rate of Institution Against NPEs Now Below Rate Against Operating Companies:  Since the PTAB changed its procedures for discretionary denials earlier this year, the overall institution rate has dropped. This shift has also reversed a historical trend (excluding brief periods of time here and there), as the institution rate for petitions against NPEs is now lower than the institution rate against operating companies. The institution rate is {​the number of institutions during the 12-month sliding window period} ÷ {​the total number of both institutions & denials during that same period}.

In the third quarter of 2025, the institution rate for PTAB petitions against NPEs was more than 25% lower than the institution rate against operating companies (OpCo).

Requests for Ex Parte Reexaminations: Requests for ex parte reexaminations in the third quarter of 2025 reached an all-time high (198), and based on the number of requests filed in first nine months of 2025 (425), 2025 is currently on pace to well surpass 2024’s numbers (437). The trend of increasing ex parte reexaminations mirrors the rise of PTAB discretionary denials at the PTAB.

PTAB, Ex Parte and District Court Filings Still on Pace to Exceed 2024: Filing trends for the first nine months of 2025 show mixed results. PTAB filings decreased 3.5% from Q2 to Q3, with the nine-month total at 79.9% of 2024’s numbers. Ex parte reexamination filings increased 46.0% from Q2 to Q3, and the first nine months of 2025 are at 97.3% of 2024’s volume. District court filings decreased 8.9% from Q2 to Q3, but the first nine months of 2025 are at 85.4% of 2024’s total.

Eastern District of Texas Remains No. 1: The E.D.Tex. continues to be the most popular venue for patent filings, with 28.3% of all patent cases filed in the first nine months of 2025, essentially unchanged compared to the first half of 2025 (28.2%). The E.D.Tex. is followed by the W.D.Tex. at 11.3%, the D.Del. at 11.0%, the N.D.Ill. at 8.2%, and the D.N.J. at 5.3% for the same period.

NPEs Overwhelmingly Prefer the Eastern District of Texas: The E.D.Tex. continues to dominate NPE case filings, with 45.4% of all filings in the first nine months of 2025. This is comparable to the first half of 2025, where 44.9% of NPE case filings were in the E.D.Tex. The W.D.Tex. (17.4%) and the D.Del. (8.0%) remain a distant second and third for NPE case filings for the same period.

NPEs Dominate the Top 10 Plaintiffs: In the first nine months of 2025, eight of the top 10 plaintiffs in district court were NPEs. Two of the plaintiffs (Torus, HyperQuery LLC) are Jeffrey M. Gross entities, and two are Pueblo Nuevo LLC entities (WirelessWerx IP, Linfo IP).

Post-Grant Proceedings:  In the first nine months of 2025, petitions for ex parte reexaminations accounted for 28.1% of filings in post-grant proceedings, an increase of 5.3% over the first half of 2025. Reflecting the increase in discretionary denials, petitions for inter partes review decreased 5.8% from the first half of 2025, and accounted for 67.9% of requests for post-grant proceedings.

Top 10 Patent Owners in PTAB:  In the first nine months of 2025, six out of the top 10 patent owners defending against a petition filed in the PTAB were NPEs: Telcom Ventures LLC, Advanced Integrated, Apex Beam, Dialect LLC, Advanced Coding, and CardWare.

Top 10 Defendants in District Court and Top 10 PTAB Defendants:  The most active defendants in district court and the most active petitioners in the PTAB in the first nine months of 2025 overlap, with Samsung, Apple, Amazon and Google in the top four spots for both.

Filing Trends in District Court by Entity:  NPEs filed 56.4% of the patent cases in district court in the first nine months of 2025, while operating companies filed 39.7%. This is comparable to the half-year data, where NPEs filed 56.1% of the patent cases, and operating companies filed 40.3%.

Filing Trends in High Tech by Entity Type: In the first nine months of 2025, NPEs filed 91.4% of the district court patent cases in the high tech industry space. This is nearly identical to the half-year data, where NPEs filed 91% of the district court patent cases in the high tech space.

Filing Trends in PTAB by Entity Type over Time:  In the first nine months of 2025, NPEs were patent owners on 50.7% of PTAB petitions, and operating companies 47.3%. Compared to the first half of the year, the NPE figure is comparable (50.5%), while the operating company percentage has slightly increased (from 48.6%).

Filing Trends in High Tech at the PTAB by Entity Type: In the first nine months of 2025, 69.2% of high-tech PTAB challenges were against NPEs and 30.8% were against operating companies. This represents a slight decrease in challenges against NPEs (from 70.6%) and a slight increase against operating companies (from 29.4%) compared to the first half of the year.

District Court Patent Litigation by Industry Type over Time: In the first nine months of the year, 59.8% of district court patent cases filed were in the high tech industry space, and 12.8% were in the medical industry space.

PTAB Petitions by Industry Type over Time:  In the first nine months of 2025, 72.6% of the PTAB petitions filed were in the high tech industry space, and 12.3% were filed in the medical industry space.

Infringement and Revocation Actions and Counterclaims in Unified Patent Court over Time: Notably, Unified Patent Court infringement actions are increasing, with 152 filings in the first nine months of 2025 on track to surpass 2024's total of 162. Third-quarter filings saw a 42% increase over the first half of 2025.


Definitions

Sectors

High-Tech = Technologies relating to Software, Hardware, and Networking

Medical = Technologies relating to Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Health Related Technologies

Other = Technologies relating to Mechanical, Packaged Goods, Sporting Equipment and any other area outside of high-tech and medical patents.

Entities

Non Practicing Entity (NPE) = Company which derives the majority of its total revenue from Patent Licensing activities.

Operating Company or Op. Co. = Company which derives most of its total revenue from Product Sales or Services. Could be an SME or a large company.

Other Entity = Universities / Non-Profits / Government / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

NPE (Patent Assertion Entities) = Entity whose primary activity is licensing patents and acquired most of its patents from another entity

NPE (Small Company) = Entity whose original activity was providing products and services, but now is primarily focused on monetizing its own patent portfolio.

NPE (Individual) = Entity owned or controlled by an individual inventor who is primarily focused on monetizing inventions patents by that individual inventor.

NPE Aggregator = Entity that has control or ownership over two or more entities. 

Litigation Investment Entities = Evidence of any third party with a financial interest, other than the assertors.

Venues

CACD = Central District of California

CAND = Northern District of California

DED = Delaware


Methodology

This report includes all District Court, PTAB, Reexam, and UPC cases between January 1, 2012 and Sept. 30, 2025.

The total number of reported cases can vary based on what is included. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken, duplicative, or changes in venue filings, hence the totals may vary slightly compared to other reporting entities. Statistics include litigations initiated by NPEs or Declaratory Judgments (DJs) initiated by operating companies against NPEs.

Unified strives to accurately identify NPEs through all available means, such as court filings, public documents, and product documentation.

Patent Dispute Report: 2025 Mid-Year Report

In the first six months of 2025 – as Unified had flagged last quarter – discretionary denials increased sharply at the PTAB, the result of changes by USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart to the PTAB’s rules and procedures for evaluating inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) petitions. These changes include a bifurcated process for deciding whether to institute an IPR or PGR, emphasizing director discretion, and the expansion of the considerations for discretionary denial, including the reinstatement of the Fintiv factors and several new factors, including “settled expectations,” compelling public interests, and the extent to which the petition relies upon expert testimony.

In the federal district courts, the Eastern District of Texas remains the predominant venue for patent case filings, followed by the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware. The E.D.Tex. continues to be the most popular venue for NPEs.

Additionally, requests for ex parte reexamination are currently on pace to match 2024’s level.

Key takeaways:  

  • Based on the first six months of 2025, PTAB, ex parte reexamination, and district court filings are currently on pace to slightly exceed 2024’s numbers. 

  • The W.D.Tex is increasing in popularity. Last year, it was the fourth most popular venue for patent filings and the second most popular for NPE filings; it is currently the second most popular venue for patent filings and NPE patent filings.

  • Combined, the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas accounted for 40% of all patent cases filed in the first six months of 2025 and 63.7% of all NPE cases filed during the same time period.

  • It remains to be seen how the increase in discretionary denials at the PTAB and the new bifurcated process emphasizing director discretion for determining institution on the merits will affect the number of IPR and PGR petitions filed in the rest of 2025. 

  • In the Unified Patent Court, the number of infringement actions filed in the first six months of 2025 are projected to match 2024’s total.

Procedural Denials in PTAB Increase: The PTAB has issued 45% more procedural denials in the first six months of 2025 than it did in the entire year of 2024, and is well on pace to be one of the highest years on record. In June 2025 alone, the PTAB issued 75 procedural denials, an all-time high.

Pending PTAB Petitions and Procedural Denials over Time

PTAB, Ex Parte and District Court Filings Increase: PTAB filings for the first six months of 2025 are at 53.9% of 2024’s total, while ex parte examination filings are at 52.4% of 2024’s total. District court filings are at 57.1% of 2024’s total. As of yet, we see more district court litigation, with roughly the same number of patent challenges.

US Filings over Time

Eastern District of Texas Remains No. 1: The E.D.Tex. continues to be the most popular venue for patent filings, with 28.2% of cases filed in the first six months of 2025, followed by the W.D.Tex. at 11.8%, the D.Del. at 11.2%, the N.D.Ill. at 8%, and the D.N.J. at 5.5%. It remains to be seen whether Judge Albright’s recent move to Austin will lead to more filings there.

Filings in District Court

The W.D.Tex. overall has increased in popularity in 2025. Last year, the five most popular venues were: the E.D.Tex. (28.5%), the N.D.Ill. (10.6%), the D.Del. (10.2%), the W.D.Tex. (9.6%), and the D.N.J. (6.7%).

NPEs Still Prefer the Eastern District of Texas: Almost 45% of all NPE cases filed in the first six months of 2025 were in the E.D.Tex., followed by 18.8% filed in the W.D.Tex. This is consistent with 2024, when 48.6% of all NPE cases were filed in the E.D.Tex., followed by the W.D.Tex. at 15%. 

In the first six months of 2025, NPEs filed 89.5% of the patent cases filed in the E.D.Tex. and 89.7% of the patent cases filed in the W.D.Tex. More than 63% of NPE cases were filed in either the Eastern or Western District of Texas.

NPE Filings in District Court

NPEs Dominate the Top 10 Plaintiffs: In the first six months of 2025, nine of the top 10 plaintiffs in district court were NPEs. Four of the top 10 plaintiffs (Torus Ventures, HyperQuery, SecureMatrix, and Authentixx) were Jeffrey M. Gross entities, with Torus Ventures the top plaintiff, filing 74 cases.

Top 10 District Court Plaintiffs

Post-Grant Proceedings: Petitions for inter partes review accounted for 73.7% of requests for post-grant proceedings in the first six months of 2025, while petitions for post-grant review made up 3.6% of all proceedings, and requests for ex parte reexaminations accounted for 22.8%. These current numbers are so far consistent with last year’s totals.

Filings in Post-Grant Proceedings

Top 10 Patent Owners in PTAB: In the first six months of 2025, more than half of the top 10 patent owners defending against a petition filed in the PTAB were NPEs.

Top 10 PTAB Patent Owners

Top 10 Defendants in District Court and Top 10 PTAB Defendants: There remains an overlap between the most active defendants in district court and the most active petitioners in the PTAB in the first six months of 2025, with Samsung, Amazon, and Apple in the top three spots for both.

Top 10 District Court Defendants
Top 10 PTAB Petitioners

Requests for Ex Parte Reexaminations: The number of requests for ex parte reexaminations in the first six months of 2025 is slightly more than half of the 2024 total.

Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination over Time

The top requester of ex parte reexaminations in the first six months of 2025 was Unified Patents, accounting for more than 16% of all filings. 

Filing Trends in District Court by Entity:  NPEs filed 56.1% of the patent cases in district court in the first six months of 2025, while operating companies filed 40.3%.

Entity Breakdown in District Court over Time

Filing Trends in High Tech by Entity Type: In the first six months of 2025, NPEs filed 91% of the district court patent cases in the high tech space.

NPE Activity in High Tech Litigation

Filing Trends in PTAB by Entity Type over Time: NPEs were patent owners on 50.5% of the PTAB petitions in the first six months of 2025, while operating companies were patent owners on 48.6%.

Entity Breakdown at PTAB over Time

Filing Trends in High Tech at the PTAB by Entity Type: Some 70.6% of the PTAB challenges in the high-tech industries for the first six months of 2025 were filed against NPEs.

NPE and OpCo Activity in High Tech at the PTAB

District Court Patent Litigation by Industry Type over Time: For the first six months of 2025, 59.3% of the patent cases filed in district court involved the high-tech industry, while 13.1% were related to the medical industry.

Litigation Breakdown by Industry over Time

PTAB Petitions by Industry Type over Time:  In the first six months of 2025, 71.2% of the PTAB petitions filed in the first six months were in the high-tech industry space, while 14.5% were related to the medical industry.

PTAB Breakdown by Industry over Time

Infringement and Revocation Actions and Counterclaims in Unified Patent Court over Time: The 79 infringement actions filed in the Unified Patent Court in the first six months of 2025 are about half of number of the infringement actions filed in 2024, or 160.

UPC Filings over Time

Definitions:

Sectors

High-Tech = Technologies relating to Software, Hardware, and Networking

Medical = Technologies relating to Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Health Related Technologies

Other = Technologies relating to Mechanical, Packaged Goods, Sporting Equipment and any other area outside of high-tech and medical patents.

Entities

Non Practicing Entity (NPE) = Company which derives the majority of its total revenue from Patent Licensing activities.

Operating Company or Op. Co. = Company which derives most of its total revenue from Product Sales or Services. Could be an SME or a large company.

Other Entity = Universities / Non-Profits / Government / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

NPE (Patent Assertion Entities) = Entity whose primary activity is licensing patents and acquired most of its patents from another entity

NPE (Small Company) = Entity whose original activity was providing products and services, but now is primarily focused on monetizing its own patent portfolio.

NPE (Individual) = Entity owned or controlled by an individual inventor who is primarily focused on monetizing inventions patents by that individual inventor.

NPE Aggregator = Entity that has control or ownership over two or more entities. 

Litigation Investment Entities = Evidence of any third party with a financial interest, other than the assertors.

Venues

CACD = Central District of California

CAND = Northern District of California

DED = Delaware

NJD = New Jersey

NDIL = Northern District of Illinois

SDNY = Southern District of New York

TXED = Eastern District of Texas

TXWD = Western District of Texas

UPC = Unified Patent Court


Methodology:

This report includes all District Court and PTAB litigations between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2024.

Total number of reported cases can vary based on what is included. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken, duplicative, or changes in venue filings, hence the totals may vary slightly compared to other reporting entities. Statistics include litigations initiated by NPEs or Declaratory Judgments (DJs) initiated by operating companies against NPEs.

Unified strives to accurately identify NPEs through all available means, such as court filings, public documents, and product documentation.

Only lawyers benefit: Less than 4% of NPE gains reach inventors

The Perryman Group, in a recent economic study commissioned by Unified Edge, has found that less than 4% of the gains from patents sold to NPEs is realized by the original assignee. The findings reveal that selling a patent to an NPE is a highly inefficient mechanism for an original inventor to monetize its patents. The study suggests that other options, such as patent pools, are more likely to ensure that innovators reap the rewards for their contributions to new tech.

Download the economic study by click on the button below:

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

World’s 1st Wi-Fi Economic Report finds RAND royalty rate to be between $0.04 and $0.69

Unified Patents and The Brattle Group, a renowned group of economists and damages experts, announced its economic report on the reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) licensing value of patents essential to the Wi-Fi standard (“Standard Essential Patents” or “SEPs”). The full report is available exclusively to members of Unified Patents’ Wi-Fi Zone, which includes access to Unified’s ML-based objective patent landscaping analytics (“OPAL”) and indexed IEEE standardization technical submissions repository (“OPEN”).

Brattle calculated the range of reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) royalty rates for the universe of SEPs essential to implement the full capabilities of Wi-Fi, including up to Wi-Fi 6/6E, to be between $0.04 and $0.69. For the first time an economist calculated rates based on device capability requirements using downlink speed, latency, and a new power-saving capability implemented in Wi-Fi 6 called target wake time (“TWT”). Brattle concluded that Wi-Fi devices that utilize lesser capabilities should pay lower royalties, if any, because almost all SEPs necessary for those have expired.

Brattle calculated royalty rates on Wi-Fi using two independent observations. First, using court-established global RAND rates for Wi-Fi 4 (such as the 2013 Innovatio case) as a benchmark, taking into account incremental technological improvements in Wi-Fi 6/6E, declining production costs, current and evolving use case demands, and balanced bargaining theory, they concluded rates should be steadily declining. Second, a negotiated Wi-Fi 6/6E license between a licensor and a major hardware manufacturer. Both methods accounted for objective patent quality using court accepted measures such as adjusted patent forward citations. Unified’s OPAL analytics, which includes the world’s largest training set of manually evaluated Wi-Fi patents, was used to identify the individual SEPs in the landscape. In addition, Brattle calculated the stand-alone value of TWT.

For its report, Brattle interviewed industry participants and did independent research. It found Wi-Fi 4’s capabilities are sufficient for data-intensive use cases like video, gaming, and most virtual reality (“VR”). Brattle noted producer prices and consumer prices have been flat or falling for over a decade while computing and communications performance has improved by a factor of over 50 times.

The report is designed to be used for a top-down analysis of Wi-Fi RAND rates. Together with Unified’s OPAL analytics, the report can be used to calculate the RAND rate of any patent portfolio for Wi-Fi devices based on their capability requirements as well as for individual Wi-Fi capabilities. The report and OPAL provide Wi-Fi implementers a better understanding of the value of an asserted portfolio and enables them to make RAND counter offers in good faith. OPAL also enables the identification of individual patents in an asserted portfolio and provides a suite of quality metrics such as ML-based semantic similarity scoring and geographic and reputational value, forward citation, claim breadth, and statistical validity indexes.

The full report is available exclusively through Unified Patents. In addition to economic reports, Unified provides Objective Patent Landscapes (OPAL) for many standards, including Wi-Fi 6, with the world’s largest human evaluated training set, 3GPP LTE and 5G, HEVC, AVC, and others. Unified’s standard submission database, OPEN, allows users to access all contributions to major standards such as 3GPP, MPEG, IEEE, and IETF.

Download Unified Consulting’s Wi-Fi Economic Report slides presented at this year’s Corporate IP Strategy Conference in November.

DOWNLOAD HERE