NEWS & VIEWS
Unified News, Views, & Blogs
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court confirmed the invalidity of all challenged claims of CN101491099, owned by Interdigital. The CN’099 patent was previously deemed essential in the SISVEL’s VP9 and AV1 pools.
Unified was represented by Tao Chen, Yu Yan, and Peter Zhang of the Beijing Wei Chixue Law Firm, and the case was managed by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Roshan Mansinghani.
On March 31, 2023, the PTAB confirmed the examiner’s rejection of all claims in the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,515,635, owned by IP Bridge. The patent is claimed to be essential as part of the Access Advance patent pool, as well as SISVEL’s VP9 and AV1 patent pools. This was an appellate decision by the PTAB agreeing that all claims are unpatentable.
Unified was represented by Theodoros Konstantakopoulos of Desmarais LLP and in-house counsel, Roshan Mansinghani and Jessica L.A. Marks, in this proceeding. To view any documents for the reexamination proceedings, visit https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90014645.
Visit Unified’s Portal for more information about its Video Codec landscape (OPAL) and standard submission repository (OPEN).
On November 16, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that Arsus's disclaimer of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 10,259,494 should be treated as a request for adverse judgment in a summary affirmance under Rule 36, effectively ending the longstanding assertion of those claims. In January 2021, the Board entered adverse judgment against Arsus in IPR2020-00948, Unified Patents, LLC v. Arsus, LLC, in response to Arsus disclaiming all challenged claims. Arsus's counsel filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment arguing that the Board was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction after Arsus's disclaimer. The Board issued an order denying Arsus's motion to vacate and affirming termination of the proceeding.
The ‘494 patent is generally directed towards a rollover prevention apparatus for an automobile. The ‘494 patent has previously been asserted against Tesla Motors. Prior patents in this family were asserted in a case against a BMW dealership in Utah (dismissed on non-infringement).
View Arsus’s district court litigation. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified is represented by Unified’s in-house counsel, David Seastrunk and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding.
On October 13, 2021, the Federal Circuit (2-1 majority) ruled in favor of Unified Patents, rejecting Mobility Workx's arguments that the PTAB has a financial interest in instituting IPRs. All of Mobility Workx's constitutional arguments were found to be "without merit."
In line with other Arthrex cases, the PTAB's finding the patent is unpatentable has been remanded back to the Acting Director for the limited purpose of determining whether review is warranted. The arguments, which appear copied verbatim from another appeal, were not raised below.
The complete opinion can be found below:
20-1441-OPINION-Mobility Workx by Jennifer M Gallagher on Scribd
