ITC

ITC Funding Disclosure Proposal Could Reshape Patent Litigation Strategy

The US International Trade Commission’s proposed rule requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding in Section 337 investigations is intensifying scrutiny of who finances patent disputes and how those relationships influence enforcement strategy. The proposal would require complainants to disclose funders, ownership interests, and entities with control over litigation or settlement decisions, with the ITC arguing the changes would improve transparency, identify conflicts of interest, and clarify who truly stands behind patent assertions.

Many practitioners support the proposal, arguing that disclosure could expose hidden ownership structures, foreign involvement, and repeat litigation tactics often associated with non-practicing entities (NPEs). Jonathan Stroud, COO & CLO of Unified Patents, emphasized that transparency aligns with the ITC’s statutory purpose, stating: “Built into the statute is already this sense of, hey, we need to know who’s filing this and who we’re protecting.” Stroud also argued that opaque structures can complicate settlements and enable repeated litigation through subsidiaries and portfolio transfers.

Read the full article posted from MLex here: https://www.mlex.com/mlex/intellectual-property/articles/2477467/proposed-itc-transparency-rule-puts-litigation-funders-under-new-scrutiny

Unified Files Amicus in Roku Fed.Cir. appeal from the ITC, Supporting Stronger Domestic Industry Requirement

On March 18, 2024, Unified filed an amicus brief in support of Roku's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Roku v. ITC on the issue of relaxed enforcement of the economic domestic industry requirement in ITC cases. In the brief, Unified explores the trends of NPE activity at the ITC, where exclusion orders can and have been used to extract larger settlements than would be available in district courts due to this relaxed enforcement of domestic industry. Unified accordingly requests the Court clarify how the domestic industry requirement is analyzed, and argues it should be done in a manner consistent with the ITC's purpose of protecting unfair trade, and consistent with statutory language.

Unified Patents is represented by in-house counsel, David Seastrunk, Michelle Aspen, and Jonathan Stroud. Download the amicus brief below.

Download the amicus brief
,

Proven Networks proven to be PAE in public interest statements

,

On January 27, 2022, Unified Patents filed a public interest statement in the ITC on the Proven Networks v. NetApp (inter alia) investigation. Unified focused on Proven Networks' status as a litigation funded, investment-driven NPE run and controlled by the Russ, August, and Kabat firm. Read the public statement below and also find comments from a member of Congress, NetApp, and others.

Unified’s statement was written by Christine Lehman of Reichman Jorgensen LLP and by in-house counsel, Jonathan Stroud and Jung Hahm.

Webinar Materials - Fintiv Denials in Light of ITC Cases

Speakers:

Michelle Aspen — Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents

Sam Korte — Assistant General Counsel, Garmin

Jonathan Strang — Partner, Latham & Watkins

For this webinar, our panel addressed Fintiv denials in light of PTAB proceedings. The panelists presented several case studies and discussed the current policy applied by the PTAB. A few strategies on how to reduce the risk of denial were also included in the presentation.

Many thanks to Michelle, Sam, and Jon for a great discussion!

To listen to the recorded webinar, click here: https://vimeo.com/592877758

The slide presentation from this webinar can be seen below.

Our next webinar is scheduled for Thursday, September 30th. Stay tuned for our topic announcement! Visit our website for more information.