IPVal entity Rosen Technologies thermostat patent held invalid

On February 28, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. Rosen Technologies LLC holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,156,318 unpatentable. Owned and asserted by Rosen Technologies LLC, an NPE and entity of IP Valuation Partners, the ‘318 patent is directed to a programmable thermostat having virtual buttons that control space conditioning equipment. It had been asserted against Resideo Technologies and Lennox International, and most recently, Ecobee.

View district court litigations by Rosen Technologies. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified was represented by Duane Morris and by in-house counsel, T.J. Murphy and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding.

Virtual Creative Artists social networking patent invalidated

On February 9, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. Virtual Creative Artists, LLC holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 10,339,576 unpatentable. The '576 patent is directed towards a process for creating and publishing media content on an electronic exchange. It had been asserted against Meta, Bumble, Pinterest, Snap, TikTok, and Tumblr.

View district court litigations by Virtual Creative Artists. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified was represented by Eric Buresh and Nick Apel of Erise IP, and by in-house counsel, David Seastrunk and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding.

IV's PTAB rehearing request denied

On January 16, 2024, Intellectual Ventures’s request for rehearing of IPR2022-00429 was denied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The IPR was filed against U.S. Patent 9,291,475 on February 10, 2022, was instituted on August 11, 2022, and received a final written decision holding all claims invalid on February 9, 2023. The ’475 patent relates to alerting a recipient regarding a violation of a vehicle, such as a speeding violation, and had been asserted in district court against Toyota, GM, and Honda.

View district court litigations by Intellectual Ventures. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified was represented by in-house counsel, Alyssa Holtslander, Roshan Mansinghani, and Michelle Aspen.

Dynamic IP Deals entity AK Meeting IP groupware patent held invalid

On January 5, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. v. AK Meeting IP LLC, holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 10,963,124 unpatentable. Owned and asserted by AK Meeting IP, an NPE and Dynamic IP Deals entity, the ‘124 patent relates to computer-supported cooperative work software, also known as groupware, and has been asserted in seven district court actions, including current actions against Cisco Systems, Fuze, and Lifesize.

View district court litigations by AK Meeting IP. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified was represented by in-house counsel, Michelle Aspen and Jordan Rossen.

MemoryWeb decision reaffirms Unified as sole RPI

On Friday, December 8, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued another final written decision holding that Unified Patents was the sole real party-in-interest (RPI). Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00222, Exhibit 2121 (public version, filed December 22, 2023). The decision is consistent with past decisions over the last decade holding that Unified acts independently, without influence from its members in its challenges against non-practicing entities.

Reversing a now-vacated ruling in an earlier case, the Board observed that Unified’s business was “designed to comply with RPI rules and to maintain its independence from its membership” and that its business model is “focused on deterrence rather than settlement of cases involving NPEs.” Ex. 2121, 45. The Board confirmed that Unified’s arms’-length relationship with its members—who do not communicate or coordinate about its filings or give any input to Unified regarding its decision to file petitions—supported that “no relationship between Petitioner and Unified that would give rise to the implication that Petitioner is a RPI in the Unified proceeding.” Id., 51. Further, they held that a member pays undesignated subscription fees did not show that the member directly funded Unified’s filing activities. Id., 52.

This decision, which considered a wealth of evidence, including membership agreements, press releases, reports, and written and deposition testimony, confirms that unlike RPX in AIT, Unified acts independently of its members to serve its ongoing mission of deterring assertions of broad, invalid patents.

Click HERE to read the decision.