Non-Compliance with §112(b) is More Than a Gamble for Claiming Computer-Implemented Inventions

By: Alexander Cullen — Legal Intern, Unified Patents

For those seeking to file applications for computer-implemented inventions, it pays to be aware of some lesser known requirements for such inventions before casting the die. In July of 2000, the United States Patent Office (USPTO) issued a patent for an electronic slot machine designed to appeal to players by allowing the conditions for payout to be selected by the players. Patent 6,093,102 (`102 Patent), assigned to Aristocrat Technologies Inc., comprised of the conventional slot machine set up plus a display screen whereby players can select their own winning combinations. The intended result is a perception of increased winning opportunities incentivizing slot players into preferring to play the machine. However, after filing suit for patent infringement against International Game Technology of `102 Patent in 2006, Aristocrat would find themselves in the position of those who use their alleged invention; the odds not being in their favor.

On summary judgment the United States District Court for the District of Nevada found the `102 patent invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty v. Int'l Game Tech., No. 2:05-CV-00820-BES (LRL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98916 (D. Nev. Apr. 20, 2007). The house would later go bust as the United States Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the `102 Patent’s invalidity. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Had the specification’s disclosure contained an algorithm, it may have been sufficient, and appeal would have been a gamble Aristocrat never had to make.   

In computer-implemented inventions, mean-plus-function claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), are effective for claiming a function without limiting it to a particular piece of hardware. Functional claims recite performing a function without reciting structure, materials or acts that perform the function. Claiming a function itself expands the scope of the claim for the invention and prevents potential infringers from navigating around claim limitations by using alternate components. But 112(f) also requires that for means-plus-function limitations, the patent specification disclose corresponding structures to perform all the claimed functions or the claim be found indefinite. To the rue of Aristocrat, for computer-implemented functions the structure disclosed in the specification must be an algorithm.

On appeal, Aristocrat argued that disclosure of a programmable microprocessor ought to have been sufficient to satisfy definiteness related to a “game controls means” claim. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d at 1336. The control means in the slot machine functioned to present symbols on the display, operate win conditions, and service payouts. Presented in support were the mathematical equations for performing the functions, arrangements describing the operation of the game, and written descriptions. Id. at 1334. In combination, Aristocrat argued that to one of reasonable skill in the art these implicitly disclosed sufficient corresponding structure to satisfy definiteness. Id. at 1336. Aristocrat further claimed a particular algorithm is not necessary to disclose sufficient structure for a mean-plus-function limitation. Id. at 1335.

The Federal Circuit rejected Aristocrat’s arguments. Id. at 1338. It upheld the district court’s finding of indefiniteness because rather than disclose the structure of an algorithm capable of performing the functions, the specification only repeated aspects of the game like betting odds. Id. at 1332. The court agreed with Aristocrat that the disclosures could enable one skilled in the art to devise an algorithm sufficient to support the function claim but, the question of definiteness in this case was whether an algorithm had been disclosed at all. Id. at 1337. The court then subsequently rejected the assertion an algorithm was unnecessary for disclosing structure in computer-implemented inventions. Id. at 1338.

This case provides insight and warning about satisfying definiteness in computer-implemented means-plus-function claims. As per Aristocrat’s own example, for inventors seeking to patent computer-implemented-inventions, understanding why 112(b) specifically requires an algorithm for corresponding structure can be vital. The answer: preventing “pure functional claiming” and promoting patent quality.

As to why, the USPTO’s 2019 examination guidance action on patent examinations of computer-implemented inventions with functional claims elaborates. First, pure functional claims raise an issue of indefiniteness because they claim an abstraction without description of how the result is achieved. Second, without disclosure of the structure performing the claimed function, the scope of the claim is implicitly ANY structure capable of performing the function and the function itself. The result of both is indefiniteness because there is a function without adequate limitation to structure. Thus, requiring an algorithm prohibits overly broad and indefinite claim scoping. 

It should be noted, definiteness for computer-implemented functional claims does not necessarily require disclosing a highly descriptive algorithm, only one sufficient in structure to enable the function. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d at 1338. Specifications may disclose the algorithm in terms of mathematics, language, flow charts, or any means conveying understanding to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 1337. Aristocrat’s slot machine only disclosed a microprocessor as structure for its game control function, by consequence any algorithm that achieved the results of the game control by microprocessor would be infringing. Said otherwise, it was a purely functional claim citing a goal rather than one reciting with specificity how said goal is achieved.

Necessarily, compliance with section 112(b) definiteness requirement should be of concern for those seeking to patent computer-implemented inventions with functional claims. Disclosure of algorithms providing sufficient structure to accomplish the claimed function is essential to avoid a finding of indefiniteness. 

Denials of Transfer Motions in Western District of Texas and Mandamus Reversals by Federal Circuit

By: Kassidy Schmitz — Legal Intern, Unified Patents

It is no secret that the district court in the Western District of Texas (WDTX) in Waco, TX, before Judge Alan D Albright, is currently the most popular court for patent litigation. However, it is not always the most convenient court. Motions to transfer are filed frequently and are almost as frequently denied by Judge Albright. Defendants are consistently petitioning the Federal Circuit and, surprisingly, receiving support.

Writs of mandamus are exceedingly rare and reserved for “extraordinary causes.”[1] They can be granted only if there is a clear showing that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient, taking into consideration relevant public and private forum non conveniens factors,[2] and that there was a clear abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion.[3] Nevertheless, since July of 2020, the Federal Circuit has granted nine of the twenty petitions for writs of mandamus filed on Judge Albright’s denials.

In one of the earliest granted petitions, In re Adobe,[4] Judge Albright ruled against transfer despite the evidence that Northern California more convenient because both Adobe and the inventor were in Northern California, and Adobe had multiple witnesses were in Northern California. The Federal Circuit determined the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the convenience and willing witness factors, erroneously basing the denial solely on his “perceived ability to more quickly schedule a trial.”[5] The Court pointed out that this factor was explicitly at issue in Genentech, and it was determined that if several factors weigh in favor of transfer, then “the speed of the of the transferee district court should not alone outweigh” the other factors.[6]

The speed of the district court as a determining factor was again called into question three months later in both In re Nitro Fluids, L.L.C.[7] and In re Apple.[8] In In re Nitro Fluids, L.L.C., Judge Albright reasoned that the WDTX would be able to hear the case faster than the SDTX because the WDTX has a patent-specific Order Governing Proceedings.[9] The Federal Circuit found this reasoning was flawed as the focus needed to be on whether there was “an appreciable difference in docket congestion between the two forums.”[10] The potential difference between the two courts’ abilities to schedule a trial would not be related to the potential appreciable difference. The Federal Circuit also found that district court erroneously relied on the assumption that it could move faster and had made more progress on the current case than the SDTX had on the co-pending case to deny the first-to-file claim. The basis of first-to-file is to alleviate the issue of two courts resolving overlapping issues, not which can make it to the finish line first.[11] If the balance of transfer factors favors keeping the case in the second-filed court, which is rare, then the case should stay; otherwise, the case should be transferred to the first-filed court.

In In re Apple, the speed of the court was only one of a myriad of factors the Federal Circuit determined the district court weighed incorrectly. In this case, the district court acknowledged, and the Federal Circuit agreed, that the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) historically had a shorter time to trial for patent cases than WDTX.[12] The district court’s argument that the NDCA had a more congested docket did not outweigh the fact that both courts can reach a decision at about the same rate.[13] Other factors the Federal Circuit discussed were relative ease of access to sources of proof, cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and local interest. For the sources of proof factor, the district court found that it weighed slightly in favor of a transfer by looking at the location of witnesses and location of documents. The Federal Circuit noted that the district court erred in ignoring Apple’s sources of proof in NDCA and overemphasized the sources of proof in or nearer to WDTX. The place where the defendant’s documents are kept, especially in patent infringement cases as the bulk of relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer, weighs in favor of transfer to that location. For the willing witness factor, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court applied the Fifth Circuit 100-Mile Rule too rigidly as the witnesses would need to leave home for an extended period of time regardless of where they traveled to. In addition, the most relevant party witnesses for all the parties would be in NDCA. The combination of these factors weighed in favor of transfer. The Federal Circuit found that the district court misapplied the law for the local interest factor by incorrectly focusing on the purported tax benefits of Apple’s presence in WDTX. The factor is more importantly focused on the “significant connection between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit,”[14] not just the parties’ significant connections to each forum. The accused products were designed, developed, and tested in NDCA, and Uniloc has a presence in NDCA and not WDTX, thus the factor weighs in favor of transfer.

The speed of the court, or rather lack thereof, was the reason the petitions were filed in In re SK Hynix[15] and In re TracFone Wireless, Inc.[16] In both cases, the petitioners waited almost eight months for the district court to rule on a motion to transfer before filing their petitions. In the meantime, the district court continued to conduct proceedings, such as Markman hearings and issuing claim construction orders. The Federal Circuit called the district court’s handling of the motions an “egregious delay and blatant disregard for precedent.”[17] The Court reiterated their position in Apple that while district courts have discretion as to how they handle their dockets, a transfer motion should “unquestionably take top priority.”[18]

Three days after the Federal Circuit ordered the district court to make a ruling on TracFone’s transfer motion, the district court denied the motion based almost entirely on the willing witness factor; TracFone filed a second petition.[19] Similar to Adobe, there were no witnesses identified by either party that resided within or even close to Waco, Texas. As in Apple, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court misapplied the 100-Mile Rule by saying that doubling the distance traveled by non-party witnesses in Arizona and Minnesota would double the inconvenience. While that was originally how the rule was applied,[20] the court in Genentech held that rule should not be rigidly applied where witnesses will be required to travel a significant distance regardless of where they testify.[21] The Federal Circuit held that the district court “clearly abused its discretion” in reaching the conclusion that the willing witness factor weighed against transfer.

The willing witness factor was again at issue in the most recent cases of In re Samsung Electronics[22] and In re Uber.[23]  In both cases, as in TracFone, there were no witnesses located in WDTX and over a dozen located in NDCA. In Samsung, the Federal Circuit chastised the district court for again not giving any weight to the witnesses in NDCA and ignoring the precedent the Federal Circuit set in Apple that those witnesses need to be considered. In a flip of the script from the district court’s typical heavy weight given to non-party witnesses,[24] the Federal Circuit held that the district court did not give enough weight to non-party witnesses, who were also located in NDCA. Similar to Apple, the events that lead to the infringement suit mainly took place in NDCA and not at all in WDTX. The facts and analysis by the district court in Uber were almost identical to those of Samsung.[25] As such, the Federal Circuit again reversed the district court and found that the transfer motion should be granted.

District courts have wide discretion in balancing the factors when deciding to transfer a case. In these eight cases,[26] the Federal Circuit did not mince words; there was clear abuse in each case. When a court continuously rules against transfer and abuses its discretion, especially in the Western District of Texas with its heavy patent docket, it is cause for concern. By forcing parties to litigate in the Western District, it is not only circumventing the venue statutes, but also tipping the scales and potentially affecting the outcome of patent infringement cases. With the rise of arguably abusive litigation of lower-quality patents, having one district court with one sitting judge hear a large number of the cases is dangerous. While it appears the Western District has heeded the Federal Circuit’s warnings on weighing factors in deciding Correct Transmission LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc.[27] and Infogation Corp. v. Google LLC[28] and addressed the speed and congestion issue with the Standing Order issued in March, time will tell if nine granted writs of mandamus were enough to convince the Western District of Texas to stay the course.

---

[1] Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947).

[2] See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

[3] See In re Genentech Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

[4] In re Adobe, 823 F. App’x 929 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

[5] Id. at 932.

[6] Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1348.

[7] In re Nitro Fluids, L.L.C., 978 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

[8] In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

[9] Nitro Fluids, 978 F.3d at 1313.

[10] Id. at 1314 (quoting In re Adobe Inc., 823 F. App’x 929, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

[11] See id.

[12] In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d at 1347.

[13] Id.

[14] In re Acer, 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

[15] In re SK Hynix, 835 Fed. App’x. 600 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

[16] In re Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 848 Fed. App’x. 899 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

[17] In re SK Hynix, 835 Fed. App’x at 602.

[18] In re Apple, 979 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

[19] In re TracFone, No 2021-136 (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2021).

[20] In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004).

[21] In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

[22] In re Samsung Electronics Co., Nos. 2021-139, -140 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2021).

[23] In re Uber, No. 2021-150 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2021).

[24] TracFone, No 2021-136; In re Apple, 979 F.3d 1332, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

[25] See In re Uber, at 2-3.

[26] In re Intel was not discussed as it pertained mainly to the closure of the Austin court due to the COVID 19 pandemic.

[27] Correct Transmission L.L.C. v. ADTRAN, Inc., 6:20-CV-00669 (Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Transfer)

[28] Infogation Corp. v. Google L.L.C, 6:20-CV-00366 (Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Transfer)

Is Access Advance Really Checking Essentiality? -- An HEVC Case Study

In most standards-setting organizations, including the ones involved with High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) (H.265), participants designate their intellectual property as relevant or essential to practice a portion of the standard without scrutiny.  This has led to widespread inflation of unmerited licensing demands even from well-respected companies.  

This has only been exacerbated by the current patent pool ecosystem, whereby multiple pools purport to each license a single standard. These pools claim to offer thousands or tens of thousands of allegedly-essential patents, both without providing evidence that the patents are, in fact, essential, and generally without evidence of what percentage of the patent landscape the pool actually has power to license. But even a cursory review of many of the patents can lead to a quick conclusion that it should not be designated essential, as the following analysis of U.S. Patent 10,250,913 (part of the Access Advance patent pool) demonstrates. As such, it is important to perform truly objective analyses of standard-essential patents.

SUMMARY

While designated as essential, U.S. Patent 10,250,913 (the “‘913 Patent”) claims a very specific way of dividing an image into blocks for encoding and decoding that is not required by the HEVC standard.  During the prediction and transform encoding steps, the ’913 Patent claims dividing a picture using a nested organizational structure that divides the picture into four using a technique called quadtrees.  The quadtrees are defined, in part, by the “maximum size” of the units in each quadtree.  Beyond that, the claims require that certain quadtree regions are specified by determining if particular quadtree sub-regions exceed a maximum size.  However, the H.265 standard, while specifying that quadtrees are used, does not describe how the quadtrees are specified, much less state any relationship between quadtree regions and certain quadtree sub-regions, as required by claims 1 and 13 of the ’913 Patent.  Thus, the ‘913 Patent claims a very narrow way of using quadtrees that is not even mentioned in the HEVC standard, much less required.  Accordingly, the patent is not necessary nor essential to practice the standard.

BACKGROUND

Encoding video generally involves four distinct steps:

• Partitioning each picture into multiple units called “coding units”

• Predicting each unit using inter or intra prediction, and subtracting the prediction from each unit to find a residual

• Transforming and quantizing the residual (the difference between the original picture unit and the prediction)

• Entropy encoding the residual and other information (e.g., transform output, prediction information, mode information and headers) in preparation for transmission to the decoder. 

Once the encoded bitstream reaches the decoder, the decoder performs the same process in reverse. 

To specify the coding units (or “blocks” in the ’913 Patent), quadtrees are used, as shown below:

U.S. PATENT 10,250,913

The ’913 Patent focuses on the prediction and transform steps, and the patent notes that improvements in coding efficiency can be achieved when the coding unit sizes for prediction differ from the coding unit sizes used for residual transform processing.

For example, the ’913 Patent discloses that prediction and residual blocks may have different sizes:

For transform coding, the blocks (or the corresponding blocks of sample arrays), for which a particular set of prediction parameters has been used, can be further split before applying the transform. The transform blocks can be equal to or smaller than the blocks that are used for prediction. It is also possible that a transform block includes more than one of the blocks that are used for prediction. Different transform blocks can have different sizes and the transform blocks can represent quadratic or rectangular blocks.

’913 Patent at 47:61-65.

To specify the prediction and transform coding unit sizes, the ’913 Patent describes two nested quadtrees that are defined, in part, by the “maximum size” of the coding units in each quadtree. The ’913 Patent describes the two nested quadtrees:

Thus, in accordance with the example presented above with respect to FIGS. 3a to 6a, sub-divider 28 defined a primary sub-division for prediction purposes and a subordinate sub-division of the blocks of different sizes of the primary sub-division for residual coding purposes. The data stream inserter 18 coded the primary sub-division by signaling for each treeblock in a zigzag scan order, a bit sequence built in accordance with FIG. 6a along with coding the maximum primary block size and the maximum hierarchy level of the primary sub-division. For each thus defined prediction block, associated prediction parameters have been included into the data stream. Additionally, a coding of similar information, i.e., maximum size, maximum hierarchy level and bit sequence in accordance with FIG. 6a , took place for each prediction block the size of which was equal to or smaller than the maximum size for the residual sub-division and for each residual tree root block into which prediction blocks have been pre-divided the size of which exceeded the maximum size defined for residual blocks. For each thus defined residual block, residual data is inserted into the data stream.

’913 Patent at 21:44-64.

The concept of nested quadtrees, and the logic that is used to divide the nested quadtrees, is claimed in claims 1 and 13 of the ‘913 Patent shown below, with the key contextual elements in bold and the key claim limitations discussed in this analysis bolded and underlined:  

1. A decoder comprising:

an extractor configured to extract, from a data stream representing encoded video information, information related to first and second maximum region sizes, first and second subdivision information, and a maximum hierarchy level wherein the first maximum region size and the first subdivision information are associated with prediction coding and the second maximum region size and the second subdivision information are associated with transform coding;

a divider configured to:

divide an array of information samples representing a spatially sampled portion of the video information into a first set of root regions based on the first maximum region size,

sub-divide at least some of the first set of root regions into a first set of sub-regions using recursive multi-tree partitioning based on the first subdivision information,

determine whether a size of at least one of the first set of sub-regions exceeds the second maximum region size;

responsive to a determination that the size of at least one of the first set of sub-regions does exceed the second maximum region size, divide at least one of the first set of sub-regions into a second set of root regions of the second maximum region size, and

determine, for each of the second set of root regions of the second maximum region size, whether the respective root region of the second set of root regions is to be sub-divided;

responsive to a determination that the respective root region of the second set of root regions is to be sub-divided, sub-divide the respective root region of the second set of root regions into a second set of sub-regions using recursive multi-tree partitioning based on the second subdivision information and the maximum hierarchy level; and

a reconstructor configured to reconstruct the array of information samples using prediction coding in accordance with the first set of sub-regions and transform coding in accordance with the second set of sub-regions.

Importantly, the bolded/underlined language was added by amendment to secure allowance over prior art, and it is this requirement that is not found in the HEVC standard, as explained below.

FILE HISTORY OF THE ’913 PATENT

During prosecution, the application leading to the ’913 Patent was rejected over prior art that disclosed using a maximum size of blocks for prediction coding and a second maximum size of blocks for transform coding. See Final Rejection Dated October 3, 2017.  This art was consistent with what is described in the HEVC standards documentation.

The applicant responded by amending the claims to add a new limitation for determining whether a size of at least one of the first set of sub-regions exceeds the second maximum region size, and added language to make the “dividing the at least one of the first set of sub-regions into a second set of root regions of the second maximum region size” step responsive to the newly added determination. Office Action Response Dated April 2, 2018.

The applicant further argued that the prior art “fails to teach or discuss a specific operation in which a size of a prediction sub-block in prediction coding is checked to determine whether that size exceeds a second maximum size (e.g., as indicated by the alleged transform size flag) associated with a transform block in transform coding, let alone further dividing the prediction sub-block to the second maximum size based on such size determination.” Id. (emphasis added). 

In other words, the applicant asserted that a “operation . . . in prediction coding” must be used to determine whether the size of a prediction sub-block exceeds a transform quadtree maximum size, and then divide the prediction sub-blocks during the prediction step to fit the maximum size of the transform quadtree. The applicant effectively moved a part of the partitioning of the transform quadtree from the transform step to the prediction step.

THE ’913 PATENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE HEVC STANDARD

The following sections of the November 2019 version of ITU-T H.265 have been identified by Access Advance as implicating claims 1 and 13 of the ’913 Patent:

• 6.3.2

• 7.3.2.2.1, 7.3.8.2, 7.3.8.4, 7.3.8.5, 7.3.8.8, 7.4.3.2.1, 7.4.9.4, 7.4.9.8

• 8.5.3.1, 8.6.7

A summary of each of these sections from H.265 is provided below, but none of these sections describe in any way or refer to the requirements of claims 1 and 13 of the ’913 Patent that were added during prosecution and require determining whether the size of a prediction sub-region exceeds the maximum size of transform region, and do not describe any logic corresponding to dividing the prediction sub-regions to align with the maximum transform region size at all, much less in a manner responsive to that determination.

Section 6.3.2 is titled “Block and quadtree structures,” and gives an overview of the Coding Tree Blocks (CTBs) used during coding, and indicates that two quadtrees are used, one for the prediction tree and one for the transform tree. However, this section does not describe how the quadtrees are specified, nor does it suggest that transform quadtree regions are specified by determining that a prediction quadtree sub-region exceeds the maximum size of the transform quadtree, as required by claims 1 and 13 of the ’913 Patent.

Sections 7 of the H.265 standard is titled “Syntax and Semantics” and all of Sections 7.3.2.2.1, 7.3.8.2, 7.3.8.4, 7.3.8.5, 7.3.8.8, 7.4.3.2.1, 7.4.9.4, and 7.4.9.8 simply describe the syntax and variable names that are used in H.265. These sections do not describe any logic that would correspond to the requirements of claims 1 and 13 as described above.

Section 8.5.3.1 describes the inputs and outputs for decoding the prediction units in inter prediction mode. For example, it lists the input variables that specify the size, width, height, and index of the current luma prediction blocks, and describes the ordered steps taken to decode prediction units in inter prediction mode. It does not describe the determining steps discussed above.

Section 8.6.7 is titled “Picture construction process prior to in-loop filter process,” and describes the input variables for picture construction, including the variables that describe the predicted and residual samples of the current block. Once again, it does not describe the determining steps discussed above.

Thus, the H.265 sections identified by Access Advance, while generally relevant to describing quadtrees for prediction and transform coding, do not describe or require the logic in claims 1 and 13 of the ’913 Patent.

CONCLUSION

Often, it is easy for practitioners in this field to see whether a patent is essential to a technical standard; that should certainly be the case from companies that participate in the standard-setting process.  Yet most pools lack any analysis whatsoever.  The ’913 Patent is emblematic of a systemic issue in licensing of allegedly standard essential patents within video codec technology and beyond.

The trials and tribulations of Chinese patent invalidation proceedings

Unified’s senior patent counsel, Jessica Marks, explains Chinese oppositions and some of the unexpected issues that can crop up.

Validity challenges at the China National IP Administration are an increasingly important part of the Chinese patent landscape, but they can be confusing affairs. With regulations and guidelines, the process that PRID follows is intended to be efficient and many Chinese practitioners will advise that invalidations can be accomplished in six to nine months. However, Unified Patents has filed 18 such challenges since 2020 in China but, based on its experiences, the reality can be very different to expectations.

Read the article HERE, published by IAM.

Unified Files in Amicus for En Banc Review of Apple v. Qualcomm on Appellate Standing

On May 21, 2021, Unified filed an amicus curiae brief in support of en banc review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple v. Qualcomm on the issue of the court's increasingly patent-focused, Circuit-specific rules surrounding appellate standing. In the brief, Unified asked the court to review a decision on appeal from a PTAB proceeding where the panel found that the petitioner lacked standing, despite having been sued and paying royalties on the patent in question.

Unified is represented by Bill Jenks of Jenks IP and in-house by Jonathan Stroud. Read the amicus below:

Apple v Qualcomm Amicus Brief of Unified Patents by Jennifer M Gallagher on Scribd