Unified Welcomes New Patent Attorney to its Growing Legal Team

Unified is pleased to announce the addition of Ellyar Barazesh to its growing team of patent attorneys and IP professionals. Ellyar, as Senior Legal Counsel, comes to us by way of WilmerHale and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, with a wealth of experience and technical expertise to assist Unified’s ever-expanding mission to deter patent abuse wherever it is found.

Additional information about Ellyar is available below as well as under the Team section of Unified’s website.

Ellyar Barazesh, Senior Patent Counsel

Ellyar prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, Ellyar practiced at Stoel Rives LLP and Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr LLP, where he focused on post-grant proceedings and district court litigation. He also prepared and prosecuted utility and design patent applications, and developed non-infringement and invalidity opinions. During law school, Ellyar was a Student Associate/Patent Agent at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, where he focused on patent prosecution matters. He was also a Patent Examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Ellyar's experience spans a broad range of electrical and mechanical technologies, including computer memory, software, data processing, image and video coding, medical devices, business methods, optical systems, automotive electronics, and footwear. Ellyar earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, where he received the Leon Robbin Patent Award, and his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. 

Webinar Materials - The 5G Submarine and FRAND Patent Landscape

Speakers:

Craig Thompson – General Manager & COO, Unified Consulting

Francisco Sanchez – Vice President & Chief IP Counsel Intellectual Property, America Honda Motor Co.

Earl Nied – Program Director of Standards and IPR, Intel Corporation

During this webinar, we discussed the 5G patent landscape and ETSI declarations. Our discussions revolved around the interesting observations of the 5G landscape and highlighted why declarations are important to SEP licensing. We covered the latest development on FRAND jurisprudence and the ramifications of declared and undeclared patents.

Thank you to the panelists for covering a very innovative and interesting topic.

To listen to the recorded webinar, click here: https://vimeo.com/461573395

The slide presentation that went along with the webinar can be seen below.

Please join us at our next webinar, The Rise of Patent Litigation Financing: Data & Trends on October 29th at 12p EST. For more information, visit our website.

Unified Consulting 5G Webinar by Jennifer M Gallagher

Webinar Materials - PTAB Amendment Data and Practice

SPEAKERS:

Michelle Aspen – Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents

Trenton Ward – Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Our speakers from Finnegan and Unified Patents gave a comprehensive review of recent trends in IPR amendments and the best strategies in responding to motions to amend. Discussions were had about recent precedential opinions from the PTAB and the Federal Circuit regarding amendments and provided our listeners with a breakdown of the data from cases handling amendments under the new pilot program. As patent owners work to use amendments to circumnavigate the prior art, practitioners must keep themselves up to date on the best way to respond.

To listen to the recorded webinar, click here: https://vimeo.com/449814555

The slide presentation from this webinar can be seen and downloaded below.

Join us for our next webinar, The 5G Submarine and FRAND Patent Landscape, on September 24th at 12p EST. For more information, visit our website.

Unified Insights - Motion t... by Jennifer M Gallagher on Scribd

PTAB Discretionary Denials: In the First Half of 2020, Denials Already Exceed All of 2019

Following on Unified’s previous study, the PTAB continues their steady uptick in procedural denials under § 314 through the first half of 2020, and on procedural, non-merits-based denials in general. These § 314 denials have tied 2019’s annual total—and total denials are just 13 denials shy of 2018’s total, with just half the year reported. Projections show procedural denials will most likely greatly exceed those in 2019 by the end of Q3. Most significantly, though, the General Plastic/NHK framework is being used to procedurally deny petitions more than ever—projecting more than double the number of denials in 2019, they are set to make up roughly 30% of all denials this calendar year.

Thus far, 2020 has seen seventy-five § 314(a) denials, which accounts for roughly 30% of the all denials to date (268). This already ties the previous year total, which only saw 75 § 314(a) discretionary denials total. 2018 saw 45, while 2017 and 2016 saw 15 and 5, respectively.

Indeed, § 314(a) now accounts for the majority of procedural denials (including denials under § 325 and those related to joinder). The ratio of § 314(a) procedural denials has grown this year, as you can see below. 2019 saw 49% of all procedural denials be § 314(a) (75 out of 154); in 2020, more than 74% of procedural denials have been under § 314(a) (75 out of 102). This means that the PTAB is expected to issue 162 § 314(a) denials by the end of the year, a 116% increase from last year.

This is a dramatic increase over the life of the Board, where it has denied institution on 7.0% of all petitions to date for purely procedural reasons—including denials of joinder, § 314, § 325, and other requirements. This is an increase of the previous study, based on the rapid rise of the use of such denials over the past six months.

Of all denials to date, roughly a quarter have not been on the merits; indeed, in total 7.0% of all denials have been over § 314(a) (nearly all from the past two years); and 5.7% have been over § 325(d). Note that § 314(a) denials have exploded since 2018, particularly as a percentage of the (falling) filing numbers and institution rates. Both have increased since the last study.

Parallel District Court Cases Affected by Denials: Early Numbers

When looking at the petitioners that are denied on 314(a) with related parallel district court litigation, the California Northern District Court comprises 45% of the cases related to denials, with 208 cases being cited. (It should be noted that often with denials multiple cases are cited for the denial, and these numbers don’t yet distinguish between “multiple petition” denials under General Plastic, “parallel petition” denials under the July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update, or “trial date” denials under NHK Spring and Aptiv. A large number of these suits are related to sprawling ongoing litigations, like the yearslong Finjan or Rovi v. Comcast disputes.) These numbers encompass the Board’s entire history, and are a lagging indicator of where cases were being filed years ago. 

The Texas Eastern District has 80 cases cited, comprising 17% of all 314(a) denials. The Delaware District Court had 67 cases cited, comprising 15% of all 314(a) denials. The Texas Western District Court has seen 1 case cited in 2019, and this year that number has risen to 4, accounting for 1% of all 314(a) denials to date; as that docket balloons to more than 20% of the US patent docket, that number is set to rise dramatically.

Looking at the jurisdictions breakdown of § 314(a) denials, the venues as a whole average around 457 days. The top five range from 812 days (California Southern) to 435 days (Florida Southern). Interestingly, Texas Western is below the average by only 5 days, 452 respectively. 

Note that many of the cases denied under § 314(a) due to the advanced stages of a district court proceeding are litigations that were filed more than a two years ago, which is the average time of a district court in the United States to get to trial, suggesting this breakdown is a lagging indicator of where trials were filed more than two years ago. Given that the Western District of Texas has recently adopted aggressive local rules establishing early aspirational trial dates and the docket has ballooned, we have begun to see the Western District of Texas account for more cases related to denials under § 314(a). Of the recent denials of the past few months, nearly all have been due to trial dates in either the Eastern or Western Districts of Texas.

Copyright © 2020, Unified Patents, LLC. All rights reserved.

Webinar Materials - Amplifying Underrepresented Voices at the PTAB

SPEAKERS:

Jessica Marks – Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents

Toni Hickey – Chief IP Counsel, Cummins Inc.

Diane Lettelleir – Senior Managing Counsel, J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc.

Mita Chatterjee – Corporate Counsel, IP, Hologic, Inc.

During this webinar, we discussed current diversity issues in the PTAB bar, such as those highlighted in the PTAB Bar Association’s 2019 Report on Women at the PTAB and The ABA and NALP’s After the JD III: Third Results from a National Study of Legal Careers. We spoke about efforts being made to diversify the bar, including the PTAB’s LEAP initiative. We concluded the discussion with our panelists offering their personal endeavors to ensure diversity in their own companies and how they started their careers in their respective industries.

Thank you to the panelists for covering an important issue facing the Board and the world around us!

To listen to the recorded webinar, click here: https://vimeo.com/441141263

The slide presentation that went along with the webinar can be seen below.

Please join us at our next webinar,  PTAB Amendment Data and Practice on August 20th at 12p EST. For more information, visit our website.