Patent Quality

Patent Dispute Report: 2025 Mid-Year Report

In the first six months of 2025 – as Unified had flagged last quarter – discretionary denials increased sharply at the PTAB, the result of changes by USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart to the PTAB’s rules and procedures for evaluating inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) petitions. These changes include a bifurcated process for deciding whether to institute an IPR or PGR, emphasizing director discretion, and the expansion of the considerations for discretionary denial, including the reinstatement of the Fintiv factors and several new factors, including “settled expectations,” compelling public interests, and the extent to which the petition relies upon expert testimony.

In the federal district courts, the Eastern District of Texas remains the predominant venue for patent case filings, followed by the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware. The E.D.Tex. continues to be the most popular venue for NPEs.

Additionally, requests for ex parte reexamination are currently on pace to match 2024’s level.

Key takeaways:  

  • Based on the first six months of 2025, PTAB, ex parte reexamination, and district court filings are currently on pace to slightly exceed 2024’s numbers. 

  • The W.D.Tex is increasing in popularity. Last year, it was the fourth most popular venue for patent filings and the second most popular for NPE filings; it is currently the second most popular venue for patent filings and NPE patent filings.

  • Combined, the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas accounted for 40% of all patent cases filed in the first six months of 2025 and 63.7% of all NPE cases filed during the same time period.

  • It remains to be seen how the increase in discretionary denials at the PTAB and the new bifurcated process emphasizing director discretion for determining institution on the merits will affect the number of IPR and PGR petitions filed in the rest of 2025. 

  • In the Unified Patent Court, the number of infringement actions filed in the first six months of 2025 are projected to match 2024’s total.

Procedural Denials in PTAB Increase: The PTAB has issued 45% more procedural denials in the first six months of 2025 than it did in the entire year of 2024, and is well on pace to be one of the highest years on record. In June 2025 alone, the PTAB issued 75 procedural denials, an all-time high.

Pending PTAB Petitions and Procedural Denials over Time

PTAB, Ex Parte and District Court Filings Increase: PTAB filings for the first six months of 2025 are at 53.9% of 2024’s total, while ex parte examination filings are at 52.4% of 2024’s total. District court filings are at 57.1% of 2024’s total. As of yet, we see more district court litigation, with roughly the same number of patent challenges.

US Filings over Time

Eastern District of Texas Remains No. 1: The E.D.Tex. continues to be the most popular venue for patent filings, with 28.2% of cases filed in the first six months of 2025, followed by the W.D.Tex. at 11.8%, the D.Del. at 11.2%, the N.D.Ill. at 8%, and the D.N.J. at 5.5%. It remains to be seen whether Judge Albright’s recent move to Austin will lead to more filings there.

Filings in District Court

The W.D.Tex. overall has increased in popularity in 2025. Last year, the five most popular venues were: the E.D.Tex. (28.5%), the N.D.Ill. (10.6%), the D.Del. (10.2%), the W.D.Tex. (9.6%), and the D.N.J. (6.7%).

NPEs Still Prefer the Eastern District of Texas: Almost 45% of all NPE cases filed in the first six months of 2025 were in the E.D.Tex., followed by 18.8% filed in the W.D.Tex. This is consistent with 2024, when 48.6% of all NPE cases were filed in the E.D.Tex., followed by the W.D.Tex. at 15%. 

In the first six months of 2025, NPEs filed 89.5% of the patent cases filed in the E.D.Tex. and 89.7% of the patent cases filed in the W.D.Tex. More than 63% of NPE cases were filed in either the Eastern or Western District of Texas.

NPE Filings in District Court

NPEs Dominate the Top 10 Plaintiffs: In the first six months of 2025, nine of the top 10 plaintiffs in district court were NPEs. Four of the top 10 plaintiffs (Torus Ventures, HyperQuery, SecureMatrix, and Authentixx) were Jeffrey M. Gross entities, with Torus Ventures the top plaintiff, filing 74 cases.

Top 10 District Court Plaintiffs

Post-Grant Proceedings: Petitions for inter partes review accounted for 73.7% of requests for post-grant proceedings in the first six months of 2025, while petitions for post-grant review made up 3.6% of all proceedings, and requests for ex parte reexaminations accounted for 22.8%. These current numbers are so far consistent with last year’s totals.

Filings in Post-Grant Proceedings

Top 10 Patent Owners in PTAB: In the first six months of 2025, more than half of the top 10 patent owners defending against a petition filed in the PTAB were NPEs.

Top 10 PTAB Patent Owners

Top 10 Defendants in District Court and Top 10 PTAB Defendants: There remains an overlap between the most active defendants in district court and the most active petitioners in the PTAB in the first six months of 2025, with Samsung, Amazon, and Apple in the top three spots for both.

Top 10 District Court Defendants
Top 10 PTAB Petitioners

Requests for Ex Parte Reexaminations: The number of requests for ex parte reexaminations in the first six months of 2025 is slightly more than half of the 2024 total.

Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination over Time

The top requester of ex parte reexaminations in the first six months of 2025 was Unified Patents, accounting for more than 16% of all filings. 

Filing Trends in District Court by Entity:  NPEs filed 56.1% of the patent cases in district court in the first six months of 2025, while operating companies filed 40.3%.

Entity Breakdown in District Court over Time

Filing Trends in High Tech by Entity Type: In the first six months of 2025, NPEs filed 91% of the district court patent cases in the high tech space.

NPE Activity in High Tech Litigation

Filing Trends in PTAB by Entity Type over Time: NPEs were patent owners on 50.5% of the PTAB petitions in the first six months of 2025, while operating companies were patent owners on 48.6%.

Entity Breakdown at PTAB over Time

Filing Trends in High Tech at the PTAB by Entity Type: Some 70.6% of the PTAB challenges in the high-tech industries for the first six months of 2025 were filed against NPEs.

NPE and OpCo Activity in High Tech at the PTAB

District Court Patent Litigation by Industry Type over Time: For the first six months of 2025, 59.3% of the patent cases filed in district court involved the high-tech industry, while 13.1% were related to the medical industry.

Litigation Breakdown by Industry over Time

PTAB Petitions by Industry Type over Time:  In the first six months of 2025, 71.2% of the PTAB petitions filed in the first six months were in the high-tech industry space, while 14.5% were related to the medical industry.

PTAB Breakdown by Industry over Time

Infringement and Revocation Actions and Counterclaims in Unified Patent Court over Time: The 79 infringement actions filed in the Unified Patent Court in the first six months of 2025 are about half of number of the infringement actions filed in 2024, or 160.

UPC Filings over Time

Dolby HEVC/AV1 patent affirmed invalid in China

On July 31, 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (BIPC) confirmed that all claims of Chinese patent CN102256122 were invalid. The CN’122 patent is owned by Dolby International. The claims were initially found invalid by the China National Intellectual Property Administration, but Dolby appealed to the BIPC. CN102256122 was purportedly essential or related to patents purportedly essential to the Access Advance patent pool and SISVEL’s AV1 and VP9 pools.

Unified was represented by Weichixue Law Firm for the appeal, and the case was managed by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks.

ETRI HEVC patent revoked in EPO

On January 24, 2024, the European Patent Office announced the revocation of all claims of EP 3767952. The EP ‘952 patent, owned by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), relates to an apparatus for encoding image data and an apparatus for decoding image data, where the encoding/decoding makes use of motion vector coding for image compression, particularly an inter prediction method. It is related to patents that have been designated essential to the Access Advance patent pool and has also been identified as potentially essential to the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard.

Unified is represented by Harry Hutchinson and Owain Summers at HGF Law and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Roshan Mansinghani.

Dolby HEVC/AV1 patent revoked in EPO

On January 17, 2024, the European Patent Office announced the revocation of all claims of EP 3798988. The EP ‘988 patent is owned by Dolby International AB and is related to patents that have been declared essential to Access Advance and SISVEL’s AV1 patent pools.

Unified is represented by Harry Hutchinson and Andrew McGettrick at HGF Law, and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Michelle Aspen.

InterDigital AV1 patent held invalid after appeal in China

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.