NPE Activity Report: Networking Litigation

npes were responsible for 83% of all networking litigation 2011-2016.

In a recent study, Unified examined patent litigation from 2011-2016 involving networking devices and services. The study revealed that from 2011 to 2016, NPEs accounted for 83 percent of all networking litigation.

Patent litigation in the networking zone reached an all-time high in 2013 with 164 new cases being filed that year. The number of new cases dropped to 117 in 2014 then increased to 128 in 2015. Through Q3 2016, 79 new cases were filed in the networking zone. 

From 2011-2016, Hewlett-Packard was the most frequent defendant in the networking zone. Dell, Cisco Systems, Huawei, and Fujitsu (including subsidiaries and affiliates) were also frequently targeted during this period. 

METHODOLOGY

Unified looked at all major networking manufacturers and suppliers by revenue since 2011.
Total number of reported cases can vary. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken or duplicative filings.
Statistics include litigation initiated by NPEs or Declaratory Judgments (DJs) initiated by operating companies against NPEs.
Unified strives to accurately identify NPEs through all available means, such as court filings, public documents, and product documentation.

LEGEND

Non Practicing Entity (NPE) = Company which derives the majority of its total revenue from Patent Licensing activities.
Operating Company or Op. Co. = Company which derives most of its total revenue from Product Sales or Services. Could be an SME or a large company.
NPE (Patent Assertion Entities) = Entity whose primary activity is licensing patents and acquired most of its patents from another entity
NPE (Small Company) = Entity whose original activity was providing products and services, but now is primarily focused on monetizing its own patent portfolio.
NPE (Individual) = Entity owned of controlled by an individual inventor who is primarily focused on monetizing inventions patents by that individual inventor.

All iMTX claims found unpatentable in FWD by the PTAB

On October 12, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Final Written Decision (FWD) in Unified Patents Inc. v. iMTX Strategic, LLC, IPR2015-01061, finding all 23 claims unpatentable on two separate grounds. 

The patent had been asserted in the district court against content delivery technologies such as video-on-demand services. 

You can view the case files in our PTAB portal.

 

Advanced Silicon Technologies (AST) settles with Unified Patents prior to institution

On October 11, 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between AST and Unified, the PTAB dismissed 3 IPRs against patents owned by AST.   AST, an NPE, had asserted the patents in US District Court and the International Trade Commission against automotive and chip companies.
 
The PTAB cases can be tracked here:

Patent 8933945

Patent 6546439

Patent 6339428

Q3 2016 Patent Dispute Report

Overview: Although overall patent disputes in the district courts have decreased, PTAB filings continue to be stable and NPEs continue to account for more than half of new cases.

For PTAB analytics and case information please go to portal.unifiedpatents.com

Fig. 1:         So far in 2016, 4,532* new patent infringement disputes were filed in district courts or at PTAB.    Total disputes are estimated to be 6032 by the end of the year.

*Eliminating duplicate, primarily non-patent, and erroneous cases

Fig. 2:      As in previous years, High Tech patent disputes far outnumber disputes in other industries.

Fig. 3:       The Eastern District of Texas (TXED) continues to be most popular venue for district court patent litigation.   PTAB continues to be the most popular venue for patent disputes overall.

Fig. 4:        90% of all cases filed in the E.D. Tex. in 2016 were brought by NPE plaintiffs.

Fig. 5:       1078 new patent cases were filed in Q3 2016, compared to 1133 in Q3 2015 and 1149 in Q3 2014.

Fig. 6:       60% of 2016 patent cases were in the High-Tech sector.

Fig. 7:      2016 High-Tech sector cases comprised almost all NPE litigation.

Fig. 8:        Patent Assertion Entities (PAE) accounted for 84% of all NPE activity.

Fig. 9:       NPEs account for 90.5% of all High Tech litigation in 2016.

Fig. 10:       40% of 2016 PTAB respondents were NPEs.  (see portal.unifiedpatents.com)

Fig. 11:       High Tech sector patents were involved in 54% of all PTAB challenges in 2016, slightly less than the proportion in district court (see Fig. 6).   (see portal.unifiedpatents.com)

Fig. 12:         Inter partes reviews (IPRs) continue to be the most popular method for challenging patents at PTAB.   (see portal.unifiedpatents.com)

Fig. 13:       2016's top 5 plaintiffs are all NPEs. 

Fig. 14:       4 of the top 5 defendants for 2016 are in High-Tech.

Fig. 15:        Unified Patents is the 4th most prolific PTAB petitioner for 2016.   (see portal.unifiedpatents.com)

Fig. 16:        Fontem Holdings was challenged 27 times at PTAB in 2016.   (see portal.unifiedpatents.com)