NEWS & VIEWS
Unified News, Views, & Blogs
On September 8, 2017, Unified filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 6,023,221 owned and asserted by Paul Michelotti, an individual operating as an NPE. The '221 patent, directed to a system to activate automobile hazard warning lights, has been asserted against automotive companies including Mercedes-Benz and Robert Bosch.
To read the petition and view the entire case proceeding, please see our PTAB Portal.
Breaking with the trend from previous years, litigation in the Transport zone (f/k/a Automotive) has increased in 2017. From 2012 to 2016, litigation in the Transport zone has followed the trend of overall patent litigation, which peaked in 2013 and gradually decreased since then. However, Transport zone litigation in 2017 has already surpassed totals for 2016, due in large part to an increased number of assertions targeting automotive electronics and infotainment systems.
Figure 1: General litigation v. Transport litigation
In 2017, every technology (other than Safety) has already equaled or surpassed the total number of cases litigated in 2016. Notably, litigation involving automotive electronics and powertrain technologies has dramatically increased since 2016. For more information about these categories, view our Transport zone definition.
Figure 2: 2012-2017 Transport litigation by technology
Similar to 2016, infotainment systems are the among the most frequently litigated automotive patents, representing approximately 34 percent of all Transport cases in 2017.
Figure 3: 2017 Transport litigation by technology
NPEs continue to pose a serious risk to automotive companies and account for 71 percent of litigation in 2017.
Figure 4: Transport litigation by asserting entity type
The top 5 plaintiffs for litigation in the Transport zone are all well-known NPEs. Geographic Location Innovations (#4) is the owner of U.S. Patent 7,917,285, which Unified challenged in an IPR filed earlier this month.
Figure 5: 2017's most frequent plaintiffs for the Transport zone
Unified looked at all major Automotive manufacturers and the top 10 Automotive suppliers by revenue since 2012.
Total number of reported cases can vary. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken or duplicative filings.
Statistics include litigations initiated by NPEs or Declaratory Judgments (DJs) initiated by operating companies against NPEs.
Unified strives to accurately identify NPE through all available means, such as court filings, public documents, and product documentation.
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.
On September 1, 2017, Unified, represented by McDermott, Will, and Emery, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 8,082,213 owned and asserted by Smart Authentication IP, LLC, a subsidiary of Monument Patent Holdings, a well-known NPE. Historically, Monument Patent Holdings has worked closely with Dominion Harbor, another notorious NPE, to target operating companies.
The '213 patent, directed to a third-party user authentication service (system and method) for authenticating users on behalf of commercial clients, has been asserted in 10 district court cases in only 10 months against the following companies:
To read the petition and view the entire case proceeding, please visit our PTAB Portal.
On September 1, 2017, Unified Patents filed an amici brief in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. International Trade Commission and Arista Networks, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Case Nos. 2017-2289, -2351, currently pending before the Federal Circuit. The brief emphasizes the significance of decisions issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") and the strong public interest in preventing the enforcement of invalid patents. The brief was joined by a diverse group of companies including HP, Vizio, and a coalition of auto manufacturers and cable technology companies. A brief summary of the case and a copy of the amici brief is provided below.
On May 4, 2017 the International Trade Commission ("ITC") issued a limited exclusion order banning Arista from importing for sale its line of ethernet switches based on the conclusion that Arista's products infringed two patents owned by Cisco. Less than a month later, the PTAB issued a final decision in Arista's inter partes review challenge where the Board found Cisco's patents invalid. Despite the PTAB's ruling, the ITC failed to stay enforcement of its orders thereby prompting Arista to file an emergency appeal with the Federal Circuit.
On September 1, 2017, Unified, represented by Erise IP, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 7,917,285 owned and asserted by Geographic Location Innovations, LLC, a company owned by Leigh M. Rothschild, a well-known NPE.
The '285 patent, directed to devices, systems, and methods for remotely entering location addresses into a user’s GPS device, has been asserted in 33 district court cases against a diverse range of operating companies such as Ford, Lyft, Safeway, and The Home Depot.
To read the petition and view the entire case proceeding, please see our PTAB Portal.
