Fall Line patent determined to be likely invalid

On April 5, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 9,454,748 owned and asserted by Fall Line Patents, LLC, a well-known NPE. The '748 patent, directed to collecting information on a remote computing device by means of a questionnaire, was asserted in multiple litigations against such companies as Uber, American Airlines, Cinemark Holdings, GrubHub, and Choice Hotels International. At the time of this institution decision, three of these district court cases were still pending a final resolution. 

To read the decision and to view the entire proceeding, visit our PTAB Portal. 

Pen-One Acquisition patent determined to be likely invalid

On April 4, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 7,281,135 owned and asserted by Pen-One Acquisition Group, LLC, an Equitable IP subsidiary and a well-known NPE. The '135 patent, directed to an identity verification system, has been asserted against such companies as Apple and Samsung.

To read the decision and to view the entire proceeding, visit our PTAB Portal. 

Q1 2018: Patent Dispute Report

Overview

Patent litigation in Q1 2018 held steady with the number of new filings slightly exceeding the volume of cases seen in the second half of 2017. In recent years, the number of new filings has been highest in the first and second quarters which may indicate we will see fewer patent litigations in 2018. However, the uncertainty surrounding upcoming changes in patent law, such as the pending Oil States Supreme Court decision, may be in part responsible for these lower filing rates. Whatever the cause, the volume of NPE-related filings remains high as is seen in the figures below.

Figure 1: Assuming current trends continue, the volume of patent litigation in 2018 is expected to be slightly below the number of new filings in 2017. District Court patent litigation is now available in Unified's Public Portal. Visit the Portal today to see all District Court and PTAB filings for 2018. 

Figure 2:  Parties filed approximately 900 new patent cases in District Court in Q1 2018, on par with the number of filings per quarter in 2017.

Figure 3: For the first time since 2012, the Eastern District of Texas was not the most common district court venue. Post-TC Heartland, Delaware has seen a dramatic increase in filings while the PTAB remains the most common venue for patent disputes overall. 

Figure 4: The High Tech industry continues to see the largest volume of patent disputes at both the District Court and the PTAB.

District Court

Figure 5: Assuming current trends continue, NPE litigation in District Court is expected to approximately match the number of new filings in 2017. Visit Unified's Public Portal for full case details on District Court patent litigation. 

Figure 6: The proportion of NPE filings decreased in 2018 compared to previous years, however NPE related filings remain high (over 45% of all district court litigation).

Figure 7: About half of all district court cases involve High Tech patents.

Figure 8: Almost all NPEs asserted in the High-Tech space.

Figure 9: NPEs account for over 83% of all Q1 patent suits enforcing High Tech patents.  Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) brought nearly 60% of all High-Tech litigations.

PTAB Disputes

Figure 10: Assuming current trends continue, the volume of NPE litigation at PTAB is expected to remain steady. Of course, these estimates may change once the Supreme Court issues its decision in the Oil States litigation.

Figure 11: The PTAB received approximately 400 new petitions in Q1 2018, matching the number of new cases seen in recent quarters. Detailed records for each of these cases is available on Unified’s Public Portal along with various tools to filter and analyze these cases.

Figure 12: Over 60% of Q1 PTAB petitions were filed to challenge High Tech patents. For more, visit our Portal.

Figure 13: Most High Tech patents challenged at PTAB were owned by PAEs. To look at High Tech or other industries in more detail, visit Unified's Public Portal.

Figure 14: Inter partes review (IPR) remains by far the most popular type of PTAB proceeding.

Figure 15: LG was the most frequent petitioner in Q1 2018. Its petitions mostly targeted patents owned by Fundamental Innovations Systems International, LLC and Wi-Lan, two of the “Q1 2018: Top 10 Patent Owners” and well known NPEs. For a complete list of top parties and top law firms at the PTAB, visit Unified's Public Portal. 

Figure 16: Nine out of the ten most-challenged Patent Owners at PTAB in Q1 2018 were NPEs. Most of these NPEs are well-known Patent Assertion Entities.

Definitions

Sectors

  • High-Tech = Technologies relating to Software, Hardware, and Networking
  • Medical = Technologies relating to Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Health Related Technologies
  • Other = Technologies relating to Mechanical, Packaged Goods, Sporting Equipment and any other area outside of high-tech and medical patents.

Entities

  • 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.
  • Other Entity = Universities / Non-Profits / Government / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
  • 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 or controlled by an individual inventor who is primarily focused on monetizing inventions patents by that individual inventor.

Venue in Federal District Court

  • DED = Delaware
  • TXED = Eastern District of Texas
  • CAND = Northern District of California
  • CACD = Central District of California
  • NJD = New Jersey
  • NDIL = Northern District of Illinois
  • SDNY = Southern District of New York
  • TXND = Northern District of Texas

Methodology

This report includes all District Court and PTAB litigations between January 1, 2014 and March 31, 2018.

Total number of reported cases can vary based on what is included. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken, duplicative, or changes in venue filings, hence the totals may vary slightly compared to other reporting entities. Statistics include litigations 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.

Internet of Things: 2017 Litigation Update

Summary

From 2012 to 2017, NPE litigation activity for Internet of Things (IoT) technologies remained consistently high (between 85% and 98% of all IoT litigation). After reaching a record number of new IoT litigations in 2016, new filings in 2017 returned to pre-2016 levels. While litigation involving most IoT technologies either decreased or saw marginal increases in 2017, the proporation of IoT litigation over Communication Protocols & Networking increased from 3% (2016) to 44% (2017).

Figure 1: Despite recent shifts in patent litigation filings, NPEs continue to account for over 85% of all IoT litigation.

Figure 2: IoT litigation has decreased along with overall filings, albeit at a slower rate. However, the percent change in 2017 is due in large part to the record number of IoT litigations in 2016 whereas overall patent litigation declined more steadily in 2016 and 2017.

Figures 3: The proportion of Communication Protocols & Networking cases increased 10% between 2016 and 2017 while other IoT Technologies either decreased or saw marginal increases.

Figure 4: The proportion of IoT litigation involving Communication Protocols & Networking litigation increased in 2017 as other IoT technologies saw little change. For more information about these results, see Unified's IoT Zone definition.

Figure 5: NPEs were involved in over 86% of all IoT litigation in 2017.

Figure 6: Top NPE Litigants in the IoT Zone 2012-2017

  1. Pragmatus Telecom LLC (82)
  2. Penovia LLC (71)
  3. Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC (66)
  4. Olivistar, LLC (63)
  5. Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC (60)
  6. Wetro Lan LLC (56)
  7. Adaptive Data, LLC (52)
  8. 911 Notify LLC (42)
  9. UrgenSync, LLC (33)
  10. Canatelo, LLC (30)

Figure 7: Many PAEs are controlled by larger entities, or Parents, who regularly assert. The top 5 entities for 2012-2017 are listed below.

  1. IP Edge LLC (215)
  2. Leigh M. Rothschild (83)
  3. Pragmatus (82)
  4. Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC (66)
  5. Adaptive Data, LLC (52)

Definitions

The following designations are used to identify entities involved in patent disputes. Aggregators such as IP Edge and Dominion Harbor are counted as PAEs but because of obscure ownership we do not break them out. 
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.
Other Entity = Universities / Non-Profits / Government / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
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 or controlled by an individual inventor who is primarily focused on monetizing inventions patents by that individual inventor.

Methodology

This report includes all District Court litigation between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017. Statistics include litigations initiated by NPEs or Declaratory Judgments (DJs) initiated by operating companies against NPEs. Total number of reported cases can vary. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken or duplicative filings.

Unified strives to accurately identify NPEs through all available means, such as court filings, public documents, and product documentation.
 

Intellectual Ventures patent found invalid

On March 26, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a final written decision in Unified Patents Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, IPR2016-01643 invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,775,745 owned and asserted by Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, a well-known NPE. The '745 Patent, directed to a hybrid data caching mechanism, has been asserted in multiple litigations against several companies including EMC (Dell), Lenovo and NetApp. At the time of this decision, the litigation against these companies remains pending. 

To read the decision and view the entire case proceeding, visit our PTAB Portal.