On August 3, 2018, the Board issued an order terminating IPR2017-02195 pursuant to a joint request filed by Kaldren LLC (an IP Edge entity) and Unified Patents. U.S. Patent 6,820,807, the subject of the IPR petition, relates to formatting digital data into an encoded pattern (such as a QR code). More details regarding IPR2017-02195 are available on Unified's PTAB Portal.
Iron Oak patent determined to be likely invalid
On July 17, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 5,966,658 owned and asserted by Iron Oak Technologies, LLC, a well-known NPE. The '658 patent, generally directed to mobile communications (and more particularly to the automated selection of a communication path), has been asserted in 23 district court cases against such companies as Samsung, Lenovo, Huawei, and Dell. At the time of this decision, the '658 was at issue in 11 active district court cases.
View all of Iron Oak's District Court litigation here. To read the decision and to view the entire IPR proceeding, visit our PTAB Portal.
MONKEYmedia abandons patent claims after Unified files IPR
On July 13, 2018 the Board granted MONKEYmedia, Inc.'s request for adverse judgment and cancellation of all instituted claims in IPR2018-00059 filed by Unified Patents. This request comes shortly after the PTAB's decision to institute trial for US 9,247,226 directed to a method for storing and playing multimedia so a user can interactively choose to expand or contract displayed content.
For more details about this proceeding, visit Unified's Public Portal.
CIPSC 2018 Legal Writing Competition
Unified and the Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal are pleased to present the CIPSC 2018 Legal Student Writing Competition. Current law students and recent graduates are encouraged to submit articles addressing how AI and machine learning technologies can be leveraged to assist IP professionals and attorneys in their work. The first place winner will receive a $1,500 cash prize and may be invited to share his or her paper at the upcoming 2018 Corporate Intellectual Property Strategy Conference hosted by Unified and the Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal.
The deadline for entry is October 15, 2018. For more details and for directions on how to enter, click the button below.
1st Half 2018: Patent Dispute Report
Overview
Patent litigation in the first half of 2018 is 16 percent lower than in the first half of 2017. However, the proportion of NPE-related filings remains high, as seen in the figures below.
For the first time in this report, we have included litigation data for small and medium sized entities or “SMEs” (Figures 10 and 11). Almost 50% of all litigation against SMEs in High Tech was initiated by Patent Assertion Entities (i.e. entities who purchase patents for the primary purpose of monetization). This is especially troubling since SMEs lack the resources to challenge bad NPE assertions and are often forced to settle rather than risk a protracted and expensive litigation. Part of Unified’s mission is to end invalid PAE assertions.
Figure 1: Assuming current trends continue through the next half of the year, the volume of patent litigation in 2018 is expected to be slightly below the number of new filings in 2017.
Figure 2: Parties filed approximately 800 new patent cases in District Court during Q2 2018, just below the number of filings per Q2 2017.
Figure 3: In 2018, the PTAB remains the most common venue for patent disputes overall. As expected, Delaware continues to be the most popular venue post-TC Heartland as the proportion of new filings in ED Texas has decreased. For more on TC Heartland see below.
Figure 4: At both the PTAB and the District Court levels, the High Tech industry continues to see the largest volume of patent disputes.
District Court
Figure 5: The proportion of NPE filings decreased in 2018 compared to previous years, however NPE related filings remain high (over 50% of all district court litigation in 1H 2018).
Figure 6: Despite an overall decrease in new cases between Q1 and Q2 2018, the number of NPE-related cases increased and accounts for roughly 60% of all Q2 2018 litigation.
Figure 7: The High Tech industry continues to account for the majority of district court patent cases in 2018.
Figure 8: Through the first half of 2018 NPEs accounted for over 86% of all patent suits enforcing High Tech patents.
Figure 9: Overall, PAEs accounted for more than half of all High Tech patent litigation in 2018.
SME Defendants in District Court
Unified is committed to protecting innovators and entrepreneurs by eliminating bad patent assertions against SMEs. Studies have shown that SMEs invest in less R&D and become less innovative after being sued. As seen in the figures below, NPEs have continued to use district court as a means to extract payments from SMEs in 2018.
Figure 10: Over 650 new lawsuits were filed against Small/Medium Entities in District Court between April 1 and June 30. NPEs account for approximately 37% of these new cases.
Figure 11: In Q2 2018, NPEs accounted for 81% of new district court cases against SMEs in the High Tech industry. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (45), Secure Cam LLC (13) and Upaid Systems Ltd. (13) were the most active NPEs targeting SMEs.
TC Heartland: One Year Later
Over a year has passed since the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland and the decision’s impact on patent litigation filing trends is undeniable. The decision modified the existing requirements for establishing venue in patent cases that up to that point had led to a disproportionate number of filings in “patent-friendly” jurisdictions, most notably, the Eastern District of Texas.
Figure 12 & 13: In the year preceding the Court’s TC Heartland opinion, over one-third of all new patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. In the year following the decision, that number dropped to less than 15 percent. The District Court of Delaware is now the most popular patent venue at over 22 percent.
PTAB Disputes
Figure 14: The PTAB received more than 1,500 new petitions in the first half of 2018. Detailed records for each of these cases is available on Unified’s Public Portal, along with various in-depth filtering and analytical tools.
Figure 15: Fewer IPRs were filed in Q2 2018, possibly in response to the uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision in Oil States, which issued April 24.
Figure 16: Nearly 60% of PTAB petitions filed in the first half of 2018 challenged High Tech patents.
Figure 17: About 62 percent of High Tech patents challenged at PTAB were owned by NPEs.
Figure 18: Inter partes reviews (IPRs) continue to dominate all PTAB proceedings.
Figure 19: Samsung and Google were the first and second most frequent IPR filers in 2018, respectively. Unified was also the 10th most frequent petitioner at PTAB in the first half of 2018.
Figure 20: 8 out of the 10 most-challenged Patent Owners at the PTAB in the first half of 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, 2015 and June 30, 2018.
Total number of reported cases can vary based on what is included. Unified made its best effort 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.