Unified files IPR against US 9,100,634 owned by Velos Media, LLC

On April 8, 2019, Unified filed a petition (with Finnegan serving as lead counsel) for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 9,100,634, owned by Velos Media, LLC (Velos), as part of Unified's ongoing efforts in its SEP Video Codec Zone.

The ‘634 patent and its corresponding extended patent family is one of the largest families known to be owned by Velos. Including this petition, Unified has now challenged patents representing over 35% of Velos’ total known U.S. assets.

Velos claims to have and seeks to license patents allegedly essential to the HEVC / H.265 standard. The ’634 patent, originally assigned to Panasonic Corporation, was transferred to Velos in 2016.  After conducting an independent analysis, Unified has determined that the ‘634 patent is likely unpatentable.

Visit Unified’s Public Portal for more information about its Video Codec landscape (OPAL) and standard submission repository (OPEN). To read the petition and review the case record, view IPR2019-00883 on the Portal.

Blueprint IP patent added to PATROLL!

On April 5, 2019, Unified added a $1,000 contest to PATROLL seeking prior art for US 8,089,980 owned and asserted by Blueprint IP Solutions, LLC, an NPE. The '980 patent generally relates to a method for protecting switching between geographically separate server systems, and has been asserted in district court litigation against various companies.

The contest will expire on July 5, 2019. Please visit PATROLL for more information or to submit an entry for this contest.

Ryujin LLC (J. Szarzynski) patent added to PATROLL!

On April 5, 2019, Unified added a $1,000 contest to PATROLL seeking prior art for US 7,577,559 owned by and asserted by Ryujin LLC, a J. Szarzynski entity and well-known NPE. The '559 patent generally relates to a system and method for delivering media content to a user, and has been asserted in district court against Plex Inc., a client-server media player company.

The contest will expire on July 5, 2019. Please visit PATROLL for more information or to submit an entry for this contest.

Unified Welcomes New Patent Attorneys to its Growing Legal Team

Unified is pleased to announce the addition of Alyssa Holtslander, Jessica Marks and Jung Hahm to its growing team of patent attorneys and IP professionals. Each of these attorneys comes with a wealth of experience and technical expertise from working on post-grant proceedings at distinguished patent law firms to assist Unified’s ever-expanding mission to deter patent abuse wherever it is found.

Additional information and bios for Alyssa, Jessica and Jung is available below as well as under the Team section of Unified’s website.

Alyssa Holtslander, Senior Patent Counsel
Alyssa prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, Alyssa practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner, LLP for over ten years. At Finnegan, Alyssa provided well-rounded intellectual property services by drawing on her experience in port-grant proceedings, proceedings before the International Trade Commission, district court litigations, due diligence investigations, patent prosecution, and opinions on patent infringement, patent validity, and freedom-to-operate. Alyssa worked on a broad range of patent matters and represented clients in a wide range of mechanical and electrical technologies including network systems, electric motors, cellular devices, vehicular, mining, aerospace, medical, chemical processes and equipment, and defense system technologies. Alyssa earned her J.D. from the George Washington University Law School and her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University.

Jessica L.A. Marks, Senior Patent Counsel
Jess prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, Jess practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner, LLP for over ten years. At Finnegan, Jess litigated post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and International Trade Commission proceedings. Jess is also experienced in licensing negotiations, patent prosecution, due diligence investigations, and opinions on patent infringement, patent validity, and freedom-to-operate. Jess’ cases included electrical, business method, and biological technologies ranging from video surveillance systems, Blu-ray disc players, image processing, artificial intelligence, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. Jess earned her J.D. from the University of Maryland (now Francis King Carey) School of Law and her M.B.E. and B.A. in Biology from the University of Pennsylvania.

Jung Hahm, Senior Patent Counsel 
Jung prepares and litigates PTAB patent review proceedings for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, Jung practiced at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP for over 16 years. There, he concentrated on PTAB trial practice, patent litigation, patent preparation and prosecution, non-infringement, validity, patentability and freedom-to-operate studies, patent portfolio management and licensing. While associated with Amster, he was seconded for 18 months to a multinational consumer electronics company in Japan where he advised on U.S. patent law and was actively involved in license negotiations, contract drafting and technical analyses. Jung earned his J.D. from Cornell University Law School; his A.B. in Physics from Cornell University; and his M.S. in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Q1 2019 Patent Dispute Report

Overview

Amid a flurry of changes and proposed policy reforms at the USPTO, the volume of new patent disputes before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined sharply in Q1 2019 while the volume of district court disputes has remained relatively steady. While it is still too early to predict the direction and impact that these policies will take, there is little indication that NPEs will go away as the volume of new Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) assertions in Q1 increased when compared to the same period in 2018.

Highlights from Q1 2019:

• Unified was the 4th most frequent petitioner at PTAB in Q1 2019.

• Velos Media, an entity that claims to have and seeks to license patents essential to the HEVC / H.265 video codec standard, was the 4th most challenged Patent Owner in Q1 2019 due to Unified’s activities in its new SEP Zone.

• Although the number of patent disputes in Q1 2019 is lower than in previous years, the number of new NPE suits actually increased compared to the same time period for 2018.

• 85% of patent disputes at PTAB or district court involving High-Tech companies were related to assertions by NPEs.

• Only 315 new petitions for inter partes review were filed with the PTAB in Q1 2019, the lowest number since 2014.

Figure 1: Assuming current trends continue, the volume of patent litigation in 2019 is expected to be lower than the number of new filings in 2018.  View all District Court and PTAB litigation on Unified’s Portal.

Figure 2:  Parties filed approximately 800 new district court cases in Q1 2019, slightly below the number of filings per quarter in 2018.

Figure 3: While the PTAB remains the most popular venue for patent disputes overall, the Delaware District Court received the most NPE-related disputes in Q1 2019.

Figure 4: The High-Tech industry continues to experience the highest volume of patent disputes at both the District Court and the PTAB.  View High-Tech litigation on Unified’s Portal.

---

District Court

Figure 5: NPEs filed 56% of new complaints in Q1 2019, a 9% increase over the same period for 2018.

Figure 6: Over half of all new district court patent cases involve High-Tech companies.

Figure 7: 90% of all NPE assertions filed in Q1 involved High-Tech companies. By contrast, only 40% of non-NPE litigation involved companies in the High-Tech sector.

Figure 8: 93% of all High-Tech litigation in Q1 2019 is attributed to NPE assertions against technology companies. View all 2019 District Court litigation on Unified’s Portal.

Figure 6: Over half of all new district court patent cases involve High-Tech companies.

Figure 7: 90% of all NPE assertions filed in Q1 involved High-Tech companies. By contrast, only 40% of non-NPE litigation involved companies in the High-Tech sector.

Figure 8: 93% of all High-Tech litigation in Q1 2019 is attributed to NPE assertions against technology companies. View all 2019 District Court litigation on Unified’s Portal.

---

PTAB Disputes

Figure 8: The PTAB received only 340 new petitions in Q1 2019, the lowest number of new filings in a quarter since 2014. 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 9: Consistent with more recent trends, approximately 64% of petitions filed in Q1 2019 involved High-Tech companies. This represents a substantial shift from earlier filing patterns, for example in 2015 where only 55% of petitions involved High-Tech companies.

Figure 10: Over 50% of all petitions involving High-Tech companies challenged NPE-controlled patents. View the interactive version of this data on Unified’s Portal.

Figure 11: IPRs continue to be the most popular post-grant proceeding at the PTAB.

Figure 12: Unified was the fourth most frequent petitioner at the PTAB in Q1 2019. Samsung was the most frequent petitioner with 27 petitions filed. View all of Unified’s cases on the Portal.

Figure 13: The 4th most-challenged Patent Owner, Velos Media, is an entity that claims to have, and seeks to license, patents essential to the HEVC / H.265 video codec standard. As part of its ongoing effort in the SEP Video Codec Zone, Unified has filed petitions challenging over 32% of Velos’ known US patents.

---

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.

Venues

CACD = Central District of California
CAND = Northern District of California
CODC = Colorado
DED = Delaware
NJD = New Jersey
NDIL = Northern District of Illinois
TXED = Eastern District of Texas
TXWD = Western District of Texas

---

Methodology

This report includes all District Court and PTAB litigations between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2019.

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.