PTAB Discretionary Denials: In the First Half of 2020, Denials Already Exceed All of 2019

Following on Unified’s previous study, the PTAB continues their steady uptick in procedural denials under § 314 through the first half of 2020, and on procedural, non-merits-based denials in general. These § 314 denials have tied 2019’s annual total—and total denials are just 13 denials shy of 2018’s total, with just half the year reported. Projections show procedural denials will most likely greatly exceed those in 2019 by the end of Q3. Most significantly, though, the General Plastic/NHK framework is being used to procedurally deny petitions more than ever—projecting more than double the number of denials in 2019, they are set to make up roughly 30% of all denials this calendar year.

Institution Decisions.png

Thus far, 2020 has seen seventy-five § 314(a) denials, which accounts for roughly 30% of the all denials to date (268). This already ties the previous year total, which only saw 75 § 314(a) discretionary denials total. 2018 saw 45, while 2017 and 2016 saw 15 and 5, respectively.

Procedural Denials vs. All Decisions.png

Indeed, § 314(a) now accounts for the majority of procedural denials (including denials under § 325 and those related to joinder). The ratio of § 314(a) procedural denials has grown this year, as you can see below. 2019 saw 49% of all procedural denials be § 314(a) (75 out of 154); in 2020, more than 74% of procedural denials have been under § 314(a) (75 out of 102). This means that the PTAB is expected to issue 162 § 314(a) denials by the end of the year, a 116% increase from last year.

§ 314(a) Denials by Year (Total).png

This is a dramatic increase over the life of the Board, where it has denied institution on 7.0% of all petitions to date for purely procedural reasons—including denials of joinder, § 314, § 325, and other requirements. This is an increase of the previous study, based on the rapid rise of the use of such denials over the past six months.

§ 314(a) Denials.png

Of all denials to date, roughly a quarter have not been on the merits; indeed, in total 7.0% of all denials have been over § 314(a) (nearly all from the past two years); and 5.7% have been over § 325(d). Note that § 314(a) denials have exploded since 2018, particularly as a percentage of the (falling) filing numbers and institution rates. Both have increased since the last study.

§ 314(a) Denials.png
§ 325(d) Denials.png

Parallel District Court Cases Affected by Denials: Early Numbers

When looking at the petitioners that are denied on 314(a) with related parallel district court litigation, the California Northern District Court comprises 45% of the cases related to denials, with 208 cases being cited. (It should be noted that often with denials multiple cases are cited for the denial, and these numbers don’t yet distinguish between “multiple petition” denials under General Plastic, “parallel petition” denials under the July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update, or “trial date” denials under NHK Spring and Aptiv. A large number of these suits are related to sprawling ongoing litigations, like the yearslong Finjan or Rovi v. Comcast disputes.) These numbers encompass the Board’s entire history, and are a lagging indicator of where cases were being filed years ago. 

The Texas Eastern District has 80 cases cited, comprising 17% of all 314(a) denials. The Delaware District Court had 67 cases cited, comprising 15% of all 314(a) denials. The Texas Western District Court has seen 1 case cited in 2019, and this year that number has risen to 4, accounting for 1% of all 314(a) denials to date; as that docket balloons to more than 20% of the US patent docket, that number is set to rise dramatically.

Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 8.56.57 AM.png

Looking at the jurisdictions breakdown of § 314(a) denials, the venues as a whole average around 457 days. The top five range from 812 days (California Southern) to 435 days (Florida Southern). Interestingly, Texas Western is below the average by only 5 days, 452 respectively. 

Note that many of the cases denied under § 314(a) due to the advanced stages of a district court proceeding are litigations that were filed more than a two years ago, which is the average time of a district court in the United States to get to trial, suggesting this breakdown is a lagging indicator of where trials were filed more than two years ago. Given that the Western District of Texas has recently adopted aggressive local rules establishing early aspirational trial dates and the docket has ballooned, we have begun to see the Western District of Texas account for more cases related to denials under § 314(a). Of the recent denials of the past few months, nearly all have been due to trial dates in either the Eastern or Western Districts of Texas.

Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 9.13.07 AM.png

Copyright © 2020, Unified Patents, LLC. All rights reserved.

Helios Streaming/Ideahub patent challenged as likely invalid

On July 23, 2020, Unified filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 8,645,562, owned by Ideahub, Inc., and licensed to and asserted by Helios Streaming, LLC, an NPE. The '562 patent is directed to an adaptive streaming service using metadata and is being asserted Showtime, Vudu, Crackle, and Starz. Helios is asserting the ‘562 patent against streaming media content in accordance with the MPEG-DASH standard and video-on-demand (VOD) systems. 

View district court litigation by Ideahub and Helios. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified is represented by WilmerHale and by in-house counsel, Ashraf Fawzy and Jung Hahm, in this proceeding.

Webinar Materials - Amplifying Underrepresented Voices at the PTAB

SPEAKERS:

Jessica Marks – Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents

Toni Hickey – Chief IP Counsel, Cummins Inc.

Diane Lettelleir – Senior Managing Counsel, J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc.

Mita Chatterjee – Corporate Counsel, IP, Hologic, Inc.

During this webinar, we discussed current diversity issues in the PTAB bar, such as those highlighted in the PTAB Bar Association’s 2019 Report on Women at the PTAB and The ABA and NALP’s After the JD III: Third Results from a National Study of Legal Careers. We spoke about efforts being made to diversify the bar, including the PTAB’s LEAP initiative. We concluded the discussion with our panelists offering their personal endeavors to ensure diversity in their own companies and how they started their careers in their respective industries.

Thank you to the panelists for covering an important issue facing the Board and the world around us!

To listen to the recorded webinar, click here: https://vimeo.com/441141263

The slide presentation that went along with the webinar can be seen below.

Please join us at our next webinar,  PTAB Amendment Data and Practice on August 20th at 12p EST. For more information, visit our website.

Unified Insights - Amplifying Underrepresented Voices at the PTAB - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Third in our webinar series, we reviewed the current diversity issues in the PTAB bar and spoke of different efforts being made to diversify the workforce.

Another Dominion Harbor subsidiary, Pure Data Systems, patent held unpatentable

On July 22, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. Pure Data Systems, LLC, holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 5,999,947 unpatentable. The ‘947 patent is owned by Pure Data Systems, LLC, a Dominion Harbor subsidiary and well-known NPE, and is directed to distributing database changes to one or more client computers. The ‘947 patent has been asserted in 16 district court cases against such companies as Electronic Arts, Spotify, CNN, CBS, Pinterest, LinkedIn and others.

Unified was represented by Haynes and Boone and in-house counsel, Alyssa Holtslander, Ashraf Fawzy, and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding. View all district court litigation involving the ‘947 patent here. To read the petition and view the entire case proceeding, see Unified’s Portal.

Uniloc patent held unpatentable

On July 22, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,020,252 unpatentable. Each claim was invalidated on two different grounds. The ‘252 patent is owned and asserted by well-known NPE, Uniloc 2017 LLC. The ’252 patent, directed to a “communal recording system” that restricts access to recorded audio messages to subsequent users, has been asserted against Apple, Microsoft, and Hike in district court.

Unified was represented by Finnegan and by in-house counsel, Roshan Mansinghani, Jessica Marks, and Jonathan Stroud, in this proceeding. View district court litigation for the ‘252 patent. To read the petition and view the entire case proceeding, see Unified’s Portal.