Sound View patent challenged

On August 3, 2020, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 7,426,715, owned and asserted by Sound View Innovations, LLC. The request was filed in an effort to protect Open Source technologies from invalid NPE assertions. The ’715 patent generally relates to shutting down a plurality of software components in an ordered sequence. Sound View recently asserted this patent against Walmart, Vudu, and Delta Air Lines.

View district court litigations by Sound View. Read the request below. Unified is represented by Haynes and Boone and by in-house counsel, Michelle Aspen and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding.

To view any documents for the reexamination proceedings on PAIR, go to https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair, enter 90/014,558, and click on the "Image File Wrapper" tab.

§ REQUEST FOR EX PARTE § REEXAMINATIONU.S. Patent No. 7,426,715 § § Attorney Docket No.: 50348.48Filed: June 14, 2004 § § Customer No.: 27683Issued: September 16, 2008 § § Proceeding No.: to be assignedTitle: SHUTTING DOWN A PLURALITY OF §SOFTWARE COMPONENTS IN AN §ORDERED SEQUENCE § Hon. Commissioner for PatentsP.O.

Ikorongo Texas patent challenged as likely invalid

On August 7, 2020, Unified filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent RE45543-E1, owned by Ikorongo Texas LLC, an NPE and subsidiary of Concert Technology Corporation. The patent is related to selectively sharing location data with contacts from a contact list. The patent is currently being asserted against Lyft, Bumble, Samsung, and LG.

View district court litigation by Ikorongo. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified is represented by Greenberg Traurig and by in-house counsel, Roshan Mansinghani and Jung Hahm, in this proceeding.

$1,500 for prior art on Arden Innovations

On July 31, 2020, Unified Patents added a new PATROLL contest, with a $1,500 cash prize, seeking prior art on at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,001,465. This patent is owned by Arden Innovations, an NPE and subsidiary of Endpoint IP. The '465 patent generally relates to computer implemented methods for accommodating elements of an information array within the physical constraints of a predetermined two dimensional display space. This patent has been asserted in district court against Discount Tire and Marinemax. 

APEX STANDARDS has shared US and non-US prior art as well as corresponding claim charting against the patent.

Techson IP has provided its full validity-focused Limestone|Report, the full report link is here.

The contest will expire on September 15, 2020. Please visit PATROLL for more information and to submit an entry for this contest.

$1,500 for prior art on Mountech IP patent

On July 30, 2020, Unified Patents added a new PATROLL contest, with a $1,500 cash prize, seeking prior art on at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 7,991,784. This patent is owned by Mountech IP, LLC, an NPE and IP Edge subsidiary. The ‘784 patent generally relates to a method for automatic dynamic contextual data entry completion system. The ‘784 patent has been asserted in district court against ZTE, Samsung, Motorola, Blackberry, and LG.

APEX STANDARDS has shared US and non-US prior art as well as corresponding claim charting against the patent.

Techson IP has provided its full validity-focused Limestone|Report, the full report link is here.

The contest will expire on September 15, 2020. Please visit PATROLL for more information and to submit an entry for this contest.

Federal Circuit rejects RPI arguments against Unified

On July 28, 2020, in the first appeal to be decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on real party in interest (RPI) related to one of Unified’s over 200 PTAB challenges, the Federal Circuit rejected Fall Line Patents, LLC arguments that (1) RPI determinations were reviewable on appeal after Thryv, and also rejected (2) that Arthrex was wrongly decided. They then remanded for a new Board panel decision, in line with Arthrex. This appeal came after the PTAB issued a final written decision against Fall Line holding all challenged claims unpatentable.

Judge O'Malley noted that Thryv precluded judicial review of the PTAB’s institution-based RPI determinations. Notably, Fall Line did not appeal the merits of the Board's validity decision. Unified was represented by James Barney and Daniel Cooley of Finnegan, and by in-house counsel, Jonathan Stroud and Ashraf Fawzy. 

See Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Unified Patents for the decision.