$1,250 Awarded for FireNet Technologies prior art

Unified is pleased to announce PATROLL crowdsourcing contest winner, Euclid Woo, who received a cash prize of $1,250 for his prior art submission for U.S. Patent 7,739,302. The patent is owned by FireNet Technologies, LLC, an NPE and entity of IPinvestments Group. The '302 patent relates to firewalls for protecting network attached devices and was being asserted against Kemp Technologies, Fortinet, Citrix, A10 Networks, and Fujitsu.

We would also like to thank the dozens of other high-quality submissions that were made on this patent. The ongoing contests are open to anyone, and include tens of thousands of dollars in rewards available for helping the industry to challenge NPE patents of questionable validity by finding and submitting prior art in the contests. Visit PATROLL today to learn more about how to participate.

WINNING SUBMISSION

JP opposition filed against ETRI patent

On May 10, 2021, Unified Patents filed a Japanese opposition against JP6783355. The JP’355 patent is owned by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI). This patent has been designated essential to the HEVC Advance patent pool and it is related to patents that have been designated as essential to SISVEL’s AV1 and VP9 pools.

Read the entire filing below. Unified is represented by Yukihiro Takemoto of Ace-ai IP Law Firm in Japan, and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Jung Hahm.

Law Firm Prosecution Index (LPIX): Moneyball for Patent Prosecution

Sports have long used efficiency ratings to analyze players. Made famous by the movie “Moneyball”, Oakland A’s general manager at the time, Billy Beane, used data-driven tactics to form and operate the baseball team. Unified Patents examined this approach in depth and found that there were no current solutions that could effectively, efficiently, and consistently rate law firms during patent prosecution on both an overall approach and per art unit approach. 

Unified started from the premise of “Which law firms do a better job getting the (1) broadest and (2) most valid claims (3) allowed and at a (4) cheaper rate & at a (5) faster rate?" With this premise, three factors stood out to answer this question. The first being our Broadness Index (BRIX), the second being total applications, and finally pendency. 

On a basic level, LPIX is the Normalized Value of (BRIX * Pendency * Total Applications^2). The formula squares the Total Applications factor to account for consistency. The comparison with the movie reference here would be at the bottom of the ninth, tied scored, two outs with bases loaded, do you want the player that maybe, one out of hundred times can hit the grand slam, or do you want the player that consistently gets on base giving the team a win? Using that same principle and applying it to patent prosecution, a client would want a firm that they know can consistently prosecute and file a high-quality patent each and every time. 

LPIX currently consists of 3,153 law firms in their respective art units. Our coverage spans over 3 million office actions and 1 .7 million patents granted since 2008. It currently utilizes the Office Action Bulk Data set from the USPTO.

Portal now integrates this data and can show the overall scores of law firms, per unit basis, and also a combination of art units. Click on Prosecution under the Patent filter on the left in Portal:

The first table on the left shows the Top 20 Art Units in terms of Allowance Rate, while the middle shows the Top 20 Examiners in terms of Allowance. The third table on the right shows the Top 20 Law Firms sorted by LPIX. A user can also sort by Allowance Rate for the Law Firms as well.

By entering an Art Unit number, a user now can see the overall scores for that Art Unit. Below is an example where we typed “2872” and can see the scores and rankings for that particular art unit.

This analysis can be taken a step further by clicking on the individual Art Unit.

LPIX is divided into four quadrants. The green represents areas where a law firm is successful, as opposed to the red area where this represents law firms that were unsuccessful. In other words, the top right represents firms that are effective, efficient and consistent. The lop left would be the opposite in which firms are ineffective, inefficient, and inconsistent. The gray area represents law firms that may, for instance, be able to obtain broad patents in a faster time but are below the average in BRIX. Whereas the upper left, may be due to a longer pendency than average. 

Here, the Y-axis represents BRIX, the X-axis represents the pendency to grant. The Z-axis, or the circle diameter, represents the total amount of applications.

The purpose of this graph is to show law firms that are efficient, effective, and consistent. This also allows companies to select law firms on their own criteria.

Users have the capability to analyze art units in a combined area. Our example below looks at air units 2871-2879:

LPIX is the only tool that accounts for both subjective and objective factors in measuring a law firm’s ability to achieve success during patent prosecution. Companies now have the ability to understand a law firm’s success in a given art unit, while being able to set their own patent strategy.

For more information about LPIX, please visit our support page

$2,000 for Interface IP Holdings prior art

On April 22, 2021, Unified Patents added a new PATROLL contest, with a $2,000 cash prize, seeking prior art on at least claim 8 of U.S. Patent 7,500,201. It is currently owned by Interface IP Holdings, LLC, an NPE. The '201 patent generally relates to graphical input devices, and in particular, to input devices in which users select from a list of choices. It has been asserted against airline companies, along with banks such as JP Morgan and Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

The contest will expire on September 1, 2021. Please visit PATROLL for more information and to submit an entry for this contest.

Prior Art ProviderClaim Chart Link
Apex StandardsPseudo Claim Charting
Techson IPLimestone|Report
Amplified Invalidity Report
Traindex Prior Art Report
InQuartik Semantic Prior Art
IPscreener Relevant Prior Art
Google Similar Documents - NPL
Google Similar Documents - Patents
Unified Portal Relevant Prior Art

PacSec3, NACAR IP affiliate, patent challenged

On May 4, 2021, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination against U.S. Patent 7,523,497, owned by PacSec3, an NPE. PacSec3 was formed in 2020 with NACAR IP LLC as its managing member. NACAR IP was also formed in early 2020 with Dynamic IP Deals, LLC (d/b/a DynaIP), a patent monetization company, identified as its managing member. The ‘497 patent has been asserted against F5 Networks, NetScout Systems, Palo Alto Networks, McAfee, Cisco, and Juniper Networks.

View district court litigations by PacSec3. Unified is represented by Jonathan Bowser of Haynes and Boone, LLP, and by in-house counsel, Roshan Mansinghani and Jordan Rossen.

To view any documents for the reexamination proceedings on PAIR, go to https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair, enter 90/014,746, and click on the "Image File Wrapper" tab.

497 Reexam Request 5.3.21 by Jennifer M Gallagher on Scribd