Route Guidance Systems vehicle guidance patent reexam granted

On October 19, 2022, less than six weeks after Unified filed an ex parte reexamination, the USPTO granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,917,876, owned by Route Guidance Systems LLC, an NPE. The ’876 patent is directed to route guidance systems for vehicles where the calculated route is transmitted from a central computer to a vehicle over a channel of communication in a short burst and is then closed, so that transmission to the vehicle ceases, unless and until a need for further transmission arises. The patent is currently being asserted against ExxonMobil, Verizon, MyPizza Technologies, Honda, Salesforce, Grubhub, HERE Global, DoorDash, MapleBear, and Waitr.

View district court litigations by Route Guidance Systems. Unified is represented by in-house counsel, Kelly Hughes, Michelle Aspen, and Roshan Mansinghani.

To view any documents for the reexamination proceedings on Unified's Portal, go to https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90015113.

$4,000 for IP Edge entity AdaptFlow Technologies '757 & '064 prior art

Unified Patents added two separate PATROLL contests with an opportunity to collect up to $4,000 in cash for prior art on at least claim 1 of two patents - U.S. Patent 9,838,757 and U.S. Patent 10,015,064. The patents are owned by AdaptFlow Technologies LLC, an NPE and IP Edge entity. The ‘757 patent generally relates to a method for transmitting video data in a data stream. The '064 patent generally relates to a home network system that personalizes the selection of information content. Both patents have been asserted against Roku.

The contests will expire on December 31, 2022. Please visit PATROLL for more information and to submit an entry for these contests.

US 9,838,757 - Transmit Video Data in a Data Stream

US 10,015,064 - Personalization of Information Content

Prior Art ProviderClaim Chart Link for ‘757Claim Chart Link for ‘064
Apex Standards Claim Report Claim Report
Techson IP Limestone|Report Limestone|Report
IPscreener Relevant Prior Art Relevant Prior Art
Google Similar Documents - Patents Similar Documents - Patents
Google Similar Documents - NPL Similar Documents - NPL
Unified Portal Relevant Prior Art Relevant Prior Art

Q3 PTAB Discretionary Denial Report: Use of Fintiv Drops to Near-Zero

As the last quarter of 2022 is winding down, procedural denials have decreased by over 61%, year-over-year. The total number of PTAB decisions, by contrast, has increased just 7.5%. For the year, the overall institution rate is now over 68%, compared to 58.8% (a low) in 2021. 

Put simply, there was but one use of 314(a) to deny a petition in the third quarter of 2022 in light of an intervening cancellation under 101 in the district court—a use that the Director subsequently sua sponte moved to review; and just three discretionary denials total, the others under 325(d).  (She moved to review on one of those two as well.)  On the year to date, we count only 13 NHK Spring/Fintiv denials, most of those coming in Q1.

The market change in Fintiv denials (or section 314 in general) is plainly Director-dependent, and, it is worth noting, is likely related to Director Vidal’s clarification memo and subsequent precedential Board decisions from June.  See Kathy Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, June 21, 2022. In that memo, Director Vidal clarified that: 1) Fintiv denials were inappropriate over ITC proceedings; 2) Fintiv should not be used when there are compelling merits to the patentability challenge; 3) Sotera stipulations also demand the Board look past Fintiv; and 4) for the controversial “factor 2” trial dates, the Board would now rely on median time-to-trial, rather than scheduled trial dates, when assessing the potential for conflict. 

Looking at year-to-date, the Board has issued just 70 discretionary denials—down substantially from the Director Iancu-era years—with most of those 70 coming prior to Director Vidal assuming the post. 

Procedural denials based on 314(a) to date are just a quarter of the total in 2021, with only 34.  Interestingly, while not subject of the Director’s memo, discretionary 325(d) denials are likewise down 71% (to date) as compared to 2021, with no signs of taking off in Q4. 

Looking at 314 and 325 combined, the number of denials based on either ground has dropped 64% (to date, assuming little change in Q4). 

Looking at the quarter-by-quarter trends, 314(a) was used only once in Q3 of 2022, resulting in an 83% decrease since Q1 of 2021.  As noted above, that one use is under Arthrex Director Review.  

When looking at all denials to date, 11.2% have been based on 314(a), while another 22.1% have been other procedural-based denials.  The Board has denied on the merits two-thirds of the time; these percentages of discretionary denials went up dramatically under the former Director. 

Denials that rely on 325(d) (versus other denials), represent just 5.6% of all denials before the Board since inception. 

As of Q3 2022, only 13 NHK Spring/Fintiv denials have been issued this year. 

What is clear is that, while Fintiv grew popular after being introduced by the last administration, changes to the rule made by this Director—likely coupled with increased sophistication from District Courts and parties, as well as a general realism as to trial dates adopted by many judges at the Board—seem to have contributed to a rule that has all but been overturned. This begs the question of why the Board and the USPTO don’t simply overturn the case, and offer recognition that, while the Office may have some discretion over institution, it cannot harness that to policy aims contrary to the real goals of the America Invents Act, regardless of lobbying pressure to do otherwise.

Copyright © 2022, Unified Patents, LLC. All rights reserved.

Mel NavIP speech recognition patent challenged

On October 24, 2022, Unified filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 8,060,368, owned and asserted by Mel NavIP, LLC. The '368 patent is generally directed to a speech recognition apparatus and is being asserted against Toyota.

View district court litigations by MEL NavIP. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified’s Portal. Unified was represented by Jessica Kaiser, Ali R. Sharifahmadian, and Lindsey Staubach of Arnold & Porter, and by in-house counsel, Ashraf Fawzy, Roshan Mansinghani, and David Seastrunk, in this proceeding.

$3,000 awarded for Ollnova '887 smart home patent prior art

Unified is pleased to announce PATROLL crowdsourcing contest winners, Ketan Sachdeva and Dinesh Swamy, who split a cash prize of $3,000 for their prior art submissions for U.S. Patent 7,746,887, owned by Ollnova Technologies Limited, an NPE and Magnetar Capital subsidiary. The '887 patent relates to a wireless automation device monitors a condition and wirelessly reports an event over an automation network in response to detecting a change in the condition and had been asserted against Ecobee, Carrier Global, Emerson, and Resideo.

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

Fill out the form below to download a claim chart for the prior art found: