Traxcell navigation patent reexam granted

On May 22, 2023, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 10,820,147, owned and asserted by Traxcell Technologies, LLC, an NPE. The ‘147 patent is generally directed to providing navigation information to a wireless mobile communications device while also allowing the user to set preference flags to prevent tracking of the wireless mobile communications device. Traxcell has asserted the ‘147 patent in 23 cases against companies such as Google, DoorDash, Uber, T-Mobile, and others.

View district court litigations by Traxcell. Unified is represented by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and T.J. Murphy.

To view any documents for the reexamination proceedings on Unified's Portal, go to https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90015196.

Mel NavIP automobile speech recognition patent likely invalid

On May 23, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 8,060,368, owned and asserted by Mel NavIP, LLC. The '368 patent is generally directed to navigation and speech recognition for a vehicle. The patent had been asserted against Toyota and is currently asserted against GM and Hyundai.

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.

The Economic Impact of Codifying Fintiv

As part of the efforts of Unified Edge, Korok Ray, an Associate Professor at the Mays Business School of Texas A&M University and Research Director of the Mays Innovation Research Center, published a paper on the economic impact of codifying “Fintiv”. Read the abstract below and follow the link to download the paper.

Abstract

The term “Fintiv” refers to a threshold, procedural set of factors the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) currently uses to decide which patents will be reviewed by the PTAB. Based on the Apple v. Fintiv case, the Fintiv factors refer to the PTAB’s ability to launch a review of a patent that is also at issue in a parallel infringement case in a different forum (e.g., federal court or the U.S. International Trade Commission). Under Fintiv, the PTAB can elect not to conduct an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) of the patent, thereby deferring to the district courts to handle validity of the patent(s)-at-issue instead. Currently, the PTAB is considering whether to make Fintiv permanent. This paper argues and shows that making Fintiv permanent could generate a direct economic cost of at least $283 million. Based on the data used, as explained further below, and because it is difficult to quantify the indirect costs, this estimate is likely an underestimate of the rule’s true economic cost.

Find the complete report HERE.

$4,000 for Freedom Patents MIMO patents prior art

Unified added two new PATROLL contests, with a $2,000 cash prize for each, seeking prior art on the list below. The patents are owned by Freedom Patents LLC, an NPE. The contests will end on July 31, 2023. Please visit PATROLL for more information or click on each link below.

We also have third-party prior art providers giving our researchers a head start in the hunt! Click on each of the contests to find more from APEX Standards, IPscreener, and Google Patent Analytics.

US 8,284,686 - Selecting antennas and beams in a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) wireless local area network (litigations)

US 8,374,096 - Multiple input/output (MIMO) wireless local area networks (litigations)

The USPTO Needs Your Input Now - Help Fight NPEs

You can help support our economy, reduce wasteful NPE litigation, and stop the assertion of bad patents. All it takes is a few minutes of your time.  

The USPTO has issued a set of proposed rules, nearly all of which will make it harder for everyone, including Unified, to challenge bad patents. Examples include the invalid Shipping and Transit or Sportbrain patents, which collectively were asserted over 400 times and sparked over a thousand demand letters. Many of the new proposed rules are outside of the USPTO’s authority and plainly contradict statutes that Congress put in place and the Courts have opined on.

By placing a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of NPEs, these proposals will raise already-high litigation costs for all parties, weaken the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, and seek to stop Unified from challenging particularly bad, invalid patents. Patents that slipped through the system and should have never been issued in the first place will be asserted against American companies, particularly medium and small-sized businesses. Studies show that even a handful of these proposals would cost many hundreds of millions of dollars.   

The USPTO has asked for a limited window in which to get the public’s input, so time is of the essence. Please let the USPTO know you want a fair and open system for all, where anyone can petition the government for review of an invalid patent. That is what Congress put in place, and what the Article III Courts have blessed. This administrative agency should not be trying to overrule them. 

You can take action by selecting the green box, titled “Submit a formal comment” (here), and sharing your thoughts, however brief. All comments are due by June 20, 2023, 11:59 PM EST. It is of critical importance that the USPTO hears from real stakeholders like you.