$2,000 for Paypulz transactions patent prior art

Unified Patents added a new PATROLL contest, with a $2,000 cash prize, seeking prior art on at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,732,085, owned by Paypulz LLC, an NPE. The '085 patent relates to a proxy payment card usable like a normal credit or debit card at ATMs and merchant point-of-sale terminals, including legacy systems.

The contest will expire on June 30, 2026. Please visit PATROLL for more information and to submit an entry for the contest. PATROLL researchers are required to use Pearl to generate claim charts. Submitted invalidity charts must address every limitation of the challenged claim. This may require using more than one prior art reference. Each PATROLL researcher can generate up to 30 invalidity claim charts per month using Pearl. These charts can be downloaded then submitted to PATROLL.

AX Wireless Wi-Fi patent challenge granted

On April 24, 2026, after Unified filed an ex parte reexamination, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 11,777,776, owned by AX Wireless, LLC, an NPE and entity of IdeaHub. The ‘776 patent generally relates to header field configurations (e.g., header repetition) in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) communication systems (802.11n). It has been asserted against Sony, TP Link, Ubiquiti, D-Link, Vantiva, and ASUSTek. The filing is part of Unified’s ongoing efforts in the SEP Wi-Fi Zone.

View district court litigations by AX Wireless. Unified is represented by Stephen Cortiaus at Slater Matsil and by in-house counsel, David Seastrunk, Jessica L.A. Marks, and T.J. Murphy, in these proceedings.

To view the reexamination request, visit Unified’s Portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90016008

Wyoming Technology vehicle patent prior art found

The team at Unified used Pearl to successfully identify and chart prior art against claim 33 of U.S. Patent 7,482,916, owned by Wyoming Technology Licensing, LLC, an NPE and entity of Leigh M. Rothschild. The ‘916 patent relates to an automatic vehicle turn-signal system. The patent has been asserted against General Motors, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, and Volkswagen.

Identified Prior Art

Download Prior Art

Activemap interactive maps patents prior art found

The team at Unified used Pearl to successfully identify and chart prior art against U.S. Patent 8,468,464, U.S. Patent 10,444,943, and U.S. Patent 10,908,782 owned by Activemap, LLC, an NPE. The patents relate to interactive mapping ecosystem on retailer websites. The patents have been asserted against Nordstrom, National Vision, Lowe’s, The Gap, Petco, The Children’s Place, The Tile Shop, Compass, Chanel, Half Price Books, Lucky OpCo, and Luxottica.

Identified Prior Art on U.S. Patent 8,468,464 (click to download chart)

Identified Prior Art on U.S. Patent 10,444,943 (click to download chart)

Identified Prior Art on U.S. Patent 10,908,782 (click to download chart)

ITC Funding Disclosure Proposal Could Reshape Patent Litigation Strategy

The US International Trade Commission’s proposed rule requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding in Section 337 investigations is intensifying scrutiny of who finances patent disputes and how those relationships influence enforcement strategy. The proposal would require complainants to disclose funders, ownership interests, and entities with control over litigation or settlement decisions, with the ITC arguing the changes would improve transparency, identify conflicts of interest, and clarify who truly stands behind patent assertions.

Many practitioners support the proposal, arguing that disclosure could expose hidden ownership structures, foreign involvement, and repeat litigation tactics often associated with non-practicing entities (NPEs). Jonathan Stroud, COO & CLO of Unified Patents, emphasized that transparency aligns with the ITC’s statutory purpose, stating: “Built into the statute is already this sense of, hey, we need to know who’s filing this and who we’re protecting.” Stroud also argued that opaque structures can complicate settlements and enable repeated litigation through subsidiaries and portfolio transfers.

Read the full article posted from MLex here: https://www.mlex.com/mlex/intellectual-property/articles/2477467/proposed-itc-transparency-rule-puts-litigation-funders-under-new-scrutiny