SoftVault Systems patent challenged as likely invalid

On July 17, 2017, Unified, represented by McDermott Will & Emery, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 6,249,868 owned and asserted by SoftVault Systems Inc., a well-known NPE. The '868 patent, directed to protecting and controlling personal computers and/or components of those computers, has been asserted in multiple district court cases against companies such as AVG Technologies, Adobe, Oracle, and Samsung

See a copy of the petition below or view the entire proceeding on our PTAB Portal

Unified has challenged almost all of 2017’s most prolific NPEs

Unified Patents has challenged 9 of RPX's 2017 “Top 10” most prolific Non-Practicing Entities

RPX recently released data for the 1st half of 2017 showing the Top 10 NPEs of 2017

2017-Top-NPEs.png

http://www.rpxcorp.com/2017/06/29/rpx-data-update-new-filings-dip-after-tc-heartland/

Unified has independently challenged at least 1 patent owned by 9 of the top 10 entities.  (Unified filings) Studies have found, consistent with Unified's experience and research, that prolific plaintiffs are very often NPEs asserting lower quality patents.  RPX, another 3rd party, has independently challenged 3 of the top 10. (RPX filings)

Unified’s model is never to pay NPEs any money and challenge patents it believes are invalid.

This has led to a decrease in NPE activity and purchasing in the areas Unified protects.  And Unified did not pay any NPEs---paying incentivizes further invalid assertions.  Unified has filed more IPRs and had more successes than all other 3rd party entities combined.   You can see a comparison here:

www.unifiedpatents.com/success

A full list of our filings can be found at:

Portal.unifiedpatents.com

1st Half 2017: Patent Dispute Report

OVERVIEW

Total 1H 2017 patent disputes decreased 4% compared 1H 2016. District court cases decreased 12% compared to the same time last year.   At the PTAB, however, new petitions increased 16% from 1H 2016.

The TC Heartland May 22nd decision appears to have dramatically shifted cases from E.D. Texas. Delaware has become the popular district court venue post-Heartland. Despite these shifts in venue, NPE activity continues to account for nearly 90% of all new High Tech litigation.

Figure 1: Total patent disputes held relatively stable compared to 1H 2016 and 2H 2016.

 

Figure 2: The PTAB increased its lead over the E.D. Texas as the most popular patent dispute venue.  E.D. Texas was still the most popular district court venue.

Figure 3: Since TC Heartland, parties appear to be shifting away from filing in E.D. Texas and moved to DED and ND Cal.   The numbers are very similar to ones predicted by our Quantitative Assessment published immediately after the decision which was based on an academic paper.

Figures 4 & 5: 2017 share of cases filed in E.D. Texas decreased by 50% post-TC Heartland, from 34% (542/1582) to  17% (55/320).  DED share of cases almost doubled, while N.D. Ca increased as well.

*The Court’s opinion in TC Heartland issued on May 22, 2017. Although this shift in venue is consistent with predictions, some fluctuations should be anticipated due to the short time that has passed since the decision. 

Figure 6: High Tech continues to see the most patent disputes at district court and the PTAB.

 

DISTRICT COURT

Figure 7: 1H 2017 has seen approximately 12% fewer district court cases filed than 1H 2016.

Figure 8: Most district court cases focus on High Tech.

Figure 9: NPEs account for nearly 90% of all 1H 2017 High Tech patent litigation.

Figure 10:  PAEs brought two-thirds of High Tech patent litigations in 1H 2017.

 

PTAB

Figure 12: The PTAB received more new petitions in 1H 2017 than any previous 6 months. This includes 414 challenges against NPE-owned patents, a 20% increase over the 340 NPE-owned patents challenged in the first half of 2016.  For more historical data, visit our portal.

Figure 13: Over two-thirds of 1H 2017 PTAB petitions challenged High Tech patents. For more on these 1H 2017 cases, visit our portal

Figure 14: About half of all challenged High Tech patents were owned by PAEs. For further analysis of these High Tech cases, visit our portal

Figure 15: Inter partes review (IPR) remains by far the most popular type of PTAB proceeding.

Figure 16: Unified Patents was the #8 most active Petitioner at PTAB in the first half of 2017. For the complete list of top parties, visit our portal

Figure 17: Comcast filed 31 IPRs against Rovi Guides, a well-known NPE, making Rovi the most challenged Patent Owner in the first half of 2017 (and Comcast the most frequent Petitioner). 

 

DEFINITIONS

Sectors

High-Tech = Technologies relating to Software, Hardware, and Networking

Medical = Technologies relating to Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Health Related Technologies

Other = Technologies relating to Mechanical, Packaged Goods, Sporting Equipment and any other area outside of high-tech and medical patents.

Entities

Non Practicing Entity (NPE) = Company which derives the majority of its total revenue from Patent Licensing activities.

Operating Company or Op. Co. = Company which derives most of its total revenue from Product Sales or Services. Could be an SME or a large company.

Other Entity = Universities / Non-Profits / Government / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

NPE (Patent Assertion Entities) = Entity whose primary activity is licensing patents and acquired most of its patents from another entity

NPE (small company) = Entity whose original activity was providing products and services, but now is primarily focused on monetizing its own patent portfolio.

NPE (individual) = Entity owned or controlled by an individual inventor who is primarily focused on monetizing inventions patents by that individual inventor.

Venue in Federal District Court

TXED = Eastern District of Texas

DED = Delaware

CACD = Central District of California

NJD = New Jersey

CAND = Northern District of California

METHODOLOGY

Total number of reported cases can vary based on what is included. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken, duplicative, or changes in venue filings, hence the totals may vary slightly compared to other reporting entities.

This includes all District Court and PTAB litigations between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017.

Statistics include litigation initiated by NPEs or Declaratory Judgments (DJs) initiated by operating companies against NPEs.

Unified strives to accurately identify NPEs through all available means, such as court filings, public documents, and product documentation.