Challenging invalid NPE patents instead of paying for expensive licenses has proved to be the most cost-effective and successful way to stop NPE shakedowns.  That’s why, since 2013, Unified has filed more PTAB challenges than all other third-party petitioners combined. Moreover, we have successfully neutralized more patents than any other third-party.


Unlike other third-party solutions, Unified's one and only goal is to stop NPEs from asserting bad patents. We are not in the business of buying, selling, or licensing patents.  In fact, we never pay NPEs a cent. Ever. 

 In 2017, we filed 46 IPRs challenging NPE patents and achieved a successful outcome in 76% of our cases. (Last updated February 28, 2018)

In 2017, we filed 46 IPRs challenging NPE patents and achieved a successful outcome in 76% of our cases. (Last updated February 28, 2018)


Since 2013, Unified has filed more IPRs than all other third-parties combined and was the fourth most active petitioner of 2017. Unified has developed a reputation for handling tough cases and never avoiding confrontation in the interest of getting lucrative licensing deals done. For example, Unified is the only third-party to have challenged the largest and most notorious NPEs, including General Patent Corporation, Intellectual Ventures, IP Edge, Uniloc, Marathon, Acacia, and others. In contrast, other third-parties have developed a close and symbiotic working relationship with the NPEs they purportedly seek to deter, resulting in more frivolous litigation.


*  Success in this table is defined as a positive institution decision, invalidation, or no money settlement by entity.  The table excludes settlements that included payment and joint filings with operating companies since they are not truly independent third-party filings.

For transparency we have included a link to all PTAB cases brought by each entity listed above:  

RPX - Unified CFAD Askeladden


We always:

  • Challenge early - to disrupt monetization campaigns before valuable resources are wasted

  • Challenge anyone - regardless of an NPE’s size and unconflicted by commercial relationships

  • Refuse to pay - to ensure that we never encourage future assertions

  • Refuse to incentivize - unlike some third-parties, our settlements never include provisions which encourage going after others

  • Act independently - as the sole real-party and never as a proxy

  • Educate NPEs - to ensure they know that low quality patents will be challenged

Buying licenses to invalid patents should be, at best, an absolute last resort. While paying may be expedient in the short term, it rewards the assertion of low quality patents and, thus, encourages more NPE activity in the future.  Further, it is impossible to purchase all of the low quality patents.  The unfortunate fact is that with millions of granted U.S. patents, there is an abundant supply of low quality assets available for assertion.  

Unified exists to break the cycle of patent assertion.  We never have, and never will, pay NPEs because we aim to stop, not promote, frivolous patent litigation.

When Unified settles, we do so only in exchange for royalty-free licenses. This is an unqualified success and it deters future litigation.  The same isn’t true when our competitors pay for licenses or purchase patents.  These payments perpetuate the cycle of NPE litigation and, moreover, create an inherent conflict of interest because entities that participate in the patent marketplace may be tempted to fan the flames they are paid to extinguish.  Unified faces no such conflict because we have no financial relationships with NPEs.