Since 2019, NPE-related Transport litigation has jumped from 41% to 77% overall in this zone.

While the overall zone litigation is estimated to slightly decrease from 2020, NPE-related litigation has increased by 6% to 77%, reaching 2015 and 2016 levels.

Transport manufacturers continue to be the main targets of litigation. These manufacturers comprise 62% of all first-named defendants. Manufacturers are defined as companies that are OEMs such as Toyota, Honda, Ford, and Tesla. Dealerships are defined as a company that primarily sells for the manufacturer. These would include Kinsel Ford and Zimbrick Honda. Suppliers are companies such as Denso, Bosch Automotive, ABB, and even Uber that provide components or services.

Analyzing the data, first-named defendants there appears to be a renewed interest in manufacturers, rather than just suppliers. For instance, a case in South Carolina names Motorola as the first-named defendant. However, several manufacturers and dealers appear on the complaint as well, such as FCA, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, Big O Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram, Kevin Whitaker Chevrolet, Fairway Ford Lincoln of Greenville, and General Motors.

The top-five plaintiffs in 2021 are all NPEs and account for 73% (25 of 34) of litigation cases brought so far this year. The top-five plaintiffs are:

  
      Top-5 Plaintiffs
      Cases
    
      Blitzsafe Texas (NPE)

      8
    
      Display Technologies (NPE)
      5
    
      Typhoon IP (NPE)
      4
    
      MicroPairing Technologies (NPE)
      4
    
      Arigna Technology (NPE)
      4

They appear to target Manufacturers rather than Suppliers. Companies like BMW, GM, Porsche, Honda, and Namsung saw themselves as first-named defendants twice in 2021. But it appears that NPEs are attacking any Manufacturer with AB Volvo, Daimler, Ford, Harley Davidson, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Volkswagen with 1 assertion against.

DEFENDING AGAINST NON-NPEs

It's increasingly more important that manufacturers bolster their patent portfolios as litigation increasingly becomes focused on vehicle connectivity and electronics as many larger companies such as Nokia and others have begun to assert. Companies can improve their portfolio using proprietary tools such as Unified’s LPIX to choose more successful counsel.

For instance, art units in 3660’s deal with Computerized Vehicle Controls and Navigation. Art Unit 3661 is by far the most utilized art unit with 23,423 applications and a 86.6% allowance rate. When looking at a specific law firm, Sughrue Mion is the highest performing in terms of LPIX. They have above the art unit average of 89.5% and have handled 198 applications with a low pendency time. The top-10 performing law firms can be seen below.

	
			Law Firm
			LPIX
			Allowance Rate
			#Apps
			Pendency
			Narrowness
		

	
			Sughrue Mion PLLC
			100.00%
			89.50%
			198
			1.9851
			22.5072
		

			Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
			95.20%
			85.60%
			202
			2.2204
			21.441
		

			Oliff PLC
			94.80%
			84.90%
			249
			2.3176
			23.7611
		

			Mintz Levin
			86.90%
			87.60%
			129
			2.2743
			18.4138
		

			Norton Rose Fulbright
			85.50%
			95.20%
			95
			2.3669
			16.3289
		

			Crowell & Moring LLP
			81.90%
			87.00%
			133
			2.2345
			21.4216
		

			Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
			78.90%
			91.00%
			99
			1.6961
			23.1912
		

			Fish & Richardson
			76.90%
			88.90%
			96
			2.3322
			18.479
		

			Brooks Kushman
			75.50%
			83.20%
			129
			2.7086
			19.056
		

			BakerHostetler
			75.00%
			92.10%
			71
			2.094
			16.7505
		

When collectively looking at all the 3660’s art units, the top-20 law firms can be seen below.

	
			Law Firm
			#Apps
			LPIX
			Rank
		

	
			Sughrue Mion PLLC
			1326
			100.00%
			1
		

			Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
			1303
			100.00%
			2
		

			Oliff PLC
			1488
			100.00%
			3
		

			Mcdonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
			541
			100.00%
			4
		

			Mintz Levin
			819
			86.90%
			5
		

			Norton Rose Fulbright
			671
			85.50%
			6
		

			Harness, Dickey & Pierce PLC
			928
			82.10%
			7
		

			Crowell & Moring LLP
			773
			81.90%
			8
		

			Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
			562
			78.90%
			9
		

			Global IP Counselors LLP
			424
			77.50%
			10
		

			Hauptman Ham LLP
			341
			77.20%
			11
		

			Fish & Richardson
			538
			76.90%
			12
		

			Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
			519
			75.50%
			13
		

			Brooks Kushman
			824
			75.50%
			14
		

			BakerHostetler LLP
			384
			75.00%
			15
		

			Mcdermott Will & Emery LLP
			563
			74.30%
			16
		

			Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
			496
			73.00%
			17
		

			Cantor Colburn LLP
			577
			72.80%
			18
		

			Foley & Lardner LLP
			542
			72.60%
			19
		

			Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
			387
			72.30%
			20
		

LPIX not only allows to see how a particular art unit is handled by a law firm, but is able to see performance collectively to allow companies to make smart decisions regarding their portfolio prosecution

METHODOLOGY

Unified looked at all major Transport manufacturers and the top 10 Transport suppliers by revenue since 2012.

Total number of reported cases can vary. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken or duplicative filings.

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

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

LEGEND

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.

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.