Overview

Despite the pandemic, recession, inflation, and now Hurricane Ian, NPE litigation remains consistent. With Wi-Fi related patents in NPE crosshairs, and NPEs accounting for nearly 88% of high-tech litigation, the battle for connectivity is just beginning.

Highlights:

• Texas Western District Court has seen a 29% decrease in patent litigation since the July 25 order randomly assigning judges to cases. 

• Judge Albright has seen a 67% decrease in patent-related cases on a monthly average basis. 

• Certainty returns to the PTAB, as the institution rate is now at 67.8%.

• Procedure Denials have been cut from 14.5% in 2021 to 7.8% for 2022. 

• NPEs have targeted Wi-Fi related technologies including protocols, security, and network access this year. 

• Cedar Lane is the most litigious entity, with 119 cases. 

• Unified is a top-5 PTAB petitioner, behind Samsung, Apple, and Google. Those three entities account for 34% of all petitions. 

Figure 1: 2022 is on pace to be an average year in both litigations and PTAB filings. While reexaminations are down year-to-year, the 233 flings represent a 38% increase from years past.

Figure 2: Nearly 60% of all patent litigation stems from NPEs.

Figure 3: At the PTAB, NPE related disputes continue to hover around 40%. 

Figure 4: NPEs that aggregate patents (PAEs) are responsible for 50% of all suits brought in Q3.

Figure 5: The Texas Western District Court's reign as the top patent venue is coming to an end as a July 25 issued order stated patent disputes would be randomly assigned to a judge. Cases are already down by 29% on a monthly basis since the order was issued. 

Figure 6: Judge Albright’s caseload has dropped 67% on a monthly average basis, since the order was issued. 

Figure 7: Even with the issue ordered, NPEs filed 30% of their cases in TXWD - more than all patent-related cases in Delaware.

Figure 8: High-Tech litigation continues dominating both district courts and the PTAB. 

District Court

Figure 9: Based on Q3, District Court filings on par to match previous years, with NPEs accounting for 64% of all filings. 

Figure 10: Cedar Lane continues to be the most litigious non-aggregator entity. Cedar Lane has filed litigation 119 times. 

Figure 11: Samsung and Google continue to be the most named defendants. Zydus broke into the top 10 with its ongoing ANDA litigation with several other pharmaceutical companies.

Figure 12: Nearly 71% of all district court litigation thus far in 2022 was related to the high-tech sector. 

Figure 13: NPEs targeted high-tech companies 95% of the time in 2022m while non-NPEs targeted high-tech companies only 27% of the time.

Figure 14: NPEs bring over 88% of high-tech litigation.

Figure 15: Wireless Networks, protocols, and security are asserted the most among NPEs. 

PTAB Disputes

Figure 16: Despite the drop in projected filings, NPE related filings will increase by 14.8%.

Figure 17: PTAB Q2 2022 petitions totaled 323.

Figure 18: Consistent with district court proceedings, approximately 67.7% of all PTAB petitions filed in Q1 2022 involved High-Tech companies. 

Figure 19: Approximately 54% of all AIA challenges filed in Q3 2022 involved High-Tech companies petitioning NPE-controlled patents. Explore this data further on Unified’s Portal.

Figure 20: IPRs remained the most popular post-grant proceeding at the PTAB, claiming 91.5% of all PTAB petitions. Reexaminations were the second most popular, accounting for nearly 5.6% of all patent challenges at the USPTO. Explore this data further on Unified’s Portal.

Figure 21: Collectively, Apple, Samsung, and Google accounted for 34% (323) of all petitions at the PTAB. Unified Patents was 4th in total petitions in Q3 2022. 

Figure 22: It is no surprise that 9 out of the top 10 patent owners at the PTAB are NPEs. As noted before in our Q2 2022 Report, 34 IPR petitions were filed against Ericsson's by Apple in its ongoing FRAND battle.

Reexaminations

Figure 23: Reexaminations are down year-to-year, but the 233 flings represent a 38% increase from years past.

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.

Venues

CACD = Central District of California

CAND = Northern District of California

DED = Delaware

NJD = New Jersey

NDIL = Northern District of Illinois

SDNY = Southern District of New York

TXED = Eastern District of Texas

TXWD = Western District of Texas

Methodology

This report includes all District Court and PTAB litigations between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2022 .

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. Statistics include litigations 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.

Copyright © 2022, Unified Patents, LLC. All rights reserved.