Unified Files Amicus for En Banc Review of EcoFactor v. Google in Fed. Cir.

On November 26, 2024, Unified filed an amicus brief with the en banc Federal Circuit in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 23-1101. The full Court will be reviewing the proper standard under Rule 702 for admissibility of expert testimony regarding reasonable royalties in patent cases. Specifically, the Court will be considering a decision involving the admissibility of expert testimony that relied primarily on an inoperative clause stating the patent owner's "belief" to extract a single-patent royalty from lump-sum settlement agreements covering many patents. Unified wrote to advise the court on the prejudicial harms of admitting outsized damages theories before a jury.

Unified Patents is represented by William G. Jenks of Jenks IP Law, and by in-house counsel, Michelle Aspen and Jonathan Stroud. Download the amicus brief below.

Amicus filed in Dragon IP Fed. Cir. Appeal, Supporting en banc Review of Attorneys Fees

On August 19, 2024, Unified filed an amicus brief in support of an en banc review of a decision that insulates the attorneys and funders who control shell companies that file objectively baseless cases from § 285 fees. The brief also recommends review of the panel's holding that precludes district court judges from rewarding fees related to inter partes review proceedings in exceptional cases, even when those proceedings resolve a related district court case.

Unified Patents is represented by William G. Jenks of Jenks IP Law, and by in-house counsel, Jonathan Stroud and Michelle Aspen. Download the amicus brief below.

Fintiv challenged in Federal Circuit Amicus by Unified and Zero Motorcycles

On August 12, 2024, Unified Edge filed an amicus brief with the Federal Circuit addressing whether the USPTO's implementation of Fintiv as a precedential matter violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The brief explains why the USPTO has not only failed to follow the APA’s required rulemaking procedure but also has promulgated the Fintiv factors in the absence of any ambiguity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 315(b). 

Unified Edge is part of the Unified Network and advocates for the right policies, focusing on researching, organizing, providing, and promoting data-backed studies and evidence to further regulatory, business, and policy goals. Unified Edge works to keep its members up to date and informed on ongoing policies, data, and the regulatory landscape in order to move the law forward in a just, reasoned, and data-backed way. Unified Edge is represented by Mark Davies, Amanda Woodall, and Yar Chaikovsky at White & Case, and by in-house counsel, Michelle Aspen and Jonathan Stroud. Download the amicus brief below.

Comments submitted to the USPTO over AI impacts on prior art

Through policy advocacy work with Unified Edge, Unified Patents has submitted comments to the USPTO's request for comments regarding the impact of the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) on prior art, the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, and determinations of patentability made in view of the foregoing.

Unified has suggested that the USPTO may need to be wary of unscrupulous actors creating AI data dumps, including using bulk patent applications at the USPTO itself to create patent thickets.

Read through Unified’s comments by clicking on the button below:

China to the US: If you won’t regulate SEPs, we will

In an opinion piece written for the IAM website, Jonathan Stoud highlights what the State Administration of Market Regulation (SAMR) letter to Avanci means to standards leadership. The letter puts Avanci on notice for potentially acting anticompetitively, asking it to address monopoly risks related to its licensing practices.

Read the full article HERE