IP Bridge HEVC/AV1 patent invalidity confirmed by Fed. Circuit

On December 3, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,515,635 are unpatentable under Rule 36. The patent is owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge. The patent was claimed to be essential as part of the Access Advance patent pool, as well as SISVEL’s VP9 and AV1 patent pools.

Unified was represented by Theodoros Konstantakopoulos of Desmarais LLP and in-house counsel, Roshan Mansinghani and Jessica L.A. Marks, in this proceeding.

To view any documents of the reexamination proceedings, visit Unified’s portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90014645

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.

Voice Tech open source patent affirmed invalid by Federal Circuit

On August 1, 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Office's final decision confirming that all claims (1-8) of U.S. Patent 10,491,679 were unpatentable. Owned and asserted by Voice Tech Corp, the ’679 patent relates to voice-activated computing. The patent was asserted against Linux-based technology from Mycroft AI for using open source, voice-related features. This invalid patent has been blamed for the closure of Mycroft AI.

View district court litigation by Voice Tech Corp. To read the petition and view the case record, see Unified's Portal. Unified was represented by in-house counsel, Jordan Rossen, Roshan Mansinghani, and Michelle Aspen, in this proceeding. Adam Erickson from Haynes and Boone handled the argument on appeal.