In an op-ed for RealClearPolicy, Unified’s CEO and Founder, Kevin Jakel, explains how the USPTO’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) could put the American economy at risk and limit access to government patent review for all. Many ANPRM proposals aim to restrict petitions for review of invalid patents. This would limit the work done by Unified, other third parties, and companies targeted by NPEs, which will lead to small and medium-sized businesses becoming vulnerable to increased NPE threats.
The Economic Impact of Codifying Fintiv
As part of the efforts of Unified Edge, Korok Ray, an Associate Professor at the Mays Business School of Texas A&M University and Research Director of the Mays Innovation Research Center, published a paper on the economic impact of codifying “Fintiv”. Read the abstract below and follow the link to download the paper.
Abstract
The term “Fintiv” refers to a threshold, procedural set of factors the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) currently uses to decide which patents will be reviewed by the PTAB. Based on the Apple v. Fintiv case, the Fintiv factors refer to the PTAB’s ability to launch a review of a patent that is also at issue in a parallel infringement case in a different forum (e.g., federal court or the U.S. International Trade Commission). Under Fintiv, the PTAB can elect not to conduct an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) of the patent, thereby deferring to the district courts to handle validity of the patent(s)-at-issue instead. Currently, the PTAB is considering whether to make Fintiv permanent. This paper argues and shows that making Fintiv permanent could generate a direct economic cost of at least $283 million. Based on the data used, as explained further below, and because it is difficult to quantify the indirect costs, this estimate is likely an underestimate of the rule’s true economic cost.
Find the complete report HERE.
USPTO’s new Catch-22 targets Unified Patents in standing requirement reforms
In a recent op-ed in IAM, Unified’s General Counsel, Jonathan Stroud, explains the issues with the USPTO’s reform proposal, including how it singles out Unified and proposes restrictions that contradict the AIA and that have been rejected in subsequent failed legislative proposals. In the link below, Mr. Stroud argues that if the agency seeks to single out Unified Patents and bar it from filing IPRs, it must also scrutinize the lack of transparency and conduct of prolific NPEs.
Click HERE to read more on IAM’s website.
USPTO Proposed Rules Flawed - The Hill Op-Ed
In an op-ed published on "The Hill" website, Jonathan Stroud summarizes the House Judiciary oversight hearing where USPTO Director Kathi Vidal testified regarding the Office’s proposed rulemaking.
Policy changes at administrative agencies like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are unlikely to lead the nightly news or appear above the fold in national newspapers. But, the USPTO might be the most important agency your average American hasn’t heard of. How it works, or doesn’t, has billion-dollar consequences for the U.S. innovation economy, and for consumers.
Published on May 10, 2023, continue reading the article by clicking HERE.
Wi-Fi 6 improvements resulting in more litigation
In the first article of a two-part series posted on IPWatchdog, Samuel Baird, Director of Analytics at Unified Patents, and Craig Thompson, GM/COO for Unified Consulting, recently used OPEN’s IEEE and OPAL’s Wi-Fi 6 landscape to understand how 3GPP technologies have migrated in Wi-Fi 6. With these core technologies now embedded with Wi-Fi 6, this creates an SEP monetization target, which ultimately leads to more litigation. In addition, the recent changes to the IEEE’s IPR rules introduce more uncertainty about what is permitted to be used in assessing a RAND rate and remove some of the restrictions on licensors seeking injunctions. With more companies invested into Wi-Fi 6 and the rule change that has created uncertainty, this will only lead to more litigation.
In Part II, the research will look at how the IEEE’s recent IPR rule changes will affect the trends and technologies detailed in the first post.