Legal

Comments to the USPTO submitted regarding terminal disclaimer practice

Through policy advocacy work with Unified Edge, Unified Patents has submitted comments to the USPTO's recent NPRM regarding conditions for obtaining terminal disclaimers to obviate obviousness-type double patenting.

In 2022, the USPTO requested comments regarding USPTO Initiatives to Ensure the Robustness and Reliability of Patent Rights. The Office has proposed a rule that would cut down on examiner wear-down and the abusive assertions of obvious variations of continuation patents through current terminal disclaimer practice. Unified has written to support the proposed rule.

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

NPRM comments submitted regarding discretionary denials and serial/parallel petitions

As part of the advocacy work of Unified Edge, Unified Patents has submitted comments to the PTAB's recent NPRM advocating against the codification of rules regarding discretionary denials under § 325(d) and for serial/parallel petitions.

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

Another ETRI HEVC patent revoked in EPO

On June 6, 2024, the European Patent Office announced the revocation of all claims of EP 2672708. The EP ‘708 patent is owned by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI). The patent is related to patents that have been declared essential to Access Advance and SISVEL’s AV1 and VP9 patent pools. The claims are generally directed to video coding/decoding methods and apparatuses that use a clipped motion vector.

Unified is represented by Owain Staines and Susan Keaton at HGF Law and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Roshan Mansinghani.

Unified Files Amicus in Roku Fed.Cir. appeal from the ITC, Supporting Stronger Domestic Industry Requirement

On March 18, 2024, Unified filed an amicus brief in support of Roku's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Roku v. ITC on the issue of relaxed enforcement of the economic domestic industry requirement in ITC cases. In the brief, Unified explores the trends of NPE activity at the ITC, where exclusion orders can and have been used to extract larger settlements than would be available in district courts due to this relaxed enforcement of domestic industry. Unified accordingly requests the Court clarify how the domestic industry requirement is analyzed, and argues it should be done in a manner consistent with the ITC's purpose of protecting unfair trade, and consistent with statutory language.

Unified Patents is represented by in-house counsel, David Seastrunk, Michelle Aspen, and Jonathan Stroud. Download the amicus brief below.

MemoryWeb decision reaffirms Unified as sole RPI

On Friday, December 8, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued another final written decision holding that Unified Patents was the sole real party-in-interest (RPI). Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00222, Exhibit 2121 (public version, filed December 22, 2023). The decision is consistent with past decisions over the last decade holding that Unified acts independently, without influence from its members in its challenges against non-practicing entities.

Reversing a now-vacated ruling in an earlier case, the Board observed that Unified’s business was “designed to comply with RPI rules and to maintain its independence from its membership” and that its business model is “focused on deterrence rather than settlement of cases involving NPEs.” Ex. 2121, 45. The Board confirmed that Unified’s arms’-length relationship with its members—who do not communicate or coordinate about its filings or give any input to Unified regarding its decision to file petitions—supported that “no relationship between Petitioner and Unified that would give rise to the implication that Petitioner is a RPI in the Unified proceeding.” Id., 51. Further, they held that a member pays undesignated subscription fees did not show that the member directly funded Unified’s filing activities. Id., 52.

This decision, which considered a wealth of evidence, including membership agreements, press releases, reports, and written and deposition testimony, confirms that unlike RPX in AIT, Unified acts independently of its members to serve its ongoing mission of deterring assertions of broad, invalid patents.

Click HERE to read the decision.