Reports

,

Toronto Globe reports on Unified's in-depth portfolio analysis of Blackberry and its delayed sale to NPE

,

At the beginning of 2022, BlackBerry announced that Catapult IP Innovations Inc. had agreed to buy several patents in a deal worth over $400-million dollars, but by June, the deal was off. Unified’s Director of Analytics, Sam Baird, analyzed the potential value of the divested portfolio of 37,175 patents, which would be one of the largest patent deals in the past decade. Mr. Baird has noted the buyer’s cost could exceed $900 million USD, including related maintenance costs, prosecution fees and litigation costs.

5G value to cars found to be less than $10

The June 2022 Brattle Group report calculates Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates for wireless Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) in vehicles for both 4G/LTE and 5G. 

Brattle found that wireless technology is increasingly expanding from handsets to the Internet of Things (IoT), including “connected vehicles.” LTE royalties for handsets (unlike those for vehicles) have been market and court tested, offering clarity around applicable FRAND rates for handsets. Rates for vehicles thus were calculated using LTE handset rates as a benchmark; adjusted for the differences in usage and capabilities. Brattle also found royalty rates for 5G as applied to vehicles to be the same as LTE because 5G rates have not been market or court tested and 5G currently offers no additional value to vehicles over LTE. While some 5G connected vehicle applications may create value in the future, that future is still uncertain and years away. Brattle notes that widespread adoption of 5G connected vehicle applications is necessary before any appreciable value can be attached to them.  

Brattle uses two distinct approaches to obtain an independent, FRAND rate. The first identified a vehicle’s Telematics Control Unit (TCU) as the key licensable component and calculated a FRAND rate of $6.57 per vehicle for a comparable TCU-capable handset, adjusted for the lower connectivity and usage requirements of vehicles.

The second approach uses the consumers’ relative willingness to pay for wireless connectivity in different applications as an indicator of the relative value of a 4G license in those applications, and found that consumers value connectivity in vehicles significantly less than in handsets. Using this approach, Brattle found the rate to be $7.76 per vehicle.

The full report and other 5G tools are available exclusively through Unified Patents.  In addition to economic reports, Unified provides Objective Patent Landscapes (OPAL) for many standards, including 5G and LTE, with the world’s largest human evaluated training set, Wi-Fi 6, HEVC, AVC, and others.  Unified’s standard submission database, OPEN, allows users to access all contributions to major standards such as 3GPP, MPEG, IEEE, and IETF.

Complete the form below to receive the full executive summary done by the Brattle Group and sponsored by Unified Patents.

Catapulting BlackBerry: A Data-Intensive Look – Part I, Quantity

Unified’s Samuel Baird pens a two-part series that examines the completed sale of the Blackberry portfolio. The first part was published by IPWatchdog.com on May 18, 2022.

At the end of January, BlackBerry announced it had completed the sale of the majority of its patents to Catapult IP Innovations, a special purpose vehicle specifically formed for the acquisition. Approvals for the transaction were granted under the 1985 Investment Canada Act and the 1976 Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. The value of the deal was reported to be $600 million, a figure that makes it one of the largest patent acquisitions in the last ten years and spurs a great deal of speculation about whether it is worth it. This article explores Blackberry’s divested portfolio and disassembles some of the assumptions surrounding the portfolio and the deal’s value.

Click HERE to read the entire article posted on IPWatchdog.com. In Part II of this two-part series, we will examine some of the data around quality and essentiality of the Blackberry portfolio.

, ,

With Uncertainty Brings Change: A Q3 Look at Fintiv Denials

, ,

The recent introduction of the Restoring the America Invents Act by Senate IP Subcommittee Chair Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator John Cornyn aims, in part, to remove the uncertainty that the precedential Fintiv orders have caused. Looking at the actual number of denials and frequency of the Board’s use of their discretionary line of cases, though, the consistent takeaway is that Fintiv continues to be used in unpredictable, ever-changing ways to deny otherwise-meritorious, timely challenges.

Despite the slight dip in overall filings (and decisions from last year’s also-down filings) so far in 2021, procedural denials are now used nearly 16% of the time, as compared to just 5% in 2016, before Fintiv and related cases were designated precedential. That is a 220% increase. Even with the uncertainty of Arthex over the first half of the year and the overall dip in filing decisions, the USPTO was still not shy about using procedural denials.

Section 314(a) is still being used 73% of the time for procedural denials.

Interestingly, the use of §§ 314(a) and 325(d) has jumped 6% versus last year. This year has seen these two denials 94.5% of the time in terms of overall procedural denials.

Section 314(a) denials are now 12.4% of denials, a very slight increase from last quarter.

Meanwhile, § 325(d) denials are being used 5.7% of the time, slight increase from last quarter.

The NHK Spring/Fintiv framework continues to be the dominant framework for § 314(a) denials with 77 already, 8 shy of the total last used last year.

Fintiv denials continue to be predominantly used in cases with parallel proceedings in the Eastern District of Texas.

That nearly 63% of all Fintiv-cited denials lead to a settlement begs the question of whether the PTAB might have been more effective at resolving unnecessary litigations; it would appear that, by and large, courts are being used to force settlements rather than address the merits of a patent claim.

Even despite the strategy of a given plaintiff, cases in Fintiv-cited denials are averaging almost two years (700 days) for a case to be terminated, no matter the outcome.

Relevantly, comparing the caseload of the PTAB judges versus the Western District of Texas and Judge Albright’s court docket—inarguably the single biggest patent docket for a U.S. district court judge—it becomes apparent that PTAB dockets are far less crowded and the Board has the necessary resources to hear cases efficiently while giving each cases its due attention; for instance, the highest-docketed PTAB judges have around 100-200 cases on their docket currently (with many having just a handful of PTAB cases balanced with ex parte appeals), whereas Albright has had roughly 700 patent and 1,250 total civil cases on his docket—and growing. See Ryan Davis, Albright Says He’ll Very Rarely Put Cases on Hold for PTAB, Law360, May 11, 2021 (6:50 PM EDT) https://www.law360.com/articles/1381597/albright-says-he-ll-very-rarely-put-cases-on-hold-for-ptab (Judge Albright, noting as of may that he has his civil docket has 1,250 cases, roughly 60% of which were patent cases).

This accounts for both having a certain rate of settlement and new filings, and shows a snapshot in time of the total docket of active patent cases. This suggests that even the most favorable comparisons of dockets indicate the PTAB three-APJ panels can devote much more time and many more resources to each individual ground—an observation only magnified by the myriad other issues attendant on a Federal District court judge’s docket in any particular case.

, ,

Unified seeking additional IEEE, MPEG, and 3GPP training sets

, ,

Unified Patents is seeking to license and supplement existing training sets of patents found essential and nonessential to 3GPP (5G, LTE, V2X); IEEE / 802.11 / WiFi; and Video Codecs ( VVC / H.266 and AV1). The patents and applications should be reviewed by experts and mapped against the technical specifications. This would be a joint effort and collaboration to understand fundamental technologies and their corresponding patent landscape. If you are interested in participating please contact info@unifiedpatents.com. 

Please include in any communications:

1. Technology covered, including specification number and whether user equipment or infrastructure

2. A sample of the results

3. Number of patents covered which were found to be essential and the number which were not

4. Study Methodology