Nostromo location-based service patent challenge instituted

On August 21, 2024, six weeks after Unified filed an ex parte reexamination, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,559,970, owned and asserted by Nostromo, LLC, an NPE. The '970 patent is generally directed to providing location-based information and notifications to a user's device, based on location, user preference settings, and conditions for triggering the information delivery. It is being asserted against ADT, Resideo, and Ecobee.

View district court litigations by Nostromo. Unified is represented by in-house counsel, David Seastrunk and Kelly Hughes, in this proceeding.

To view the reexamination request, visit Unified’s Portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90019554

Rothschild entity, Quantum Technology Innovations, media streaming patent challenge instituted

On August 21, 2024, two months after Unified filed an ex parte reexamination, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,650,376, owned and asserted by Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC, an NPE and Leigh Rothschild entity. The '376 patent relates to the distribution of content over a network. It has been asserted against 15 companies, including Showtime Networks, Dish Network, Sirius XM, Pandora, Valve, and BroadwayHD.

View district court litigations by Quantum Technology. Unified is represented by in-house counsel, Jordan Rossen and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding.

To view the reexamination request, visit Unified’s Portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90019550

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.

Third DynaIP entity, Cloud Systems, IoT patent challenged

On August 19, 2024, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 7,975,051, owned and asserted by Cloud Systems HoldCo IP, LLC, an NPE and DynaIP entity.  The '051 patent relates to a system for controlling and configuring devices through a server. It had been asserted against Carrier, Google, Onity, Samsung, Vivint, and ADT, with current pending cases against Comcast, Kramer, Monitronics, and Ring.

View district court litigations by Cloud Systems HoldCo IP. Unified is represented by in-house counsel, T.J. Murphy and David Seastrunk, in this proceeding.

Swiss NPE Palmira Acquires Toshiba’s Wi-Fi 4 & 5 Portfolio

Swiss-based Palmira Wireless AG acquired Toshiba’s patents and applications claimed to be related to Wi-Fi 4 and 5 in November 2021. The acquisition comprises 159 publications listed on Palmira’s website, of which 63% are still active and 79% are granted. These publications represent up to 58 families, 35 of which are active and 25 of which have a US grant. The earliest priority date in the portfolio is October 7, 1998, and the latest priority date is August 18, 2008. The average age of the active portfolio is around 20 years. At the end of 2026, more than 80% of the portfolio will have expired. By the end of March 2026, all of Palmira’s EP portfolio will have expired.

Palmira touts the strength of the portfolio by referencing Toshiba’s involvement in the standardization of Wi-Fi 4 and 5. While Toshiba was involved in the standardization of Wi-Fi 4, it is recorded as seen in the chart below as having made only 2.3% of the technical contributions to the development of the Wi-Fi 4 standard and no contributions to the development of Wi-Fi 5. Toshiba’s contributions to the development of Wi-Fi 6 comprised only 1.3% of the total number of technical contributions.

Source: Unified Patents OPEN 2024-09-14, administerial submissions have been removed from the totals.

Palmira is run by German and EU patent attorney, Iouri Kokiako von Gamm. It is advised on finance matters by board member, Dr. Stefan Armonat, and advisory board member, Christoph Gutmann; it is also advised on licensing and litigation matters by advisory board member and former NEC and IP Bridge IP executive, Hideyuki Ogata, and advisory board members, Professor Dr. Ulrich Ziegert and Dr. Simon Holzer. All of this suggests litigation funding, either through a family office (as some of the connections, in particular Dr. Stefan Armonat, suggest) or some other revenue source, as yet undisclosed. 

Palmira has wasted no time in its monetization campaign reaching out to a number of Wi-Fi end product manufacturers. While German litigation reporting is scarce and spotty, we understand that Palmira Wireless AG has sued handset manufacturers there seeking an injunction. The portfolio’s advanced age and the non-practicing entity status of Palmira, coupled with their demand for disproportionately high rates as follows below, may provide grounds for German courts to invoke the proportionality codified in Section 139 of the German Patent Act in 2021 and restrict any permanent injunction sought by Palmira. Further, the portfolio’s 2026 expiration cliff in Germany of course will reduce any leverage Palmira may seek with an injunction there.  

Palmira has announced its royalty rates at $0.20 for terminal-end products using Wi-Fi 4 but not Wi-Fi 5. For Wi-Fi 4 access points, Palmira is asking for 0.20% of the net selling price but no less than $0.20. For Wi-Fi 5, Palmira is asking $0.325 for terminals and 0.325% (but a minimum of $0.325) for access points. Using the 300 US family count for Wi-Fi 4 essential patents with value accepted by the US court in the 2013 In re Innovatio case, Palmira’s rates for 3 US families with potential value (recall that the In re Innovatio court used the Schenkerman theory that 10% of the Wi-Fi 4 SEPs contributed 85% of the value) could lead to a $23.53 stack for Wi-Fi 4 terminal devices and $38.24 for Wi-Fi 5 terminal devices. These rates far exceed the stack of $0.59 per Wi-Fi terminal device calculated using the $0.032 rate settled by Innovatio with Cisco for 19 US patents with value within a year after the court’s decision In re Innovatio.

The Palmira acquisition did not involve all of Toshiba’s patents and applications potentially related to Wi-Fi; Toshiba retains 2,950 active publications, representing 1,588 families, that have an average age of just over 12 years with potential application to Wi-Fi 6. No public information is available on what are the intentions of Toshiba, who was taken private at the end of 2023 by a consortium of private equity led by Japan Industrial Partners. Toshiba’s recent IP divestment history may be indicative of what is to follow.