Group items tagged

Overview: Although overall patent disputes in the district courts have decreased, PTAB filings continue to be stable and NPEs continue to account for more than half of new cases. For PTAB analytics and case information please go to portal.unifiedpatents.com Fig. 1: So far in 2016, 4,532* new patent infringement disputes were filed in district courts or at PTAB.

Data suggests an inter partes review (IPR) institution decision is a defining moment in underlying litigation. Unified examined all district court settlements involving patents subject of IPR. The data revealed parties have shifted toward earlier settlements, usually just before an expected institution decision. The movement to pre-institution settlement shows the direct effects of PTAB on District Court.

Which is not to say that the Obama era has meant an end to law enforcement. On the contrary: In the past few years, the administration has allocated massive amounts of federal resources to catching wrongdoers - of a certain type. Last year, the government deported 393,000 people, at a cost of $5 billion. Since 2007, felony immigration prosecutions along the Mexican border have surged 77 percent; nonfelony prosecutions by 259 percent. In Ohio last month, a single mother was caught lying about where she lived to put her kids into a better school district; the judge in the case tried to sentence her to 10 days in jail for fraud, declaring that letting her go free would "demean the seriousness" of the offenses. So there you have it. Illegal immigrants: 393,000. Lying moms: one. Bankers: zero. The math makes sense only because the politics are so obvious. You want to win elections, you bang on the jailable class. You build prisons and fill them with people for selling dime bags and stealing CD players. But for stealing a billion dollars? For fraud that puts a million people into foreclosure? Pass. It's not a crime. Prison is too harsh. Get them to say they're sorry, and move on. Oh, wait - let's not even make them say they're sorry. That's too mean; let's just give them a piece of paper with a government stamp on it, officially clearing them of the need to apologize, and make them pay a fine instead. But don't make them pay it out of their own pockets, and don't ask them to give back the money they stole. In fact, let them profit from their collective crimes, to the tune of a record $135 billion in pay and benefits last year. What's next? Taxpayer-funded massages for every Wall Street executive guilty of fraud?

US District court has dismissed over 100,000 lawsuits brought against BP And Transocean to pay for oil spill clean up costs and environmental damages caused to the Gulf of Mexico from the BP Gulf Oil Spill. The court ruled that injury stopped the moment the well was sealed and the Federal Government, aka The US Taxpayer, is now liable for clean up costs along with any damages caused by deficiencies of the cleanup of the Gulf Of Mexico.

United States v. Dougherty was a 1972 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in which the court ruled that members of the D.C. Nine, who had broken into Dow Chemical Company, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and spilled about a bloodlike substance, were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of the judge's failing to allow a jury nullification jury instruction. The Appeals Court ruled, by a 2-1 vote: " The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a "necessary counter to casehardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors," does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. On the contrary, it is pragmatically useful to structure instructions in such wise that the jury must feel strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it must itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience, and must independently initiate and undertake an act in contravention of the established instructions. This requirement of independent jury conception confines the happening of the lawless jury to the occasional instance that does not violate, and viewed as an exception may even enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law. An explicit instruction to a jury conveys an implied approval that runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against anarchy as well as tyranny. " Nonetheless, the defendants were given a new trial on the grounds that they had been denied their right of self-representation.[1] The Circuit Judges' assumption that jurors know about their nullification prerogative has since been brought into question by other empirical evidence.[2] According to Irwin Horowitz, "Beyond the empirical issue, lack of nullification instructions maintains a deceit. After all, juries can nullify, but they know this fact only on a so

On September 7, 2016, Unified Patents Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review against all claims of a patent owned and asserted by Digital Stream IP, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas. The challenged patent, 6,757,913, discusses the wireless transmission of digital data. A copy of the proceeding can be found below.

On August 31, 2016, Unified Patents Inc. filed against a patent owned by Plano Encryption Technologies, LLC. The patent, U.S. 6,466,983, has not been asserted in any district court to date. A copy of the petition can be found below. Unified Patents Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-01644, Paper 1 (Aug.

On May 27, 2016, Unified filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-13, and 16 of U.S. Patent 8,706,627, owned and asserted by Sentegra, LLC in various district courts. The technology is directed to electronic ticketing on a mobile device.

On August 1, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an IPR petitioned by Unified on a patent owned and asserted by Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC. The Board instituted trial on U.S. 8,788,090 over the sole claim asserted in district court litigation. A copy of the filing can be found below.

On June 29, 2016, Unified Patents Inc. filed a petition for inter parties review challenging the patentability of all claims of a patent owned and asserted by Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. The patent, U.S. Patent 8,566,960, was asserted against a number of parties on May 30, 2016, in the Eastern District of Texas.

On August 19, 2016, Unified Patents Inc. filed its 50th inter partes review petition, against a patent owned and asserted by Intellectual Ventures I LLC. The IPR2016-01643 challenges claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,745 B1, currently being asserted in the district court.