Tag Archive for fintiv

Discretionary Denials at the PTAB Continue to Rise, Benefit NPEs

According to new data from Unified Patents, the rise in discretionary denials at the PTAB is showing no signs of slowing down.  In 2019, there were 6 denials based on co-pending litigation (so-called § 314(a) or Fintiv denials).  In these denials, the PTAB decides not to institute an inter partes review based primarily on related…

One Case, All The Problems: VLSI v. Intel Exemplifies Current Issues In Patent Litigation

Patent litigation suffers from a number of issues at present. Hedge funds backing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in order to chase a share of billion-dollar judgments.   Plaintiffs using damages methodologies that have little to no relation to the reality of the patent system in order to obtain those billion dollar judgments. NPEs asserting patents that they…

New Study Shows That IPR Delivers An Economic Benefit, Even If The District Court Doesn’t Stay Litigation

New research from the Perryman Group shows that inter partes review (IPR) is economically beneficial, even if co-pending district court litigation isn’t stayed.  The Perryman study, commissioned by Unified Patents, examines IPR’s economic impact, including the difference between staying or continuing on with a co-pending district court case.  There are two important findings in this…

Fintiv Denials Playing a Role in Huawei Assertion Campaign

Whenever we discuss the U.S. patent system, it’s critical to recall that while these patents are U.S. patents, anyone in the world can obtain one.  And they do.  In fact, in FY2020, of the 399,055 patents issued by the USPTO, 210,695—more than half—were obtained by residents of foreign countries.  Any changes that are made to…

Changes Reducing IPR Institution Rate Have Increased Litigation Frequency and Cost

graph showing close correlation between cost of NPE litigation and increases in procedural denials of IPR

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s precedential opinions on discretionary denial are the subject of significant attention—a withdrawn attempt by the Trump Administration to codify discretionary denial as a rule, a request for comments on rulemaking by the Office, and a challenge to the practice of discretionary denial as illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act.…