The Gloves are Off : Unified Patents Inc. Unveils its “NPE Deterrent” Strategy | Unified PatentsUnified Patents
`
`12/25/13, 1:07 PM
`
` 1-415-786-5007
`
`info@unifiedpatents.com
`
`HOME
`
`
`
`@unifiedpatentsFollow Follow @unifiedpatents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ABOUT US
`
`WHAT WE DO
`
`NEWS/BLOG
`
`JOIN US
`
`CONTACT US
`
`Recent
`
`Blog
`
`Press Release
`
`WSJ Article – New Venture Enters
`Patent Fray (Sub. Required)
`
`CNET Article – Unified Patents,
`backed by Google, takes Fight to
`Patent Trolls
`
`The Gloves are Off : Unified
`Patents Inc. Unveils its “NPE
`Deterrent” Strategy
`
`Unified Patents Challenges
`Clouding IP Patent seeks To Push
`Patent Trolls out of Cloud Storage
`
`Unified Patents Challenges
`America’s Most Litigious Patent
`Assertion Entity
`
`THE GLOVES ARE OFF : UNIFIED PATENTS INC. UNVEILS ITS “NPE
`DETERRENT” STRATEGY
`
`In the world of fighting patent trolls, there is a new player named Unified Patents Inc. that aims to level the playing
`
`field for companies such as Google, NetApp and others. Unified Patents is today announcing its aggressive, multi-
`
`faceted, collaborative deterrence strategy to help large and small companies protect their most important products
`
`and services from Non-Practicing-Entity (NPE) business models (which critics often call ‘patent trolls’).
`
`An NPE is often defined as a company or individual that owns patents but does not use those patents to produce
`
`goods or services. Rather, an NPE generates revenue by asserting or litigating their patents against operating
`
`companies.
`
`Unified Patents attacks the NPE business model one technology at a time. Its solution groups startups, small and
`
`medium-sized businesses, and large companies in protected technologies, called Micro-Pools, and then fiercely
`
`protects each Micro-Pool from NPE encroachment. Because companies only participate in (and pay for) those Micro-
`
`Pools they choose, Unified Patents tightly aligns its deterrent solution with its participating companies. Founding
`
`members in Unified Patents include technology leaders Google and NetApp.
`
`Technology companies have tried for years to find effective solutions to combat NPEs. And for good reason,
`
`Professors Bessen and Meurer from Boston University School of Law put the cost of NPE activity at $29 billion in legal
`
`fees and settlement costs in 2011 alone (a number that does not include the indirect costs such as management
`
`distraction and lost business opportunities). Despite existing efforts, however, NPE litigation has continued to rise.
`
`NPE litigation data provided by Patent Freedom shows that patent lawsuits involving NPEs have increased
`
`dramatically over the last five yearsfrom 521 cases in 2007 to a high of 2,923 cases in 2012 (the number of occasions
`
`when a company found itself in litigation with an NPE has also increased from 2135 in 2007 to 3859 in 2012).
`
`For those technologies protected by a Micro-Pool, Unified Patents wants to reverse this trend by using deterrence (i.e.,
`
`making a protected technology less accessible to NPE activity than an unprotected technology). Unified Patents
`
`competes head-to-head against NPEs trying to purchase patents in a protected technology. But “defensive patent
`
`purchasing is only part of the strategy,” says Unified Patents’ CEO Kevin Jakel, “We provide a comprehensive solution
`
`of offense and defense to protect our member’s most important technology investments.” By combining patent
`
`acquisitions with other efforts, such as reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, Unified Patents takes the fight
`
`to the NPEs to deter them from attacking a protected technology.
`
`While large companies have long experimented with various approaches to resist NPEs and dubious patent
`
`assertions, small companies have typically lacked similar resources, making them easy targets for NPEs. Bessen and
`
`Meurer’s study found that 82% of companies sued by NPEs made under $100M in revenue and 50% made only $10.8
`
`million or less. As noted by Colleen Chien, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, startups and small
`
`companies are significantly impacted by NPE activity but have limited options when faced with the high costs of NPE
`
`litigation.
`
`Recognizing the need to include small companies in its solution, Unified Patents incentivizes startup and small
`
`company participation and then helps groups of small companies protect themselves from NPEs. Small company
`
`participation acts as an early warning system, a unique contribution that allows Unified Patents to better protect a
`
`Micro-Pool as a whole. By partnering companies of all sizes, Micro-Pools can help make defensive collaboration
`
`http://justdemo.in/unified/2013/09/23/the-gloves-are-off-unified-patents-inc-unveils-its-npe-deterrent-strategy/
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`12/25/13, 1:07 PM
`
` 1-415-786-5007
`
`info@unifiedpatents.com
`
`HOME
`
`
`
`@unifiedpatentsFollow Follow @unifiedpatents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ABOUT US
`
`WHAT WE DO
`
`NEWS/BLOG
`
`JOIN US
`
`CONTACT US
`
`Recent
`
`Blog
`
`Press Release
`
`WSJ Article – New Venture Enters
`Patent Fray (Sub. Required)
`
`CNET Article – Unified Patents,
`backed by Google, takes Fight to
`Patent Trolls
`
`The Gloves are Off : Unified
`Patents Inc. Unveils its “NPE
`Deterrent” Strategy
`
`Unified Patents Challenges
`Clouding IP Patent seeks To Push
`Patent Trolls out of Cloud Storage
`
`Unified Patents Challenges
`America’s Most Litigious Patent
`Assertion Entity
`
`THE GLOVES ARE OFF : UNIFIED PATENTS INC. UNVEILS ITS “NPE
`DETERRENT” STRATEGY
`
`In the world of fighting patent trolls, there is a new player named Unified Patents Inc. that aims to level the playing
`
`field for companies such as Google, NetApp and others. Unified Patents is today announcing its aggressive, multi-
`
`faceted, collaborative deterrence strategy to help large and small companies protect their most important products
`
`and services from Non-Practicing-Entity (NPE) business models (which critics often call ‘patent trolls’).
`
`An NPE is often defined as a company or individual that owns patents but does not use those patents to produce
`
`goods or services. Rather, an NPE generates revenue by asserting or litigating their patents against operating
`
`companies.
`
`Unified Patents attacks the NPE business model one technology at a time. Its solution groups startups, small and
`
`medium-sized businesses, and large companies in protected technologies, called Micro-Pools, and then fiercely
`
`protects each Micro-Pool from NPE encroachment. Because companies only participate in (and pay for) those Micro-
`
`Pools they choose, Unified Patents tightly aligns its deterrent solution with its participating companies. Founding
`
`members in Unified Patents include technology leaders Google and NetApp.
`
`Technology companies have tried for years to find effective solutions to combat NPEs. And for good reason,
`
`Professors Bessen and Meurer from Boston University School of Law put the cost of NPE activity at $29 billion in legal
`
`fees and settlement costs in 2011 alone (a number that does not include the indirect costs such as management
`
`distraction and lost business opportunities). Despite existing efforts, however, NPE litigation has continued to rise.
`
`NPE litigation data provided by Patent Freedom shows that patent lawsuits involving NPEs have increased
`
`dramatically over the last five yearsfrom 521 cases in 2007 to a high of 2,923 cases in 2012 (the number of occasions
`
`when a company found itself in litigation with an NPE has also increased from 2135 in 2007 to 3859 in 2012).
`
`For those technologies protected by a Micro-Pool, Unified Patents wants to reverse this trend by using deterrence (i.e.,
`
`making a protected technology less accessible to NPE activity than an unprotected technology). Unified Patents
`
`competes head-to-head against NPEs trying to purchase patents in a protected technology. But “defensive patent
`
`purchasing is only part of the strategy,” says Unified Patents’ CEO Kevin Jakel, “We provide a comprehensive solution
`
`of offense and defense to protect our member’s most important technology investments.” By combining patent
`
`acquisitions with other efforts, such as reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, Unified Patents takes the fight
`
`to the NPEs to deter them from attacking a protected technology.
`
`While large companies have long experimented with various approaches to resist NPEs and dubious patent
`
`assertions, small companies have typically lacked similar resources, making them easy targets for NPEs. Bessen and
`
`Meurer’s study found that 82% of companies sued by NPEs made under $100M in revenue and 50% made only $10.8
`
`million or less. As noted by Colleen Chien, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, startups and small
`
`companies are significantly impacted by NPE activity but have limited options when faced with the high costs of NPE
`
`litigation.
`
`Recognizing the need to include small companies in its solution, Unified Patents incentivizes startup and small
`
`company participation and then helps groups of small companies protect themselves from NPEs. Small company
`
`participation acts as an early warning system, a unique contribution that allows Unified Patents to better protect a
`
`Micro-Pool as a whole. By partnering companies of all sizes, Micro-Pools can help make defensive collaboration
`
`http://justdemo.in/unified/2013/09/23/the-gloves-are-off-unified-patents-inc-unveils-its-npe-deterrent-strategy/
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`The Gloves are Off : Unified Patents Inc. Unveils its “NPE Deterrent” Strategy | Unified PatentsUnified Patents
`
`12/25/13, 1:07 PM
`
`much more effective by reducing the number of easy targets vulnerable to NPEs.
`
`Unified Patents’ first two Micro-Pools cover Mobile Payments and Cloud Storage but the company has dozens of
`
`technologies identified for potential Micro-Pool protection. NPEactivity has become readily apparent in these Micro-
`
`Pools where many companies are already under attack and spending millions of dollars annually in legal costs and
`
`settlements.
`
`The company is headed up by its CEO, Kevin Jakel and COO, Brian Hinman, who between them have dozens of years of
`
`experience defending against NPE activity for major technology companies. Prior to Unified Patents, Kevin served as
`
`Intuit’s Head of Intellectual Property Litigation. In this role, Kevin teamed with other companies such as Google,
`
`Verizon, and others on joint defense, legislative reform, and judicial efforts to combat NPE activity. Brian was most
`
`recently Vice President of Intellectual Property and Licensing at InterDigital Communications, Inc., and has served in
`
`similar roles at Verizon and IBM. Brian also served as the founding CEO of an alternative defensive patent entity, Allied
`
`Security Trust (AST).
`
`CONTACT US
`
`Latest Tweets
`
`Subscribe
`
`Mailing Address
`
`unifiedpatents Merry Christmas to all. Even the trolls.
`http://t.co/ODliKSb94R
`
`Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter
`
`unifiedpatents Are #patent #trolls as profitable as drug
`dealers? Pretty brazen. Disclaimer is entertaining too.
`http://t.co/mSbzTEYn9r
`
`your@email.com
`
`
`
`SUBSCRIBE
`
`171 Main St. #106
`LOS ALTOS CA 94022
`United States
`
`+1.415.786.5007
`
`info@unifiedpatents.com
`
`© 2013 Unified Patents, Inc. All Rights reserved.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`http://justdemo.in/unified/2013/09/23/the-gloves-are-off-unified-patents-inc-unveils-its-npe-deterrent-strategy/
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
