`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. -
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2018-00043
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN JAKEL
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1026
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Kevin Jakel, make the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
`
`1.
`
`I am the Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Unified Patents,
`
`Inc. (“Unified”).
`
`2.
`
`I provide this Declaration in connection with the above-identified inter
`
`partes review proceeding. Unless otherwise stated, the facts stated in this
`
`Declaration are based on my personal knowledge.
`
`3.
`
`Unified endeavors to deter non-practicing entity (NPE) patent litigation
`
`by protecting technology sectors that may be impacted by such NPE assertions of
`
`poor-quality patents. Companies in a technology sector subscribe to Unified’s
`
`technology-specific deterrence. Unified performs many NPE-deterrent activities,
`
`including data analytics, prior art searching, prior art contests, validity and
`
`patentability analyses, and post-grant review requests. Unified’s members do not
`
`pay any fees designated for IPRs. Unified’s members do not pay any fees for IPRs
`
`against specific patents. Unified alone determines how to spend its money. Unified
`
`independently selects which patents to target based on the perceived deterrent value
`
`to a technology zone. Based on its own independent analysis, Unified determines
`
`which patents are worth pursuing in terms of filing an IPR or performing some other
`
`activity. Unified does not work for members to resolve their litigations. For example,
`
`Unified filed this IPR without insight, input, or direction from its members. There
`
`are no explicit or implicit agreements with its members that direct or influence
`
`Unified to perform any particular deterrent strategy, including filing this IPR.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1026
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Unified is not an extension of any member’s in-house legal team.
`
`Unified has no attorney-client relationship, and never has had an attorney-client
`
`relationship, with its members. Unified has advertised this lack of an attorney-client
`
`relationship publicly on its website for years. https://www.unifiedpatents.com/faq/
`
`(“Unified is not a law firm, and does not have an attorney-client relationship with
`
`members.”).
`
`5.
`
`No Unified member made a significant payment shortly before the
`
`petition was filed. Many members pay no fee, and paying members pay a yearly
`
`subscription that is designated for one or more technology zones, not particular
`
`patents or IPRs. The annual fee paid by members is invoiced to each member on a
`
`12-month cycle depending on when each member joined Unified. Thus, a member’s
`
`payment or non-payment to Unified cannot and does not affect Unified’s ability to
`
`file its IPRs independently, and a member’s payment or non-payment to Unified
`
`does not influence whether Unified files an IPR challenging a particular patent.
`
`6.
`
`Unified establishes its Zones, and then members chose to join.
`
`Members do not direct or otherwise participate in the establishment of Zones.
`
`7.
`
`Unified and its members do not share any individuals on their
`
`respective boards of directors and have no corporate relationships with its members
`
`beyond its membership agreements.
`
`8.
`
`There was no offer to members or request by them for Unified to reach
`
`out to Fall Line Patents, LLC concerning the ʼ748 patent or the district court
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1026
`
`
`
`
`
`litigations involving the patent. Unified did not file this IPR for the desire, payment,
`
`or benefit of any particular member, or at the behest of any member.
`
`9.
`
`Unified did not communicate with any member to ascertain their
`
`desires and coordinate strategies and it did not take last-minute efforts to avoid an
`
`express statement of coordination. Indeed, Unified never communicates with any
`
`companies regarding IPR or litigation strategy, and did not do so here.
`
`10. Unified never communicates with members regarding whether or not it
`
`will file an IPR and did not do so here.
`
`11. Unified does not know their members’ litigation strategies, as Unified
`
`has no attorney-client relationship or joint defense group with its members and does
`
`not coordinate with its members.
`
`12. No outside party, including any member, made Unified aware of the
`
`’748 Patent, Fall Line, or Fall Line’s patent litigation.
`
`13. Unified challenges patents that are asserted in its Zones even when only
`
`non-members are involved in litigation and challenges unlitigated patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1026
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the
`
`like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of
`
`Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Date: January 31, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Kevin Jakel
`CEO Unified Patents, Inc.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Fall Line
`IPR2018-00043
`Unified EX1026
`
`
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
