Document title:
`
`Capture URL:
`
`Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`
`https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-
`further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`
`Page loaded at (UTC):
`
`Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:03:46 GMT
`
`Capture timestamp (UTC):
`
`Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Capture tool:
`
`Collection server IP:
`
`Browser engine:
`
`Operating system:
`
`PDF length:
`
`Capture ID:
`
`User:
`
`v7.13.2
`
`54.157.181.49
`
`Chrome/77.0.3865.120
`
`Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.17763.0 (10.0.17763.0)
`
`11
`
`acc0cb18-7b6e-47af-a236-0364d9611dd4
`
`bh-sskiles
`
`PDF REFERENCE #: 7uHEan1ToyXTtr9CGaosBA
`
`IGT EXHIBIT 2021
`Zynga v. IGT, IPR2022-00199
`
`

`

`RP>{
`
`RATIONAL PATENT•
`
`PLATFORM
`
`INTELLIGENCE
`
`COMPANY
`
`FAQS
`
`CONTACT US
`
`LOG IN
`
`Q
`
`Q1 in Review: New Uncertainties Spark
`Further Change as Reform Momentum
`Builds
`
`April 30, 2019
`
`Intelligence > Blog>
`
`«! SHARE ~ PRINT
`
`In 2018, the patent system began experiencing a series of changes that tended to favor patent plaintiffs,
`and some of those same trends accelerated in the first quarter of 2019.
`
`Plaintiffs have continued to adjust to the US Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision by exploring new
`venues for filing infringement litigation, while judicial uncertainty over certain aspects of venue law not
`addressed by that opinion threatens to reestablish nationwide venue for certain defendants. The Federal
`Circuit's 2018 decisions in Berkheimer and Aatrix have continued to fuel an ongoing debate over the
`proper standards for patent eligibility, with the USPTO attempting to clarify perceived uncertainties with
`new guidance on Section 101 . Additionally, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw its 10,000th
`petition in 01, reaffirming the key role t hat America Invents Act (AIA) reviews play in litigation defense.
`The dust has also begun to settle from recent judicial challenges affecting t he Board.
`
`Meanwhile, the patent marketplace continued to see activity from entities both new and established.
`Fortress Investment Group LLC, an increasingly prolific filer of new litigation, encountered significant
`pushback from certain defendants that have questioned t he nature of its partnership with Australian NPE
`Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. Leadership turnover at certain NPEs has also spurred further changes,
`including the apparent resurgence of Acacia Research Corporation and t he arrival of a new monetization
`firm formed by an alumnus of IPValuation Partners LLC (d/b/a IPVal). Patent divestitures continued to be
`a driver of new litigation in t he first quarter, with multiple NPEs acquiring and asserting patents received
`from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) as well as from various operating companies.
`
`Furthermore, momentum has been steadily growing in Congress for legislative reform on patent eligibility,
`pursued by the Senate Judiciary Committee's newly reconstituted Subcommittee on Intellectual Property.
`However, USPTO Director Andrei lancu-once a proponent of a legislative fix for Section 101-has begun
`urging stakeholders and courts alike to take a fresh look at existing caselaw, arguing that there is far less
`uncertainty than the popular narrative suggests.
`
`Litigation Update: Overall Filings Dip Due to Operating Company Slowdown, but NPE Activity Ticks
`Upward
`
`Patent Venue: The Rise of the Western District of Texas and Continued Judicial Uncertainty on
`
`\ / - - •• - I - • ••
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`

`

`urging stakeholders and courts alike to take a fresh look at existing caselaw, arguing that there is far less
`uncertainty than the popular narrative suggests.
`
`Litigation Update: Overall Filings Dip Due to Operating Company Slowdown, but NPE Activity Ticks
`Upward
`
`Patent Venue: The Rise of the Western District of Texas and Continued Judicial Uncertainty on
`Venue Law
`
`Patent Eligibility: The Supreme Court Considers Berkheimer as the US PTO Releases New Guidance
`
`PTAB: A Filing Milestone and a Revised Claim Amendment Process
`
`Patent Marketplace: Fortress Digs In, New and Old Players Ramp Up Litigation, and Assertion of
`Former IV Patents Continues
`
`Patent Policy: Congress Tackles Section 101 Reform as Director lancu Speaks Out
`
`Litigation Update: Overall Filings Dip Due to Operating Company Slowdown, but NPE
`Activity Ticks Upward
`
`Patent litigation filing levels decl ined during the first quarter of 2019: 793 defendants were added
`in 01 overall, a 12.6% drop from the year-ago quarter and a decrease of 7.3% from the fourth quarter of
`2018.
`
`During the first quarter, NPEs added 434 defendants to patent cases, 12.7% more than were added in the
`first quarter of 2018 and 6.4% more than were added in 04 2018.
`
`For their part, operating companies added 359 defendants in 01 2019, down 31.2% compared to the first
`quarter of the previous year and 19.7% below the fourth quarter of 2018.
`
`Defendants Added to US District Court Litigation Campaigns Quarterly
`
`2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019
`Q1
`Q2
`Q3
`Q4 Ql
`Q2
`Q3
`Q4
`Q1
`Q2
`Q3
`Q4 Ql
`Q3
`Q4
`Q1
`Q2
`(cid:127) Operating Company
`(cid:127) NPE
`
`Back to top
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019
`Q1 Q2
`Q3
`Q4
`Ql
`Q2
`Q3
`Q4
`Q1 Q2
`Q3
`Q4
`Ql
`Q3
`Q4
`Q1
`Q2
`(cid:127) Operating Company
`(cid:127) NPE
`
`Back to top
`
`Patent Venue: The Rise of the Western District of Texas and Continued Judicial
`Uncertainty on Venue Law
`The US Supreme Court caused a realignment in patent venue through its decision in TC Heartland. By
`holding that a corporate defendant "resides" for venue purposes only in its state of incorporation, the
`Court raised the bar for patent plaintiffs to sue certain companies in districts once popular with NPEs. The
`result has been that the Eastern District of Texas fell well behind Delaware by the number of defendants
`added to litigation campaigns. As of the end of the f irst quarter of 2019, nearly two years after TC
`Heartland, that trend has continued: t he Eastern District of Texas was the second-most popular district
`overall, accounting for just 16% of overall litigation by defendants added, with Delaware holding first
`place at 41 %. The Eastern District accounted for a slightly higher share of N PE litigat ion at 22°k>, behind
`Delaware's 44%, but was t he fourth -most-popular district for operating company litigation at 9%.
`
`Top Districts
`
`Overall
`
`NPE
`
`Operating Company
`
`D.Del.
`
`41%
`
`D. Del.
`
`44%
`
`D. De l.
`
`37%
`
`E.D. Tex.
`
`C.D. Cal.
`
`N.D. Cal.
`
`D.N.J.
`
`E.D. Tex.
`
`22%
`
`D.N.J.
`
`N.D. Cal.
`
`8%
`
`C.D. Ca l.
`
`W.D. Tex.
`
`7%
`
`E.D. Tex.
`
`C.D. Cal.
`
`6%
`
`N.D. Cal.
`
`0
`
`100 200
`
`300
`
`400
`
`0
`
`50 100 150 200
`
`0
`
`50
`
`100
`
`150
`
`The Western District of Texas: Judge Albright Takes the Reins
`
`Notably, t he Western District of Texas now appears in t he top f ive for lit igation filed by N PEs, holding the
`fourth spot with 7% of defendants added (slightly behind the Northern District of California, and just
`ahead of the Central District of California). The Western District has seen a surge of interest since the
`September 2018 swearing-in of its new district judge, Alan Albright, a seasoned patent litigator and
`former magistrate judge. Judge Albright has made no secret of the fact that he wants to make his district
`the new hotbed for patent litigat ion, reportedly engaging in outreach to bar associations to encourage
`the filing of patent cases in his district.
`
`Additionally, Judqe Albriqht's district has qarnered attention throuqh the standinq order he issued for
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`.... .. .... J ........ ..
`......... .
`.... .... ('""" .................................................................................. \ ...... :::,., ... J
`............................................ _
`, .................. _
`.... . . . ............ ,
`ahead of the Central District of California). The Western District has seen a surge of interest since the
`September 2018 swearing-in of its new district judge, Alan Albright, a seasoned patent litigator and
`former magistrate judge. Judge A lbright has made no secret of the fact that he wants to make his district
`the new hotbed for patent litigation, reportedly engaging in outreach to bar associations to encourage
`the filing of patent cases in his district.
`
`Additionally, Judge Albright's district has garnered attention through the standing order he issued for
`patent cases in January, which incorporates some rather unique rules-
`for example, most discovery
`cannot take p lace until after the Markman hearing, while parties also have greater freedom to amend their
`contentions later in a case. In addition, t he order makes Judge Albright a gatekeeper for the discovery
`process, as parties must meet and confer and t hen contact chambers before filing a motion to compel
`discovery. Judge Albright has also publicly stated t hat he will not stay cases pending the outcome of inter
`partes reviews {IPRs) absent special circumstances, as he believes that patent owners deserve jury trials in
`federal court.
`
`The Western District of Texas's rise may also be aided partly by t he second prong of the patent venue
`statute, which allows patent suits to be filed where a defendant "has committed acts of infringement and
`has a regular and established place of business". The second prong has increasingly been used t o support
`venue in the wake of TC Heartland Unlike the Eastern District, where fewer businesses have active
`operations, the Western District includes tech hotspot Austin, where many large companies have a
`significant presence. As a result, plaintiffs newly eyeing the Western District may be able t o establish
`venue there more easily for many frequent defendants.
`
`Judicial Debates on Venue: The TC Heartland Workaround?
`
`Additionally, courts have split as t o the proper standard for determining whether a defendant has a
`"regular and established place of business" in a given district. While t he Federal Circuit's 2017 ruling from
`In re: Cray provided some general guidelines-a defendant must have "a physical place in the district";
`that p lace of business must be "regular", meaning "transient activity" is not enough; "established",
`meaning that the business locat ion must have been stable and established for a "reasonable period of
`time"; and "ofthe defendant", meaning a place not solely controlled by an employee-courts have
`applied Cray inconsistently.
`
`Of particular importance is the ongoing debate over how to apply that prong for companies that use
`servers for e-commerce. Last year, the Federal Circuit declined to overrule a decision by District Judge
`Rodney Gilstrap of t he Eastern District of Texas, in Seven Networks v. Google, that Google servers
`maintained within third-party facilities in the Eastern District constituted a "regular and established place
`of business". The appeals court refused to revisit that decision in early February. Circuit Judge Jimmie
`Reyna has sharply criticized his colleagues for refusing t o take up the issue, warning that venue law would
`be dramatically overextended if courts were to follow Judge Gilstrap's lead. This approach would
`effectively reestablish "nationwide venue" for many companies despite TC Heartland, he predicted, given
`the extent to which businesses t hat engage in e-commerce routinely rely on routers and other computer
`equipment used analogously to t he Google servers at issue in Seven Networks.
`
`Supreme Court Preserves Nationwide Venue for Foreign Defendants
`
`While significant uncertainties thus remain for domestic companies, a key issue regarding venue against
`foreign corporations was resolved in the first quarter of 2019. Last year, in In re: HTC, the Federal Circuit
`decided not to revisit t he alien venue rule, a long-standing principle (presently codified in 28 USC Section
`1391 (c)(3)) under which foreign defendants fall outside all federal venue laws-thus allowing foreign
`defendants to be sued in any district. On February 25, the Supreme Court declined to take up t he issue,
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`

`Supreme Court Preserves Nationwide Venue for Foreign Defendants
`
`While significant uncertainties thus remain for domestic companies, a key issue regarding venue against
`foreign corporations was resolved in the first quarter of 2019. Last year, in In re: HTC, the Federal Circuit
`decided not to revisit the alien venue rule, a long-standing principle (presently codified in 28 USC Section
`1391 (c)(3)) under which foreign defendants fall outside all federal venue laws-
`thus allowing foreign
`defendants to be sued in any d istrict. On February 25, the Supreme Court declined to take up the issue,
`effectively affirming the Federal Circuit's decision. As a result, the alien venue rule will likely remain the law
`for the foreseeable future, exposing foreign corporate defendants to patent risk in virtually any district(cid:173)
`although a plaintiff must still show that a given foreign corporation committed acts of infringement in its
`chosen venue.
`
`Back to top
`
`Patent Eligibility: The Supreme Court Considers Berkheimer as the US PTO Releases
`New Guidance
`
`Last year, t he Federal Circuit spurred a significant shift in Section 101 jurisprudence t hrough its decisions
`in Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software, in which it held that Rule 12 and
`summary judgment motions brought under Section 101 cannot be granted if the plaintiff properly raises a
`factual d ispute over whether a patent contains an inventive concept.
`
`Those decisions have threatened defendants' ability to b ring early Alice challenges and have raised
`questions about whether patent eligibility will ultimately become an issue not properly raised until much
`closer to trial, or even later. Meanwhile, courts have continued to debate whether Berkheimer and Aatrix
`change the underlying nature of t he Section 101 analysis; the Federal Circuit itself has become divided
`over whether those decisions have improperly elevated t he role of facts into a determination t hat has
`historically been considered a pure question of law.
`
`That debate may soon come before t he Supreme Court, which on January 7, 2019 requested the views of
`US Solicitor General Noel Francisco as to the certiorari petition filed by HP last September in the
`Berkheimer case. In that petition, HP framed the core issue as t he nature of the Alice test itself, arguing
`that the test clearly remains a question of law under Supreme Court precedent. The Solicitor General has
`not yet filed that b rief, but its contents will likely be instructive g iven the historically influent ial nature of
`such filings- a recent Law360 analysis indicates that the Supreme Court generally agrees with the views
`of the Solicitor General, when requested.
`
`The USPTO has also updated its examination procedures in response to recent developments in Section
`101 jurisprudence. In January 2019, the Patent Office released long-awaited guidance on Section 101 that
`revamped the examination process with respect to t he "abstract idea" step of Alice (step one), laying out
`certain types of subject matter that are always abstract (based on a review of existing caselaw) and
`establishing how, if a claim is found to contain a "practical application" of an abstract idea, it is not
`"directed to" t hat idea (and t hus passes the Alice test at the first step). This guidance follows an April 2018
`memorandum issued in response to Berkheimer that refined how examiners should apply t he "inventive
`concept" step of the Alice analysis (step two), tightening t he evidentiary requirements for showing that a
`patent's claims are directed to "well-understood, routine, and conventional activity" and theoretically
`making the p rocess less subjective.
`
`An in-depth analysis of t hese and other developments related to Section 101 can be found in the public
`excerpt of RPX's recent Patent Litigation and Marketplace Report.
`
`DT/\R· I\ J:ilinn Mi lodf'\no :::inrl :::i Oo\/icorl rl:::iim /\monrlmon+ D rf'\rocc
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`concept step or me Alice ana1ys1s \Step rwoJ, t1gmening me ev1aenuary requ1remems ror snowing mat a
`patent's claims are directed to "well-understood, routine, and conventional activity" and theoretically
`making the process less subjective.
`
`An in-depth analysis of these and other developments related to Section 101 can be found in the public
`excerpt of RPX's recent Patent Litigation and Marketplace Report.
`
`PTAB: A Filing Milestone and a Revised Claim Amendment Process
`
`In the first quarter of 2019, 339 petitions for America Invents Act (AIA) review were filed with the PTAB,
`including 322 petitions for IPR, three petitions for covered business method (CBM) review, and 14 petitions
`for post-grant review (PGR). In total, these figures represent a 29% decrease over the previous quarter and
`a 17.3% decrease over 01 2018.
`
`Total Petitions Filed By Quarter
`
`. : --
`
`443
`
`322
`
`566
`
`. :
`
`. . '
`
`• I
`
`,
`
`I
`
`• I•
`
`. . -
`
`416
`
`439
`
`448
`
`434
`
`548
`
`379
`
`356
`
`375
`
`385
`
`395
`
`- 3
`
`35
`
`2016
`01
`
`2016
`02
`
`2016
`03
`
`2016
`04
`
`2017
`01
`
`2017
`02
`
`IPR
`
`2017
`2017
`04
`03
`(cid:127) CBM (cid:127) PGR
`
`2018
`01
`
`2018
`02
`
`2018
`03
`
`2018
`04
`
`01
`2019
`
`Additionally, the end of the first quarter saw the filing of the 1 0,OOOth petition for AIA review. This
`milestone reflects the key counterbalancing role that the PTAB has played in patent litigation over the past
`several years, with AIA reviews giving defendants the ability to challenge patent validity early and without
`months of costly litigation-allowing them to potentially resolve patent disputes more quickly.
`
`Supreme Court Declines to Revive Tribal Sovereign Immunity Defense
`
`Judicial activity involving the PTAB has largely settled down following an eventfu l 2018, which saw the
`Supreme Court uphold IPR's constitutionality in Oil States and ban the PTAB's prior practice of issuing
`partial institution decisions in SAS Institute. However, the Supreme Court did resolve one lingering area of
`uncertainty for the PTAB shortly after the end of 01 2019 by declining to grant certiorari in Saint Regis
`Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals (2018-0899), ending a controversial patent-shielding strategy first
`used in late 2017 by a Native American tribe and its counsel. Under that strategy, the Saint Regis Mohawk
`Tribe acquired certain patents from pharmaceutical company Allergan and NPE SRC Labs, LLC, hoping to
`shield those assets from IPR using the tribe's sovereign immunity. However, in February and July 2018, the
`PTAB and Federal Circuit each ruled that the tribe could not assert its immunity against IPR, although they
`each reached that conclusion on markedly different grounds from one another.
`
`PTAB Reforms: New Amendment Program Takes Effect as PTAB Panel Refines Board Precedent
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`(cid:127)
`

`

`used in late lU l / by a Native American tribe and its counsel. Under that strategy, the !>aint t<egis Mohawk
`Tribe acquired certain patents from pharmaceutical company Allergan and NPE SRC Labs, LLC, hoping to
`shield those assets from IPR using the tribe's sovereign immunity. However, in February and July 2018, the
`PTAB and Federal Circuit each ruled that the tribe could not assert its immunity against IPR, although they
`each reached that conclusion on markedly different grounds from one another.
`
`PTAB Reforms: New Amendment Program Takes Effect as PTAB Panel Refines Board Precedent
`
`The first quarter also saw the PTAB implement a new pilot program for a revised AIA review claim
`amendment process. This pilot program, originally revealed in October 2018, was a response to past
`complaints that the original process- allowing the patent owner to file a single motion to amend, with a
`single reply in opposition and the Board providing no ruling until the final decision- made it too difficult
`for patent owners to amend claims. Under the new system as originally proposed, patent owners would
`have just six weeks to move to amend, with petitioners given six weeks to respond. The PTAB will then
`issue a non-binding, preliminary ruling on the motion, and if the Board decides that the patent owner's
`motion is likely to fail, the patent owner can file a new motion that revises the proposed substitute claims
`in response.
`
`The final version of the pilot program, implemented on March 15, 2019 and set to last for at least a year,
`includes a variety of changes in response to feedback from various industry stakeholders. Most notably, in
`light of comments that the proposed t imeframe was too compressed, the motion to amend deadline was
`extended to 12 weeks, with the deadline for the petitioner's response to that motion pushed to 12 weeks
`after that, aligning those deadlines with those for the patent owner's response to the petit ion and the
`petitioner's reply, respectively. The t iming for the oral hearing was also extended from nine to ten months
`after institution for the new system. In addition, patent owners will have the option of using the old system
`if they prefer the status quo.
`
`RPX will monitor this new system's impact on claim amendment rates in the months ahead.
`
`Back to top
`
`Patent Marketplace: Fortress Digs In, New and Old Players Ramp Up Litigation, and
`Assertion of Former IV Patents Continues
`
`The patent marketplace has evolved significantly over the past few years, and as formerly dominant
`p layers like Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) have scaled back their acquisition and assertion activities,
`others have stepped in to fill the void.
`
`Fortress: Uni/oc Litigation Reveals a Tangled History
`
`One of the most prominent of those newer market entrants has been Fortress Invest ment Group LLC,
`which began its involvement in patent litigation by funding the campaigns of other NPEs and has since
`become a prolific litigant in its own right. Last year, it began one of its most aggressive assertion
`campaigns yet through a partnership with Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited (Uniloc). After
`apparently funding Uniloc's litigation at least as far back as December 2014, Fortress appears to have
`taken over a substantial portion of its assertion efforts in May 2018, when a Fortress subsidiary (Uniloc
`2017 LLC) acquired the bulk of the N PE's patent portfolio as part of a complex set of agreements
`between Fortress and Uniloc.
`
`Those agreements are now the focus of an ongoing dispute over standing in litigation with Apple and
`Lenovo (Motorola Mobility). The defendants have argued that because Uniloc purportedly defaulted
`under those agreements by failing to hit its revenue targets, among other reasons, rights in the asserted
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`taken over a substantial portion of its assertion efforts in May 2018, when a Fortress subsidiary (Uniloc
`2017 LLC) acquired the bulk of the N PE's patent portfolio as part of a complex set of agreements
`between Fortress and Uniloc.
`
`Those agreements are now the focus of an ongoing dispute over standing in litigation with Apple and
`Lenovo (Motorola Mobility). The defendants have argued that because Uniloc purportedly defaulted
`under those agreements by failing to hit its revenue targets, among other reasons, rights in the asserted
`patents had shifted from Fortress to Uniloc- thus depriving t he latter of standing to sue. In February 2019,
`District Judge W illiam A lsup rejected that argument as to Apple's litigation, but the company has
`continued to push back by filing a motion for reconsideration, also in February. Additionally, Uniloc has
`fought to keep its licensing information confidential as the Electronic Frontier Foundation seeks to unseal
`related documents in that litigat ion, after moving to intervene for that purpose.
`
`This standing dispute is just the latest development in Uniloc's tangled litigation history. A recent RPX
`analysis details more than 15 years of turbulence and reveals further details on the Fortress-Uniloc
`relationship t hrough an in-depth review of public records.
`
`Acacia Returns with New Leadership and Litigation
`
`As Fortress expands its assertion strategy, another formerly active player-publicly traded NPE Acacia
`Research Corporation-appears poised for a resurgence. While Acacia has not launched any US litigat ion
`campaigns since mid-2015, the NPE underwent a sweeping leadership change last August that saw t he
`resignation of t hree board members, the announcement that three of its top executives would transition
`out of t he company, and the appointment of a new "chief intellectual property officer", Marc W. Booth.
`Since then, Acacia has rebooted a number of its litigat ion campaigns, most recently the cellular voice
`codec campaign waged by its subsidiaries Saint Lawrence Communications LLC and EVS Codec
`Technologies, LLC. Acacia seems to be gearing up for additional litigation later this year; in a recent
`earnings call, the NPE disclosed t hat its IP licensing team is expected to "research and process" $20M of
`new IP capital expenditure in 2019.
`
`Endpoint IP, IPVa/ Cofounder's New Firm, Ramps Up Litigation
`
`Meanwhile, leadership t urnover at another prominent NPE, IPValuation Partners LLC (d/b/a IPVal), has
`led to the rise of a new p layer in patent monetization. Last summer, IPVal cofounder Jonathan Szarzynski
`left the firm, forming Endpoint IP LLC in August and reportedly taking with him over 20 patent assertion
`entities that once fell under t he IPVal banner. Endpoint has since acquired multiple patent portfolios from
`IV, with some of those assets already in lit igation. In March, Endpoint's Aido Mobility LLC launched a new
`campaign targeting various companies' mobile apps, asserting a series of personalized web content
`patents acquired from IV in mid-January. At least one more Endpoint IP affiliate seems poised to assert IV
`patents: in December, Endpoint affiliate Aido LLC acquired an international patent portfolio from IV,
`including imaging, data processing, and video patents that variously originated with Lenovo (Motorola
`Mobility), SK Hynix, and SRI (Sarnoff). That assignment was made public in January.
`
`Quest Patent Research Corporation Continues Acquisitions from IV
`
`Another NPE t hat has focused on t he acquisition and assertion of IV assets is publicly-traded Quest
`Patent Research Corporation (OPRC). In March, OPRC acquired another portfolio from IV through
`subsidiary M-Red Inc., comprising patents originating with BAE Systems, Conexant, Cypress
`Semiconductor, Honeywell, Philips, MagnaChip, STMicro, or UMC, among others. M-Red began asserting
`a subset of those patents in late April. OPRC also has four other active campaigns asserting patents
`received from IV, including two in which IV holds a continuing financial interest according to QPRC's
`public disclosures.
`
`Document title: Q1 2019 Data Update | RPX Corp
`Capture URL: https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds
`Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:04:20 GMT
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Another NPE that has focused on the acquisition and assertion of IV assets is publicly-traded Quest
`Patent Research Corporation (OPRC). In March, OPRC acquired another portfolio from IV through
`subsidiary M-Red Inc., comprising patents originating with BAE Systems, Conexant, Cypress
`Semiconductor, Honeywell, Philips, MagnaChip, STMicro, or UMC, among others. M-Red began asserting
`a subset of those patents in late April. OPRC also has four other active campaigns asserting patents
`received from IV, including two in which IV holds a continuing financial interest according to QPRC's
`public disclosures.
`
`Dominion Harbor Continues Acquiring and Asserting Operating Company Assets
`
`Certain NPEs have also continued to acquire patents acquired directly from operating companies,
`including Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC, an affiliate of which-Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC (SPV)
`-obtained over 175 US assets from Panasonic in March. The assignments were recorded with the USPTO
`on April 9 and may be part of a larger acquisition. In a press release announcing t he transaction, Dominion
`stated that SPV will "exclusively represent Panasonic's portfolio of 1,000 top-notch wireless and smart
`speaker patents". This latest transfer follows an October 2018 assignment from Panasonic to SP\/, which
`according to Dominion involved over 3,500 assets-a subset of which SPV has asserted in a litigat ion
`campaign that it launched in December.
`
`Private Equity Firm Buys PanOptis
`
`In February, Brevet Capital-a private equity firm based in New York-announced that it had purchased
`multiple entities affiliated with Leslie Ware's PanOptis Holdings, LLC, including litigating NPEs Optis
`Cellular Technology LLC; Optis Wireless Technology, LLC; and Unwired Planet, LLC. This acquisition is
`just the latest of multiple restructurings for PanOptis that have taken p lace in the last t hree years,
`including one that followed its June 2016 acquisition of Unwired Planet, lnc.'s licensing business and
`another in March 2017 when it joined Avanci, the Internet of Things (loD licensing platform headed by
`Kasim Alfalahi. Weeks after the announcement of the Brevet acquisition, PanOptis filed its first new
`infringement case in two years, asserting patents declared essential to t he LTE standard.
`
`Patent Policy: Congress Tackles Section 101 Reform as Director lancu Speaks Out
`
`Intellectual property reform has not been a top priority for Congress over the past few years, but in recent
`months legislators have shown a renewed focus on patent issues amidst growing calls for change. In
`February, t he Senate Judiciary Committee revived its Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, which had
`been dormant since 2007. The subcommittee, led by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC, chairman) and Chris
`Coons (D-DE, ranking member), has taken on the issue of Section 101 reform, and t he two senators have
`been outspoken in their assessment of the current state of the law. Senator Tillis called the governing law
`on eligibility a "total mess" in a March 26 speech at the LeadershlP conference, while Senator Coons has
`called Section 101 a "very thorny issue" and has stated that the current state of patent law overall
`"discourages innovation".
`
`To that end, the subcommittee has held three private roundtables with a variety of industry stakeholders
`to establish a series of principles for an upcoming bill on Section 101. On April 17, the subcommittee
`released a bipartisan framework for a bill slated for introduction t his summer. The proposed changes,
`some of which overlap with t he USPTO's January 2019 guidance, include t he elimination of the
`requirement that any invention or discovery be both "new and useful", defining exclusive categories of
`statutory subject matter and statutorily eliminat ing judicial exceptions, and requiring that "eligibility [be]
`determined by considering each and every element o