(http://eepurl.com/CVHYP)
`
`×
`
`1 of 7
`
`Help
`
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rpi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`May 20, 2019 (/rpi/2019/6/3/unified-patents-real-party-in-interest-rpi-decisions-
`may-2019-update)
`
`Unified Patents Real Party-in-
`Interest (RPI) Decisions (/rpi/2019
`/6/3/unified-patents-real-party-in-
`interest-rpi-decisions-may-2019-
`update)
`
`This post was updated May 10, 2022.
`
`For the past decade, across more than 300 proceedings, Unified Patents has won
`every real party-in-interest (RPI) challenge—whether at institution, on final written
`decision, or before the Federal Circuit.
`
`Unified’s status as the sole RPI was challengedin its first filed IPR, where the Board
`held that Unified was the sole RPI. Unified Patents Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00586 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2013-00586), Paper 9
`(https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws,com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00586%2F9) (Mar. 21,
`2014) (members were not found to be RPls, where there was no evidence of funding or
`control of the particular IPR; challenged claims were later cancelled in a Final Written
`Decision (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2013-00586%2F37)
`issued April 26, 2015), As catalogued below, Unified overcame every such challenge in
`the proceeding years. Today, RPI designations are rarely challenged and largely settled
`law.
`
`In 2018, the Federal Circuit had their first opportunity to review the Board's developing
`RPI jurisprudence in a case involving another membership organization, RPX, That
`opinion endorsed the Board's long standing RPI test set forth in the Trial Practice Guide
`but outlined facts particular to that situation (including a potential time-bar) and
`characteristics of that different membership organization that merited further scrutiny
`on remand. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC vo RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (July 9,
`2018) ("A/T"). On remand, the PTAB investigated, /nter alia, repeated coordination to
`violate a time-bar and a previous final Board decision’s implications, and determined
`that the organization's client, with whom they communicated closely related to the
`challenge, was an RPI in that case, RPX Corp, v. AIT, LLC, IPR2015-01750
`(https://portal. unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2015-01750), Paper 128 (PTAB Oct. 2,
`2020). The Board applied existing orders, precedent, and case law (the same body of
`law which, when applied to Unified, upheld Unified as the sole RPI) to this "highly fact-
`dependent question" to hold that RPX was not the sole RPI; hence, RPX's differing
`business model and practices resulted in a different outcome than Unified. /o., Paper
`128 at 6-9, 30-35; AIT, 897 F.3d at 1342 (citations omitted).
`
`In every ruling following AIT, Unified has been found to be the sole RPI including at the
`Federal Circuit. As catalogued below, Unified has been distinguished from the facts of
`AIT and the practices of the organization in question. The PTAB has thoroughly
`reviewed this issue in numerous cases when confirming that Unified was the sole
`RPI. Panels have noted that, contrary to the facts present in A/T, where the organization
`sought to extricate clients from litigation by negotiating on behalf of defendants and
`acting as an “intermediary between patent owners and operating companies,” Unified
`is no dealmaking middleman, and “acts independent of its members or any other
`company.” RPX Corp. v. AIT, LLC, IPR2015-01750 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com
`/ptab/case/IPR2017-01750), Paper 128 at 11-15, The Board has found that neither the
`manner of how Unified selects cases nor the business model itself render any members
`
`2? of 7
`
`Archive
`
`“
`
`SUBSCRIBE
`cribe t
`uw RSS
`Ors.
`(hittp:www.unitiedpatents.com
`frpi?format=rss)
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung Vv MemoryWeb _ IPR 2022-00222
`
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rpi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`3 of 7
`
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rpi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`4 of 7
`
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rpi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`5 of 7
`
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rpi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`6 of 7
`
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rpi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`7 of 7
`
`https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rpi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2092
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`