UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JUSTSERVICE.NET LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01258
`U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`
`REDACTED
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF KEVIN JAKEL
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 1 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JUSTSERVICE.NET LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01258
`U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`
`REDACTED
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF KEVIN JAKEL
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 1 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`
`I, Kevin Jakel, make the following Declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
`
`1.
`
`I am a founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Unified Patents,
`
`LLC (“Unified”).
`
`2.
`
`I make this supplemental declaration as voluntary discovery in
`
`response to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Unless otherwise stated, the
`
`facts stated in this Declaration are based on my personal knowledge.
`
`3.
`
`Since its founding, Unified’s certification as the sole real party-in-
`
`interest (“RPI”) has been held to be correct in every instance where it was
`
`challenged and addressed. This includes decisions in the more than two years since
`
`the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX
`
`Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Unified’s members have never been held as
`
`RPIs.
`
`4.
`
`As stated in Exhibit 1026 (at 2-3), Unified is a first-of-its-kind
`
`company whose sole purpose is to deter NPE litigation by protecting technology
`
`sectors. Unified was built to operate independently to serve its deterrence goals.
`
`Thus, Unified has sole and absolute discretion over its decision to contest patents.
`
`Companies in a technology sector can become members by subscribing to
`
`Unified’s technology-specific deterrence “zones.” Unified deterrence model is not
`
`a litigation solution and has never sought to resolve members’ litigations or
`
`1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 2 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`extricate them from lawsuits, nor does it create an expectation that Unified will file
`
`when a member is sued.
`
`5.
`
`Further, as stated in my original declaration (Exhibit 1026 at 12),
`
`Unified is independent and has no attorney-client relationship with its members.
`
`Unified is not an extension of any member’s in-house legal team.
`
`6.
`
`Unified currently has more than 3,000 members, and could not
`
`possibly coordinate the conflicting interests of these members even if it wanted to,
`
`and instead considers a various factors in furtherance of its deterrence goals in a
`
`given technology zone. As set forth on Unified’s website
`
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/join), companies under $20M in revenue are
`
`provided a free membership and larger companies pay standardized levels of
`
`annual membership fees. Such funding allows for Unified to pursue its mission of
`
`deterring NPE litigation based on many activities. These fees are designated to
`
`many services and activities in one or more zones, and they are never designated to
`
`a particular IPR or patent.
`
`
`
`pay no fees. Thus, it would be financially untenable for Unified to file IPRs for all
`
` And, as mentioned, many members
`
`of its individual members.
`
`7.
`
`Unified does not solicit additional payments from its members other
`
`than its scheduled, annual subscription fee. Nor does it discuss which patents to
`
`
`
`2
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 3 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`challenge with members, inform members which patents it intends to challenge,
`
`discuss the substance of its IPRs, or discuss IPR strategy post-filing.
`
`8.
`
`Furthermore, Unified has always acted independently to protect the
`
`technology zones.
`
`
`
`
`
` Unified also often
`
`files against patents not asserted against any member. Further, Unified does not
`
`consult with members or any third party about IPR or potential litigation strategies.
`
`For this reason, Unified likely takes positions inconsistent with those taken by
`
`litigation defendants, including members, such as in claim construction or with
`
`respect to motions to amend.
`
`9.
`
`Unified often files regardless of whether members are in parallel
`
`litigation. Based on public information, for over 90% of the IPRs Unified has filed,
`
`there was either no member involved in active litigation or a mix of both members
`
`and non-members involved in active litigation. More than half of the time that
`
`Unified has filed an IPR, there were no members in active litigation at the time of
`
`Unified’s filing. Furthermore, almost one-third of the time that Unified has filed an
`
`IPR, there is no active litigation involving the challenged patent at the time of
`
`Unified’s filing.
`
`
`
`3
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 4 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`10. Unified is not a patent aggregator, and Unified has never paid for a
`
`license to a patent. Unified sees its IPRs to their conclusion unless a patent owner
`
`agrees to a royalty-free license for Unified
`
`
`
` This royalty-free license is
`
`in furtherance of Unified’s mission to protect a technology zone as a whole,
`
`regardless of whether the organizations are members or non-members, by
`
`shattering the value of ongoing assertions and refusing to fund an NPE. As set
`
`forth on Unified’s website (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/faq), “Unified never
`
`pays any money to NPEs.” Unified implemented this policy in furtherance of its
`
`deterrence objective. For example, based on an analysis of public dockets, nearly
`
`60% of the time, when Unified has challenged a patent then settled with the NPE,
`
`that patent was never asserted in litigation again.
`
`11. Unified is not aware of any instances, over at least the past five years,
`
`
`
`
`
`12. Unified has conducted a search for any communications leading up to
`
`this IPR regarding this patent, IPR, the patent owner or the parallel litigation.1
`
`
`1 As I understand, JustService never requested specific discovery prior to filing its
`
`preliminary response, but Unified would consider (and has) produced such materials
`
`
`
`4
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 5 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`There were no communications with any member of Unified prior to the filing of
`
`this proceeding. And, as with other cases, there were no communications with
`
`Dropbox about this proceeding, JustService, or JustService’s patents other than
`
`public announcements regarding Unified’s docket activity (e.g., the filing of the
`
`IPR petition in this case). For example, Unified sends members a “News Update”
`
`identifying the petition of this IPR and posts announcements to the general public
`
`regarding its filing on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
`
`
`
`.
`
`13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Dropbox became a member of Unified’s cloud zone on August 28,
`
`2013. Dropbox is considered a Unified member in Unified’s Cloud Zone and, less
`
`relevant, its open source zone by virtue of its participation in Open Invention
`
`
`in response to any reasonable requests and upon entry of an appropriate protective
`
`order.
`
`
`
`5
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 6 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`Network (OIN) (on information and belief—discussed in more detail below).
`
`Unified is unaware of any instance where it filed a review proceeding on which
`
`Dropbox was time-barred in this time period. Dropbox’s membership to Unified is
`
`renewed at a regular, set interval (i.e., annual contracts).
`
`15. Open Invention Network LLC (“OIN”) is an organization with
`
`underlying members and licensees, which constitute over 3,000 entities; the OIN
`
`members and licensees are identified on OIN’s website
`
`https://openinventionnetwork.com/directory-community and
`
`https://openinventionnetwork.com/community-alphabetical). On that website,
`
`“Dropbox” is listed. OIN became a member of Unified’s Open Source Zone on
`
`November 19, 2019. Unified does not keep track of when entities begin or end
`
`their association with OIN, nor does Unified know how much each member or
`
`licensee pays OIN. Indeed, to the best of Unified’s knowledge, OIN membership is
`
`free, and the vast majority of OIN’s members and licensees do not pay anything to
`
`OIN (and according to https://openinventionnetwork.com/our-
`
`members/community-members, Unified does not believe Dropbox pays OIN
`
`anything). OIN is the organization with which Unified has a membership
`
`agreement. Unified considers OIN’s members and licensees as part of Unified’s
`
`membership for the Open Source Zone only. OIN’s members and licensees have
`
`
`
`6
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 7 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`not themselves entered into membership agreements with Unified (unless
`
`separately listed as a member).
`
`16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`In every Unified proceeding, past and present, including this one,
`
`Unified has not coordinated or communicated with members regarding litigation or
`
`the substance of an IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Because Unified does not coordinate with members regarding its filings, it has
`
`never needed or attempted to avoid a last-minute statement of coordination.
`
`18. Based on publicly available information and on information and
`
`belief, the cases identified by JustService involved entities associated with
`
`particularly well-known litigious NPEs—Magnetar Capital (Data Scape), Oso IP
`
`(Motion Offense), and Ideahub (Synkloud), and each of those patents were either
`
`also or instead asserted against entities other than Dropbox.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 8 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`
`19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20. Unified also does not communicate with outside counsel about their
`
`representation of another party to determine that party’s interests or litigation
`
`strategies. Such would not only call into question the ethical obligations of
`
`Unified’s inside and outside counsel, but presumably any other party outside
`
`counsel was engaged to represent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 9 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`Supplemental Decl. of Kevin Jakel, IPR2020-01258, U.S. Patent 10,476,868
`
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 7, 2020 By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`
`
`CEO Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`Unified Patents, LLC v. JUSTSERVICE NET LLC
`IPR2020-01258
`Page 10 of 10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2010
`Page 10 of 10
`
`
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
