This post initially appeared on Unified Patents’ News and Views Blog. More analysis is available here.
Patent litigation in the United States showed an upward trend in the first half of 2024, with non-practicing entity (NPENon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More) filings increasing significantly compared to the same period in 2023. The Eastern District of Texas remained the top venue for patent cases, while the Western District of Texas maintained its position as the second most popular district for NPEsNon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More despite changes in case assignment rules. The District of Delaware saw a continued decline in NPENon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More filings due to heightened transparency requirements.
Many plaintiffs were linked to established patent monetization firms or industry veterans. Litigation funding continued to play a significant role, with several new campaigns tied to prominent funders. Notably, there has been an increasing push for transparency in litigation funding. The District of Delaware, under Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, has been at the forefront of this movement, requiring detailed disclosures of third-party funding arrangements. This trend has influenced practices in other jurisdictions and sparked debates about the proper scope of such disclosures.
At the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA.), petition filings held relatively steady compared to 2023. The USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. moved forward with planned reforms to PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. procedures, including proposed rules on discretionary denials. However, the Supreme Court’s elimination of Chevron deference could create uncertainty around agency rulemaking especially with the recent developments of ANPRM and Patent Eligibility Restoration Act. Ex parteA Latin term, used as an adjective, indicating that an act (typically an adjudicative process) is done at the initiative of one party only, and without notice to other parties or the public. This term characterizes the patent examination process. reexaminationThe process by which the USPTO conducts an examination of a patent after it has issued, undertaken upon written request by a member of the public who establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request. The pre-AIA standard was that there be "substantial new requests reached record levels as an alternative to PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. challenges.
Several important rulings impacted patent litigation in 2024. The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, potentially affecting USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. regulations and procedures. In the Western District of Texas, a revised case assignment order aimed to address concerns about judge shopping, though its full impact remains to be seen. This combined with the disclosureOne of the primary objectives of the patent system. In return for the government-granted right to exclude that is embodied in the patent, the inventor must disclose to the public through his patent the invention for which protection is sought. Inventors unwilling to disclose their invention to the public may instead opt for trade secret protection. rules in Delaware has led to the emergence of the Eastern District of Texas.
In the standard-essential patent (SEPStandard-Essential Patent. A patent that a participant in standards development process declares to be essential to the practice of the standard.) space, China’s courts asserted global rate-setting power over foreign patent pools. The Unified Patent Court in Europe issued its first rulings on SEPs, revealing divergent approaches among local divisions on issues such as licensing transparency and securities for NPEsNon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More. Overall, patent litigation dynamics continued to evolve in response to legal developments, venue changes, and market forces.
Below are some key highlights from the report:
- Both NPENon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More and non-NPE litigation show significant increases in the first half of 2024 compared to the second half of 2023, with NPENon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More filings growing by 14.06% and non-NPE filings by 13.44%
- Eastern District of Texas remained the top venue; Delaware NPENon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More filings declined further
- ReexaminationThe process by which the USPTO conducts an examination of a patent after it has issued, undertaken upon written request by a member of the public who establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request. The pre-AIA standard was that there be "substantial new requests have increased dramatically, doubling from the first half of 2023 to the first half of 2024. This represents a major shift in patent challenge strategies.
- Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, creating uncertainty for USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. rulemaking
- Chinese court asserted power to set global FRAND"Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" licensing. A licensing commitment made for standard-essential patents in the context of technology standard setting activities. See also RAND. rates for foreign patent pools
- $847 million jury verdict awarded in funded NPENon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More campaign against Verizon
- The Unified Patent Court in Europe issued its first SEP-related rulings