Is Unified Patents a War Profiteer?

“Is Unified a war profiteer?  Of course, they are. But they are only one cog in the larger worldwide scheme of the most powerful multinational corporations whose goal is to monopolize technologies by destroying patents and innovation.”

Is Unified Patents a War Profiteer?On March 18, President Trump declared war and then declared himself a war-time president. The enemy is the COVID-19 pandemic. It is during times like these we see the best, as well as the worst in people. I know of what I speak having lived through Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, witnessing some who quadrupled their fees to take advantage of citizens during the disaster. With the pandemic and many people either frightened or in worse cases ill, who would stoop so low as to capitalize on this tragedy?

In any war, there needs to be absolute good, diabolical evil and innocent victims.  Some companies form these characters through press releases, articles and proxies to influence the public conversation and line their own pockets.  Those companies are war profiteers.

In a press release dated March 20, 2020, Unified Patents announced that “Fortress recently acquired the Theranos patents (listing Elizabeth Holmes as the lead inventor) and has asserted them against U.S. diagnostics companies through a newly formed NPE called Labrador Diagnostics LLC. “

In the same press release, Unified attempts to illuminate the public on the absolute good character of the company, fighting for the greater good of the world in the war against COVID-19.  On this point, the press release announced that Unified Patents had launched a crowdsourcing effort to identify invalidating prior art against the Labrador Diagnostics’ patents (who Unified continually refers to as Fortress in an apparent effort to smear Fortress despite the fact that Fortress does not own the patents and is not engaging in any enforcement activities) stating: “Rather than offer a reward, we believe it is in the best interest of the community (and the world) to widely, freely, and quickly publish the results to help eliminate invalid patents that could hinder COVID-19 diagnostics tests in these trying times.”

In the same press release, Unified tells us who the innocent victim is by stating that the company sued for patent infringement by Labrador Diagnostics “was making COVID-19 diagnostics tests for the government based on the technology at issue.” 

This makes for a great story that tugs at the heartstrings. If only this were true.

On March 17, three days before Unified Patent’s release, Labrador Diagnostics announced that it would “offer to grant royalty-free licenses to third parties to use its patented diagnostics technology for use in tests directed to COVID-19.” In full knowledge of this and despite it, Unified says in the press release that Labrador Diagnostics is “seeking to enjoin the company from making, using, or selling a wide array of diagnostics”. While the lawsuit filed seeks payment for ongoing infringement, it does not seek to enjoin any COVID-19 activities given that Labrador offered a royalty free license to anyone engaging in the development COVID-19 diagnostics.

Not yet satisfied in casting Fortress as diabolically evil, Unified went further:  “We believe everyone should chip in to deter such bad behavior, especially from entities like Fortress that have a long history of asserting patents often found invalid when challenged.”  Unified makes no effort at identifying examples of this and how protecting patent rights is somehow “bad behavior”, but goes on to say we should “help rid the world of them, in the process improving the world’s chances of testing for and containing COVID-19 and other dangerous public health concerns.

Jonathan Stroud, Chief IP Counsel at Unified Patents took a slightly different tack to the same end.  In a post on LinkedIn, Stroud presented a question.  Hanging in the question is the baseless and senseless accusation that since Theranos executives were fraudulent, so must be the patents.  “It will be interesting if Theranos, a company whose products never worked and who didn’t do what they promised, and who falsified data and testing on a scale not seen in recent memory, could also at the same time secure almost a thousand patent assets that, under our existing standards, are “strong patents.”

But Stroud uses his attack to expand the concept implying the entire patent system is broken with Theranos as proof. “If these patents stand up and we’ve granted this company hundreds of patent rights to exclude practicing companies from making, using, and selling actual diagnostics, what does that say about our examination and enablement requirements? And if they don’t (stand up), what does that say about examination?” 

Both imply that the patents will be used to “enjoin” or “exclude” companies from products built on the patents.  Of course, everyone in the intellectual property field know that few courts will grant an injunction given the Supreme Court’s decision eBay v. Mercexchange.  In fact, today the only way a patent owner can realistically have any expectation of an injunction is if they are in the selling in the marketplace and are suing a competitor. This is primarily because eBay requires a public interest test and views damages as adequate to compensate a patent owner for infringement.  Since Labrador Diagnostics does not have a product on the market, it will be impossible to pass the eBaytest.  Everyone at Unified knows this.  It is not a question of exclusion.  It is a question of returning investment made in developing the technology to the investors bilked by Theranos misconduct.

Is Unified a war profiteer?  Of course, they are. But they are only one cog in the larger worldwide scheme of the most powerful multinational corporations whose goal is to monopolize technologies by destroying patents and innovation. This recklessness to preserve their monopolies has brought utter destruction to our nation’s innovation engine – startups.


Photo courtesy of DepositPhotos
Image ID: 351038670
Copyright: Feverpitch


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of

Join the Discussion

46 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    April 9, 2020 08:15 am

    I do respect you actually state your name rather some of the others who would rather troll anonymously because they don’t have the guts to show themselves. Props.

    Guts has nothing to do with it.

    I have explained this several times now.

    If you want people to listen to you, you should practice listening to others.

  • [Avatar for shawn ambwani]
    shawn ambwani
    April 8, 2020 04:01 pm

    Marvin, a simple internet search can show was a founder of Envivio, which also went IPO. I know you are done. You said you be “silent” if I proved it. You said Envivio didn’t “exist”. That was wrong. You said it didn’t go IPO. That was wrong. You said I didn’t found it. That was wrong. I went ahead and provided a few for you above since it appears you were have some “difficulties” in that department.

    You completely dropped your NPE arguments because I asked you constructively for a definition you would prefer after showing your assumptions were also wrong. Nothing….

    Of course you are done with me. Because, just like your rambling and completely inaccurate assessment of Unified Patents, you completely were wrong about my background.

    I would recommend using keyword search. It actually works! If you don’t like Google because you consider them the enemy, use duckduckgo or bing. The results will be the same.

    Please, please make more articles like this. They are entertaining since I no longer read the Weekly World News.

    I do respect you actually state your name rather some of the others who would rather troll anonymously because they don’t have the guts to show themselves. Props.

  • [Avatar for M. D. Hoyle]
    M. D. Hoyle
    April 8, 2020 11:34 am

    shawn ambwani, Ha! Well didn’t need Google after all.
    Your Quote:
    “BTW, unlike you guys, I actually have founded technology companies which have gone IPO, hired hundreds of people,…”

    You mentioned Marvin, Envivio (NASDAQ) and Nextstreaming (KOSDAQ). No one could find any reference to Marvin but your LinkedIn Account, per you, reveals your role:

    Envivio: “Co-wrote original business plan” 2000-2002
    NextStreaming: “General Manager of Platform Division” 2002-2005

    If this is your example of “I actually have founded technology companies” then you have no understanding of what founding a startup is. It takes more than just writing a business plan.

    Hysterical! …And i’m done with you.

  • [Avatar for Shawn Ambwani]
    Shawn Ambwani
    April 7, 2020 06:47 pm

    Hi Marvin, I would suggest a better broker. No record of their existence? I mean seriously? Umm google should have solved that in 2 seconds….

    As for the NPE data, I am a little confused. Our definitions is on all our reports. Universities and companies such as Qualcomm and Dolby are not considered NPEs in our definition. I am all ears? Again, be specific, what would you change? I am guessing you don’t want to propose something but rather just say our definition generally sucks. Also, there are plenty of companies who license IP who are not NPEs and we do not categorize as such.

    as for knowing whether there is a 1 year time bar questions, feel free to look at our filings and the NPEs responses. they spell it out clearly.

  • [Avatar for NewLawschoolGrad]
    April 7, 2020 04:30 pm

    Shawn – speaking of data and real numbers, it would be interesting to know what % of IPRs filed by Unified involve active litigation against one or more of its financial backers.

    Even more telling would be the % of those IPRs that are filed after the defendant’s 1year time bar has lapsed.

    I have been scratching my head as to how the PTAB continues to find that Unified is not a real party in interest in these cases.

    Kudos on creating a corporate structure that avoids this designation – but calling it anything other than gaming the intent of the AIA’s 1 year time bar would be disingenuous.

  • [Avatar for shawn ambwani]
    shawn ambwani
    April 7, 2020 02:26 pm

    Ha!!!! Do at least a google search before saying stuff like that. Also, here is a hint, I would change brokers then since he doesn’t seem to be any good. A simply google search would find it. For example :
    It is not active because it was purchased by Ericsson but it certainly did exist and did go IPO.
    As for nextstreaming.
    Still say neither exists?
    Maybe time for a new broker.
    As for NPE definition. You say they are too broad. Be specific. Actually there are plenty of companies who license IP like Universities and Qualcomm we have never defined as NPEs. They are always defined at the bottom of our reports. If you don’t like them I am all ears. Feel free to propose something. I am always open to constructive ways to improve our tools.

  • [Avatar for MD Hoyle]
    MD Hoyle
    April 7, 2020 11:30 am

    Shawn, my broker checked Marvin, Envivio (NASDAQ) and Nextstreaming (KOSDAQ). His response, “none of these are active, and there is no record of their existence.”

    The problem i have with your data is NPEs are too broad. Practically everyone is listed as a NPE. Again, if IP is a product, then it automatically violates your definition of a NPE.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    April 7, 2020 05:13 am

    Shawn, thanks. It is so outrageous that I just wanted you to say it. I just wish I could see your face when you did.

    You present a statistic where a $200 million dollar company is a mom and pop. So are you twisting numbers ? Sorry. Dumb question. Why are you twisting numbers.

    You have the audacity to put out fake reports and then tell me that the PTAB doesnt invalidate 84% of what the institute.

    I hope you enjoy your game and the profits.

  • [Avatar for Shawn Ambwani]
    Shawn Ambwani
    April 7, 2020 04:19 am

    paul. it is the second paragraph of the report, 1st line. been there the whole time. clearly reading is not something you do well.”SMEs (which we defined as companies with less than $200 million in revenue and 200 or fewer employees)”
    Still waiting for your Paul? What are you afraid of. Put your definition down…

    Marvin, Envivio (NASDAQ) and Nextstreaming (KOSDAQ)

  • [Avatar for M.d. Hoyle]
    M.d. Hoyle
    April 6, 2020 08:41 pm

    Shawn, please provide the names of your so-called ipo companies. If they do exist, I will be silent. Otherwise, it’s more tripe. ….I’m waiting.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    April 6, 2020 06:43 pm

    Shawn, You are producing the numbers of SME’s but you do not provide a definition of what you define as an SME. I asked for it, and you sent a link with no definition. Then you ask me for a definition. It’s your definition and your numbers. The fact that you will not tell us how you define a SME when SME’s are the primary data to your report, and that you will not do so in a public forum says all that is needed. Your definition obviously includes multi-million dollar companies with hundreds or thousands of employees. Hardly SMEs. You know it and you use you question of me to avoid the answer.

    You submit your misleading and false numbers to the world as if they represent small businesses sued. They do not. Your numbers are an outright lie. You make them up them to support the existence of your corrupt but highly profitable business model that does deep and lasting damage to the country by destroying the funding of startups. You company is a disgrace.

    Prove I’m wrong. Put you definition of SME’s here on this blog, in these comments, for all to see. You have an opportunity to show I am wrong and you are right. Take it.

  • [Avatar for Shawn Ambwani]
    Shawn Ambwani
    April 6, 2020 05:24 pm

    Numbers. You say mine are fraudulent, but how can you say that when you have none. NONE!!!!! As for our definition for SME, it is in our report and based on accepted economic definitions. You can take a look here:

    You say many Hoyle, but no numbers….do the homework. Always just anecdotal examples.
    Data. It would really be better in arguing your position.
    Paul, if you have specific definitions of an SME send them over, we can run the numbers as well. But all you want to do is attack our definition is wrong, but not propose your own because you are afraid what the results may be, so you want to attack the messenger. Feel free to. I welcome it.

    BTW, unlike you guys, I actually have founded technology companies which have gone IPO, hired hundreds of people, and dealt with patent assertion and defense as a startup and leader in our market segments. So I think I understand the issues quite well.

  • [Avatar for M. D. Hoyle]
    M. D. Hoyle
    April 6, 2020 10:52 am

    Shawn, you ask for numbers but your numbers are fraudulent. I have lived many years and realized that nothing in life is black and white. If it is, then something is wrong with the data. Many NPEs do practice, and have labs, and hire people, and want to do even more. But they need, like SMEs, to return value to initial investors so that they can receive additional funding to do more. But your kind has tainted the waters in a way selling patents or raising needed capital is impossible. This does nothing except to help established businesses maintain their dominance.

    What you, and others who think like you, fail to recognize that intellectual property (IP) is a product. Just like any other widget that is pumped out from a factory, IP has value. You ask for facts. I suggest you read some history. Edison would have been labeled by you as an NPE, but yet many times, he sold patents in order to finance his lab so that they could continue work.

    I expect you will dismiss me because you have discovered a gold mine. One that does not care about truth or the pain it creates for others.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    April 6, 2020 03:33 am

    for those reading this, Shawn is the only person I had to block on LinkedIn. He was trolling me. As you can see, Shawn lacks tact, among other things.

    Shawn, How do you define SME? What revenue? How many employees?

  • [Avatar for Shawn Ambwani]
    Shawn Ambwani
    April 6, 2020 01:31 am

    Paul, you are entertaining. Anything you say entertains me. Especially when you tout fake statistics which I have called you on several occasions. I again ask the brain trust here, feel free to provide some data to back up any of your statements. We spend a lot of time and money to do that. Does anyone deny over 250 SMEs were sued in Q1 of this year, mostly by NPEs? The same small startups who create jobs?
    Numbers guys, numbers, …. you have none. I have been saying it for 6 years now. It isn’t that hard. If you have something to say on this subject, back it up with some real data. Otherwise, I will continue to be entertained as you keep spinning…

  • [Avatar for Paul F. Morgan]
    Paul F. Morgan
    April 2, 2020 12:09 pm

    I think the really important issue is being missed here re press releases on a patent suit re Covid-19 tests. The issue is not what is in the complaint. The issue is not what patent blog commentators dispute. The issue is that press releases like this are widely publicly read, and by effectively implying that patents are being used to stop people from dying they are prejudicing the public against patents in general.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    April 2, 2020 10:44 am

    Mr. Ambwani, For you, what part is entertaining? Is there a specific commenter, subject or statement? Or is more general? Please explain. I’m always looking for ways of improving entertainment value and any comments from you in this regard would be very much appreciated and highly valuable.

  • [Avatar for Pro Se]
    Pro Se
    April 2, 2020 08:58 am

    Despite my past comments about my disdain for Unified Patents: I didn’t have an issue with Unified Patents filing the IPR on me, the reality is it had to happen at some point to build battle tested stature to my portfolio, IPRs are a reality, they’re unfair, it is what it is… my issue with Unified Patents was the blindsided sneak attack nature… the lack of honor of combat..

    Come to me first, explain your position, give me a choice to accept or decline the proposal of the situation… no, they came out of nowhere…

    My Unified Patent IPR (wins) made my patents stronger, I’m not going to dismiss the fact that I made more money as my patents became more battle tested.. to be honest, any patent asserted today, before any real money is made, you’ll need to beat at least 3 different attempts to challenge the IP… that’s where we are in 2020.. My only position on it is patent owners should have fair notice to prepare to fight or accept an avoidance deal…

    What Unified Patents also does is defame inventors with a Google searchable blog and press release section calling them NPE…

    I run the most advanced FinTech product on earth, they continue to defame me as a “NPE Individual” when in fact I’ve spent $2mln building my startup.. I’ve always practiced by invention…

    But rest assure, see… big corporate infringers are not the only entities with “deep pockets”…

    Private investigators are willing to be hired by anyone from the public, they don’t just take defendant discovery cases… and insightful information is gathered and can sit in a folder for just the right time, years later, business people end up in scandals because in the high-stakes business world, you play right or you play dirty… while in the current stay-at-home situation, there’s a great movie on Elliot Spitzer called “Client Number 9” that gives a great example of how businessmen counter their business adversaries..

    Jump in the mud and be forever bound by the rules of the gutter.

    There’s a more honorable way UP could conduct there business, RPX came to me first and laid their position on the table and today RPX could still speak to me if a deal makes sense…

    Unified Patents and their operators have a deep pocket adversary in me for life.

  • [Avatar for Curious]
    April 2, 2020 07:29 am

    You guys are almost as entertaining as the Tiger King
    A troll reveling in his trolling. Isn’t it time to shut this down?

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    April 2, 2020 07:20 am

    Mr. Ambwani,

    Whatever ‘entertainment’ there may have been in your ‘style’ has worn out a very long time ago.

  • [Avatar for Shawn Ambwani]
    Shawn Ambwani
    April 2, 2020 02:32 am

    You guys are almost as entertaining as the Tiger King.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    April 1, 2020 03:22 pm

    I actually read one or two of these patents. I am not sure they are not enabled which is the core of the argument against them. But, in any case, it seems like this is a PR war rather than a legal question of enablement, which just goes to show how insane the patent world has become.

  • [Avatar for jacek]
    April 1, 2020 02:46 pm

    Looking at Unified Patents, you can frequently see that such and such patent owner just settled with Unified Patents under the pressure of the fact that Unified just filed the next IPR with PTAB. It seems like a simple business proposition: File IPR against patent owners with deep pockets (or sizable Infringement award), and then settle for less than the expense of defending their patent. I think we are going to see more and more such cases up to the point when things are going to develop a natural way. Somebody is going to start physically asserts his/her I.P. U.S. laws without real reinforcement are without tooths – worthless, which no doubts invite another kind of bad actor with alternative (and cheaper) solutions.
    Efficient Infringement Mafia creates fertile ground, void waiting to be filled.
    Tired of this U.S. legal junk I am reading published today on IAM: “Pilot project to improve administrative complaint process for infringement disputes will shake up China’s I.P. system.”
    I think for every patent lawyer, it is time to start learning Chinese. You have no future here in the U.S.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    April 1, 2020 01:59 pm

    Erich Spangenberg… A while back, an obscure blog called Tech Rights put out an article that you had died. Glad to see you are still among the living

    Jonathan, You say “…just a very bad look to be going after U.S. diagnostics companies…” That may be true. But Unified has done more damage to the market for this sort of technology that any other company on the planet. Spangenberg may like your model. It is creative, profitable and legal, and Spangenberg is a very brilliant businessman. But it is very harmful to any company in medical diagnostics attempting to get funding to commercialize patented technology at an early stage.

    You mask the true company attacking the patent, which allows that company to attack it again. You leverage bad law and corrupt USPTO fake judges in a court with no rules whose sole purpose is to invalidate the very patents that the USPTO just issued.

    No reasonable investor will take the patents of an early stage company seriously in a discussion of funding, and most should or do view patents as a genuine liability due to the corrupt PTAB and the antics of companies like yours.

    Your business model destroys the very companies you say you are protecting.

    That, my friend, is a damn shame.

  • [Avatar for Allison]
    April 1, 2020 11:29 am

    You make this statement, “While the lawsuit filed seeks payment for ongoing infringement, it does not seek to enjoin any COVID-19 activities given that Labrador offered a royalty free license to anyone engaging in the development COVID-19 diagnostics.” But development and selling are two different things.

  • [Avatar for Jonathan Stroud]
    Jonathan Stroud
    April 1, 2020 10:52 am

    At the risk of going down the comments rabbit-hole (or exposing my relative naivete), a few further thoughts (and thank you for the relatively above-the-belt flavor of these comments). (The usual caveats—these are my own thoughts, and not the thoughts of my employer—apply.): First, Anon, you almost made me blush, albeit in a back-handed way. We disagree on much, but that’s life, and lawyering, and I try very hard to at least listen and respond respectfully. I recognize we all have a wild divergence of views on some of this and that sometimes discussion might be reductive, but I firmly believe views can evolve—I know mine can. I (personally) enjoy engaging. I’m not always right and I’m not always respectful—no one is—but I do try, which is about all we can ask of anyone.

    To Erich’s point, Fortress has a business model (as do we) and I don’t think organizations (in general—there are of course extreme examples) are inherently good or bad, though instances of individual conduct can be. But we’re talking about patents here, and I don’t think it’s ever really that morally black or white, as easy as it is to make those rhetorical shortcuts. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head. I’ve been trying to address conduct, report on it, and talk about it publicly—people can (and will) judge for themselves (as the courts and agency will do, one would hope neutrally).

    I’m sure there are some turns of phrases or timing or rhetoric that will catch peoples’ ire, some things I do or say that “grind your gears,” as they say, and some will simply react negatively to me saying anything at all about patent assertions (if they feel like assertions, in general, are under attack, which I can assure you isn’t ever my intent, but there you have it). I don’t think framing things as attacks or counter-attacks is particularly helpful to anyone; but that’s the kind of online environment we live in. You can’t and shouldn’t try to make the world happy; you just do what you think is right and listen and modify your actions based on what you’ve heard from others and soldier on.

    To Paul and Gene’s points (and thanks for the respectful dialogue), I hear you; our post did acknowledge the Fortress press release that was filed a few days after they brought suit and after the COVID-government testing kits-connection came to light, offering to license certain COVID-19 uses—although it’s unclear what the scope or reach of such licenses would be or entail. We put that in the announcement. (I didn’t break it down or analyze how it might affect injunctive relief moving forward and I echo the comment talking about broad pleading standards, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is still in there.) While I think it’s relatively clear (though who can know) that the suit wasn’t brought to go after COVID-19 testing kits in particular or capitalize on the crisis (I’m not sure anyone is that tone-deaf), they at least should have known they were relevant. And I’m not sure we have an onus to explain all of that context in an announcement about a free effort to demonstrate there is (or isn’t) prior art out there on these Theranos patents, though we did try to provide what we could. The suit is at least, I think we can all admit, either a failure of sufficient due diligence, a calculated risk, or just a very bad look to be going after U.S. diagnostics companies with old Theranos patents during a crisis in diagnostic testing in the face of a pandemic—the same type of diagnostic testing that was in need for COVID-19 testing. I was a medical device guy at the PTO, and from even a cursory review of the broad range of kits and research they accused and the patent disclosures themselves, they were going to at least be relevant to the testing needed (and lacking) in the current crisis. Many of the disclosures of Theranos patents discuss them being useful for the testing of coronavirus, among a multitude of other things. Them being Theranos patents adds another wrinkle (in terms of the well-documented fraud) that might not immediately bear directly on COVID, but at least raises serious questions about the patents used. That angle is unrelated to COVID but nonetheless at least a concern, though I take the point made online and elsewhere that it’s possible Theranos did innovate, and their patents they have been examined; but I think, at least, it’s a fair question to ask whether their large portfolio wasn’t (at least in part) based on the fraudulent testing they used that has been well-documented and is the subject of an ongoing criminal trial.

    So I understand people taking issue with an emotional topic and being upset because they think we are capitalizing on it. Personally, I feel a little helpless right now in the face of what’s going on in the world, and want to do something—anything—to help, and I think this helps. You can call me a liar, but I really do think this is the right thing to do; at any rate, it’s at least something.

    And to the war profiteering flourish, let me just say that personally, I’m not immediately making the connection of how free crowd-sourced prior art or open pledging leads to profits. We don’t have a diagnostics or a medical device zone and don’t focus on this area. And at least for me personally, I gave up a much bigger salary (and earning potential) working at the firm to join Unified. So if I’m a war profiteer, I don’t think I’m doing it right.

    As always, I appreciate all of your comments and thoughts.

  • [Avatar for Curious]
    April 1, 2020 09:56 am

    I see Shawn Ambwani is leveraging IPWatchdog to increase his Google ranking by posting links to his own website.

  • [Avatar for Erich Spangenberg]
    Erich Spangenberg
    April 1, 2020 07:13 am

    I think Unified performs an important function in the market (essentially a clearing operation — and give them credit for coming up with a unique way to do it–I am envious and wish I had come up with it). Similarly, I believe Fortress provides an important function in the market (they actually help make a market). I do not see one as inherently more or less evil than the other. It is just a market — let it work and give the labels a rest.

  • [Avatar for NewLawschoolGrad]
    March 31, 2020 11:16 pm

    Jonathan @7:

    Mr. Hoyle’s most damning accusation (in my opinion) is:

    “On March 17, three days before Unified Patent’s release, Labrador Diagnostics announced that it would “offer to grant royalty-free licenses to third parties to use its patented diagnostics technology for use in tests directed to COVID-19.” In full knowledge of this and despite it, Unified says…”

    Are you able to defend Unified against this accusation?

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    March 31, 2020 09:48 pm

    One thing that strikes me in the media discussion of this is the complete ignorance (or pretend ignorance) of the FRCP and/or the nature/purpose of pleadings. Pleadings are by nature all-inclusive, if only because they can provide the function of preserving the ability to make an argument later. It’s almost malpractice if you don’t include everything that you can include (the same goes for answers – alleged infringers tend to recite dozens of potential affirmative defenses without any factual basis, and without any specific intention to assert any one of them at trial).

    Basically all patentees recite entitlement to injunctive relief in their complaints.
    The main exceptions are patentees who assert expired patents (for which no injunctive relief is available), and patentees who assert unexpired patents that will expire before any injunction could reasonably be expected to issue on a normal court schedule. Again, if the remedy is potentially available, the complaint is going to allege entitlement to it, whether or not the plaintiff is actually seeking that remedy.

    Asserting an entitlement to injunctive relief in a complaint is not the same as moving for a preliminary injunction (which Labrador has not done and presumably would not do). But please, everybody, feel free to ignore this distinction if it feeds into an anti-IP narrative.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    March 31, 2020 06:10 pm

    Ari @ 4,

    I would make a definite distinction between the writings (and style of conversation) of Mr. Ambwani and Mr. Stroud.

    Mr. Stroud advocates while Mr. Ambwani proselytizes.

    While Mr. Stroud’s effectiveness may vary, Mr. Ambwani has zero effectiveness (based in no small part because he does not understand the audience that he seeks to proselytize to — leastwise in regards to his appearances on this blog).

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    March 31, 2020 05:53 pm


    Your comment of “shouldn’t be able to get an injunction” catches my eye.

    Do you mean this in the abstract, or based solely on a specific set of facts?

    Which specific set of facts fall into – and importantly, which do not – necessarily flows from the very article that you link too.

    It would be disingenuous to obscure the nuances here, and it appears (very much) that THAT is exactly what you are doing.

    And THAT would be indicative of an attack, even as you attempt to characterize the action differently.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    March 31, 2020 05:31 pm

    Jonathan, Asking for an injunction is asking for a fair market value. No fair market value can be determined by an English major in a robe who has never invented, built, marketed and sold a product. The court can only make a wild guess based on biased testimony.

    An injunction creates a free market with a buyer and a seller on equal footing who can negotiate a fair price. This is no doubt what the patent holder wants. After all, they do not have a product on the market and can repay the bilked Theranos investors with nothing else.

    Without an injunction, the infringer holds an unfair position in the negotiations. This means there will never be a fair market value established for the invention. Certainly, you agree that patented inventions should find a fair market value?

  • [Avatar for Patent Princess]
    Patent Princess
    March 31, 2020 05:23 pm

    Their trademark registration is for “association” and “insurance” services. Shadyyy.

  • [Avatar for Clinton Jones]
    Clinton Jones
    March 31, 2020 05:04 pm

    “Royalty free for Covid-19 testing. Just let us know who you are so you can get on our “hit list” for later litigation”

    Yeah, hard pass.

  • [Avatar for AAA JJ]
    AAA JJ
    March 31, 2020 04:58 pm

    “Making a claim of fraud on the patent office without some basis on which you make your claim, well, that makes it a baseless claim.”

    I never claimed she committed fraud on the Patent Office. I said that it wasn’t baseless or senseless to question whether she had, based on the fact that she committed a massive fraud on her investors and customers.

    Ms. Holmes is a complete and total fraud. I know it. You know it. She knows it.
    All of her investors know it. All of her customers know it. It’s not unreasonable to ask if it is possible that she engaged in fraud in her dealings with the PTO.

    “Do you have some proof that Ms. Holmes was fraudulent in the patent applications?”

    No. I do not. But I think it’s completely reasonable to ask, “Did somebody who we know for a fact is a complete and total fraud commit fraud in her dealings with the PTO?”

    To the extent that your gripe is that simply asking the question amounts to an accusation that she did, that’s nonsense.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    March 31, 2020 04:42 pm

    Jonathan @7…

    I assume if the defendant in the lawsuit accepts the royalty free license presented then the requested relief insofar as those patents for those uses will be modified.

    The law today is such that they won’t be able to get a patent because the Supreme Court is wrong and refuses to treat patents as an exclusive right. By definition an “exclusive” right must come with the right to “exclude.” There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for an injunction since injunctions are specifically authorized by the Patent Act and then arguing at the District Court, Federal Circuit and Supreme Court (and everywhere in between) that an injunction SHOULD issue and that the law is wrong.

    The fact that the Supreme Court prevents patent owners from enjoying exclusivity is precisely why holdouts are so rampant.

    My guess is the holdout will be shown to be so overwhelming that the defendant here and others engaging in COVID-19 research will refuse to take the royalty free license being offered. My guess is they would rather fight to demonstrate these patents are patent ineligible and/or invalid rather than standing down and taking the license offered in good faith.

  • [Avatar for Shawn Ambwani]
    Shawn Ambwani
    March 31, 2020 04:41 pm

    Hey Ari, thanks for the complement 🙂 . I guess we have specific data on the number of SMEs have been sued in the last couple years by NPEs

    I am wondering you (and others) keep saying we have destroyed so many lives challenging patents which should never have been granted. Do you have any data to back this up? Like actual numbers than #fakenews. I’m still waiting.

    BTW, I invite everyone to submit prior art on this and any more contests through PATROLL. Help the system rid itself of bad assertions.

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    March 31, 2020 02:40 pm

    Try as it may, the Unified Patents innovation-ravaging wolf . . . remains unable to squeeze and contort itself . . . in a failed attempt to fit into a good sheep’s clothing.

  • [Avatar for Jonathan R Stroud]
    Jonathan R Stroud
    March 31, 2020 02:34 pm

    I appreciate your comments and thoughts. I agree that Laborador (which Fortress had publicly conceded it owns and controls,, shouldn’t be able to get an injunction, but that didn’t stop them for asking for one in the complaint.

    “That Defendants be enjoined from infringing the Asserted Patents, or if their
    infringement is not enjoined, that Defendants be ordered to pay ongoing royalties to Labrador for any post-judgment infringement of the Asserted Patents.”

    They haven’t withdrawn that or the complaint. I think I raise fair questions and I don’t think those questions are either an attack or a broader indictment of any part of the system. I do wonder if these particular Theranos patents are valid or enabled.

    Thanks again for your thoughts. It’s an important conversation to have.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    March 31, 2020 02:09 pm

    AAA – Making a claim of fraud on the patent office without some basis on which you make your claim, well, that makes it a baseless claim. Do you have some proof that Ms. Holmes was fraudulent in the patent applications?

  • [Avatar for AAA JJ]
    AAA JJ
    March 31, 2020 02:02 pm

    “Hanging in the question is the baseless and senseless accusation that since Theranos executives were fraudulent, so must be the patents.”

    Ms. Holmes is a complete and total fraud. She defrauded her investors and her customers. There is zero doubt about that. It is not baseless and senseless to question whether she defrauded the PTO.

  • [Avatar for Ari Rosenberg]
    Ari Rosenberg
    March 31, 2020 12:16 pm

    Unified Patents Shawn Ambwani and Jonathan Stroud should be celebrated. Gas lighting is a skill few have mastered as well as these gentlemen. What is so funny is they think we don’t know and what is so pathetic is they don’t care as long as they make money off the lives they ruin. Now go get em fellas, there are more bad evil patents lurking you need to slay.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    March 31, 2020 11:59 am

    David, This is excellent. Those folks over at Unified need to be called out for the crap they spew as legit. Legit does not cross their PR key board.

  • [Avatar for Bemused]
    March 31, 2020 10:52 am

    NewLawSchoolGrad@1: The last time someone from Unified was on this blog (Shawn Ambwani), he mocked the posters on this blog and called them cowards for posting under pseudonyms. I tried to post a response under my pseudonym with my real name and company address and inviting Shawn to come visit me in person so we could discuss his commentary about the posters on this blog but IPW never posted my comment. Don’t hold your breath that this article will shame the clowns at Unified into rectifying their disgusting behavior and anti-inventor terror tactics.

  • [Avatar for NewLawschoolGrad]
    March 31, 2020 10:42 am

    Mr. Hoyle – thank you for this rational analysis of Unified Patent’s disingenuous attempts to smear Fortress (with full knowledge that they are lying to the public in light of Fortress’s fee license for Covid-19 related claims).

    This blog has given a large voice to Unified over the past year.

    Gene – Perhaps reaching out to them for comment/public retraction would be merited?