As I have documented elsewhere, Apple, for quite a long time has been engaged in a sophisticated long-term quest to devalue (p7) standard essential patents (“Essential Patents”).

Over the course of my 20+ years practicing law, I have had the honor of working with many individuals at the cutting edge of all aspects of intellectual property.

So much for the case law. But what is a trade secret owner to do — both in the case and proactively before the case commences

Previously we discussed a Unified Patents’ article, the “FRAND SCAM” fails to address many key points.

Previously we addressed some of the key omissions in Unified Patents’ article “FRAND SCAM.”

Last month, Unified Patents, also known as a PTAB reverse troll, launched its new service called Unified Consulting.

As we have written previously, during the course of a United States litigation — whether, under the new, federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) or the older state-adopted Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA)

There is no doubt that the number of patents declared as potentially essential to technical standards is not an indication of essentiality; its only purpose is to make those declared patents accessible on FRAND terms should they ever become essential.

In my prior article addressing confidentiality agreements, I reviewed how to identify a company’s intangible assets and how to protect them with an NDA.

The remedies a court can impose on behalf of a standard-essential patent owner whose Essential Patents are infringed, and even the remedies an Essential Patents owner requests became an especially contentious question between 2013-2015.