The Secrets Behind an Alleged Patent Quality Assurance-Intel Connection

Does Patent Quality Assurance (PQA) have anything to do with Intel? It’s fast becoming an issue at the time After losing a patent infringement lawsuit in district court, Intel is involved in a story over a VLSI patent that claims more than $2 billion.

The factual premise of the belief that there may be some connection between PQA and Intel was the filing of PQA’s inter partes review (IPR) challenge to the VLSI patent that led to the $2 billion judgment against Intel. comes from Since Intel could not challenge the patent in his IPR itself, there have been whispers behind the scenes as to whether and to what extent his PQA challenge to the VLSI patent was a hoax. rice field.

Intel, of course, filed a petition to challenge the VLSI patent at the PTAB, but the PTAB was expected to make a timely decision by the district court before the PTAB made its own decision, so the PTAB could not I exercised my discretion and refused to initiate an appeal. And now, even though the patent has already won Intel’s challenge in district court, the PTAB has decided to initiate a new challenge to the patent based on submissions by both OpenSky and PQA. .

For secret exhibition

But OpenSky and PQA are TRUE Do you act independently of Intel? Since October 2022, Secretary Vidal’s initial determination that OpenSky was involved in extortion has determined that Intel was not complicit in his OpenSky extortion and fraudulent activities. To date, no similar statement has been made regarding Intel’s collusion with his PQA, and rumors and whispers have given way to confirmation of some secret, yet-to-be-disclosed documents.

It has long been rumored that PQA and Intel have something to do with each other. However, documents are now coming to light that claim to explain the existence of such a relationship. Just last week, in a ruling by Director Vidal of his IPR2021-01229 dated February 9, 2023, that this relates to an IP challenge filed by his PQA against his VLSI patent, certain exhibits The question of whether to delete or publish things was raised. I have learned that in this order, which designed Paper No. 112, two separate documents were submitted sealed to the parties and the Board only. 3029 and Ex. 3030 — “Several members of the House Oversight Committee, several additional staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his Office of the Patent Ombuds of the USPTO” relate to several documents.

I don’t know what Ex is. Sources 3029 and 3030 separately tell IPWatchdog the existence of whistleblower complaints owned by the House Oversight Committee that purportedly detail the relationship between PQA and Intel.

look for answers

Rumors of some sort of relationship between Intel and PQA are nothing new. IPWatchdog first learned of a possible connection between PQA and Intel as early as October 2022. Notified of a possible such relationship between PQA and Intel, Intel was advocating on behalf of PQA at both the Department of Commerce and the USPTO. , decided to seek documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rather than reporting rumors.

On November 7, 2022, armed with several pieces of information related to the relationship between PQA and Intel, IPWatchdog filed a FOIA request with the USPTO stating “documents, correspondence, notes, memorandums, minutes of meetings (including ), approval form, or signature slip” pertains to:

1. any input, information, suggestion or advocacy regarding OpenSky Industries, LLC vs. VLSI Technology LLCIPR2021-01064 and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, etc. v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-10229 was received by USPTO personnel from Intel Corporation.
2. Request for Information Received by the USPTO OpenSky Industries, LLC vs. VLSI Technology LLCIPR2021-01064 and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, etc. v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-10229 is by staff within the Office of the Secretary of Commerce and/or the Office of the President.
3. documents, correspondence, notational notes relating to OpenSky Industries, LLC vs. VLSI Technology LLCIPR2021-01064 and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, etc. v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-10229 was prepared by the USPTO for staff within the Office of the Secretary of Commerce and/or the Office of the President.
4. record about OpenSky Industries, LLC vs. VLSI Technology LLCIPR2021-01064 and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, etc. v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-10229 Between USPTO Officials and Intel Corporation Employees.

IPWatchdog has been notified by the USPTO that documents and other items of information related to our request have been compiled as of December 2022. Later, in an email dated February 8, 2023, the USPTO was told that it was “awaiting a response from the DOC regarding consultations…”. Neither IPWatchdog nor FOIA privileges are requested.

still a lot to learn

So what does this mean? Frankly, the meaning of this strange sequence of events is ambiguous. However, here’s what we do know:

1. I have information or documents that are in some way related to the controversy between VLSI and PQA that has been presented to the House Oversight Committee and others. VLSI’s attorneys said this was “directly related to the proceedings” and would lead VLSI to request additional discovery.
2. Director Vidal did not obliterate Ex. From her records she deleted 3029 and 3030, but she did not order them to be published. So, at least for the time being, Ex. 3029 and 3030 remain designated to the parties and the Board only.
3. IPWatchdog seeks publication of documentation regarding Intel’s involvement in OpenSky and PQA issues. The USPTO has found documents related to this request. Documents related to our request have not been delivered as they are pending discussion with Commerce.
4. The time period for documentation to be provided pursuant to our FOIA request has passed, and not only has the documentation not been provided, but the privilege has not been claimed.

So far, Secretary Vidal’s Feb. 9 order, especially considering that nearly 10 weeks have passed since the USPTO completed its search for documents in response to the FOIA request, but no documents have been provided. , it raises far more questions than it answers. The reason so many questions are openly swirling around is related to confidential filings with the PTAB, undisclosed whistleblower complaints, and long overdue issues. FOIA request.

Clearly, the existence of a relationship between PQA and Intel is important. Because PQA’s challenge is a ruse, and given that Intel is legally prohibited from challenging VLSI patents if PQA is acting on Intel’s orders, it’s very problematic. Because it becomes Such misrepresentation of genuine stakeholders also raises serious questions about lack of a duty of good faith on the part of IPR petitioners.

Things promise to get more interesting. stay tuned.

Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 11470719
Author: Fever Pitch