Jonathan T. Stroud

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting.

Let me dig deeper into his notable cases, Federal Circuit work, and PTAB experience.

Let me verify his bar admissions, current role, and any recent role changes.

Jonathan T. Stroud — patent litigation practice

Specialty / focus. Stroud's practice centers on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) post-grant proceedings — inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) review — together with related district court and Federal Circuit work. His technical background is in biomedical engineering (he examined implantable medical devices at the USPTO and now teaches post-grant strategy at American University Washington College of Law), but the challenges he handles at Unified Patents span a broad range of electronics, networking, software, and consumer technologies. Verified Unified Patents matters include network patents (U.S. 7,373,655), adaptive-bitrate video streaming (U.S. 10,326,987), multimedia/video-device control (U.S. 8,971,914), and gesture-recognition technology. Public bios also list client-side CBM/IPR work for LG, Eli Lilly, BMW, Bausch & Lomb, and Freedom Innovations.

Side preference. Within the tracked data, Stroud has one appearance, on the defendant side, for Unified Patents (recorded role: of counsel); he has no plaintiff-side appearances. That is consistent with his actual role: Unified Patents is a defensive patent aggregator that files post-grant challenges against patents asserted by non-practicing entities/PAEs, so his work is defense- and challenger-oriented rather than NPE/PAE prosecution. Note a mismatch worth confirming: the tracked list records him as "of counsel" at Unified Patents, while publicly available sources consistently describe him as the company's General Counsel / Chief IP Counsel (and, at one point, COO and CLO). The tracked single matter is not otherwise titled in the source data.

Firm context. Stroud is in-house at Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C.). Before joining Unified, he was a patent litigator at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, where he was involved in some of the earliest post-grant review work under the America Invents Act; before that he spent about five years as a USPTO patent examiner in implantable medical device art. He has also interned at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Notable cases / outcomes. As in-house counsel he has appeared on numerous Unified Patents IPRs and the resulting Federal Circuit appeals, frequently alongside outside counsel (e.g., Haynes Boone, Finnegan). Verifiable results include: DivX, LLC v. Unified Patents (Fed. Cir. June 2025) — affirmed PTAB unpatentability of U.S. 10,326,987 (adaptive bitrate streaming); Gesture Technology Partners v. Unified Patents (Fed. Cir. March 2025) — affirmed PTAB invalidation of 29 of 31 claims; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Unified Patents (Fed. Cir. March 2020, IPR2016-01643) — affirmed unpatentability of U.S. 6,775,745; Ortiz & Associates Consulting v. Unified Patents (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2021, Rule 36 affirmance, U.S. 8,971,914); and American Patents LLC v. Unified Patents (Fed. Cir. 2022, Rule 36 affirmance, U.S. 7,373,655). He has also been involved in real-party-in-interest disputes seeking Director/POP review in Unified proceedings. In several of these appeals the oral argument was presented by outside counsel, with Stroud as in-house counsel of record.

PTAB / IPR experience. Extensive and central to his practice — he appears routinely in IPR/PGR proceedings (as petitioner-side counsel) and on the associated Federal Circuit appeals, and he is a frequent writer, speaker, and adjunct instructor on PTAB procedure and post-grant strategy.

Bar / education. Registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 72,518). J.D. with honors, American University Washington College of Law (2013); B.S. in Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University; M.A. in Print Journalism, University of Southern California. State bar admission is not confirmed in the sources reviewed. He serves on The Sedona Conference Working Group 9 (Patent Damages and Remedies) and Working Group 10 (Patent Litigation Best Practices) steering committees.

Note: the tracked case list is limited to a single defendant-side Unified Patents matter; the case is unnamed in the source data, so specific tracked-case details beyond side, firm, and role could not be verified.