Timothy J. Murphy

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Timothy J. Murphy — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus. Murphy is an in-house patent attorney at Unified Patents, LLC (Chevy Chase, MD), working on the petitioner side of post-grant challenges. His publicly reported matters cluster in SEP-heavy technology areas: video codecs (HEVC/VVC, including the Ideahub and Access Advance pool patents), Wi-Fi/OFDM (802.11, e.g., AX Wireless and Atlas Global challenges), LTE and wireless antenna technology (Fractus S.A.), and networking/security patents (OptiMorphix, BrowserKey). This is a targeted, standards- and NPE-facing practice rather than a general district court litigation docket.

Side preference. The tracked data shows one appearance, all on the plaintiff/petitioner side (1 plaintiff, 0 defendant). Substantively, however, Unified Patents is a defensive aggregator: it files IPRs, PGRs, and ex parte reexaminations to invalidate patents asserted against its member operating companies. Murphy therefore functions as defense-side counsel for technology companies even though he is docketed as petitioner. He appears as lead in-house counsel in PTAB proceedings such as Unified Patents v. Torchlight Technologies (IPR2022-01500), Unified Patents v. Arigna Technology (IPR2022-00285), and multiple Unified Patents v. Ideahub matters.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is the core of his practice. USPTO records list him as lead counsel (Reg. No. 62,585) in numerous Unified proceedings, and he is credited in Unified's own announcements for IPRs, PGRs, and ex parte reexaminations across its SEP Video Codec, Wi-Fi, and LTE zones. He works alongside outside counsel (e.g., Hayes Boone, Slater Matsil, Greenberg Traurig, Duane Morris) and other Unified in-house attorneys.

Notable matters. The tracked case, Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc., sits within a long-running video-codec dispute. In PGR2022-00044 the Board held all claims of U.S. Patent 11,122,274 unpatentable for lack of written description (final written decision Feb. 5, 2024), and the Federal Circuit affirmed (PatSnap reports a Rule 36 per curiam affirmance, case No. 24-1684). In the related IPR2020-00702 on U.S. Patent 9,641,849, the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable and was affirmed in Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-1160 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2023).

Bar / education. USPTO registration No. 62,585; Mr. Murphy is a registered patent attorney. Other bar admissions and education are not reliably sourced in the materials reviewed and are omitted here. Note: this profile concerns Timothy J. ("T.J.") Murphy of Unified Patents — a different practitioner, Timothy M. "Tim" Murphy (Columbia J.D. 1985; Boston-area IP litigator), appears in USPTO and bar directories and should not be conflated with him. The patent-data aggregator PatentBots also associates Reg. No. 62,585 with prosecution filings for SanDisk/Western Digital, L'Oréal, and Bloom Energy, but that site expressly warns its data may be stale or incorrect; prior employer history could not be independently verified and is not asserted here.