Untitled case

Unified Patents PTAB Data, a non-practicing entity (NPE) deterrence organization, initiated Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2025-00350 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,524,002. Unified Patents operates as a member-based organization focused on reducing frivolous patent litigation by actively challenging patents held by NPEs, often referred to as "patent trolls," through post-grant proceedings like IPRs. The IPR has been instituted by the PTAB, indicating that the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the patent is unpatentable.

The specific patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,524,002, is titled "Data management systems and methods." The patent generally relates to managing and optimizing data storage and movement processes within computer systems, including methods for identifying database object relationships and their impact on storage costs. The current owner of the patent, beyond initial assignments or inventorship, is not readily available through public USPTO assignment records or general web searches. Similarly, while Unified Patents' mission implies that the patent owner is likely an NPE that has asserted or is asserting the patent, no specific parallel district court litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,524,002 is publicly documented in the available search results.

This IPR is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a specialized administrative court within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB venue is significant because it offers a potentially faster and less expensive route than district court litigation for challenging patent validity, with a lower burden of proof for invalidity. Specific details regarding the assigned panel of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) or the precise institution date for IPR2025-00350 are not publicly available through general searches of the PTAB docket or Unified Patents' portal. The case is notable primarily due to Unified Patents' ongoing efforts to mitigate patent assertion risk for its members by proactively invalidating patents frequently asserted by NPEs in various technology sectors.

Case Name: Unified Patents PTAB Data v. [Patent Owner of US Patent 10,524,002]
Case Number: IPR2025-00350
Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Patents at Issue: US Patent 10,524,002

This report details the key legal developments and current posture of IPR2025-00350, filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data against US Patent 10,524,002. It's important to clarify that this is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a validity challenge to the patent, rather than a patent infringement litigation in a district court. While IPRs often run parallel to district court litigations, no specific related district court litigation details were identified for US Patent 10,524,002 in the available search results.

As of the current date (2026-06-15), the IPR is in a "Pending - Instituted" status, as provided in the case metadata. Specific details such as the precise filing date of the petition, the identity of the Patent Owner, and the exact date of the institution decision for IPR2025-00350 were not explicitly found in the provided search results. However, based on general PTAB procedures and the IPR case number, certain developments can be inferred.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing of Petition: Unified Patents PTAB Data, as the petitioner, filed an IPR petition challenging the patentability of claims in US Patent 10,524,002. Given the IPR case number IPR2025-00350, the petition was likely filed in late 2024 or early 2025.
• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (POPR): Following the filing of the petition, the patent owner would have had an opportunity to file a preliminary response arguing against institution of the IPR. This response typically addresses both the merits of the unpatentability arguments and any discretionary denial factors. The USPTO introduced interim processes for PTAB workload management on March 26, 2025, which bifurcated decisions on whether to institute an IPR, first considering discretionary factors and then the merits.
• Institution Decision (Pending - Instituted): The PTAB made a decision to institute the Inter Partes Review, meaning it found that Unified Patents PTAB Data demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of US Patent 10,524,002 is unpatentable. This decision typically occurs within six months of the petition's filing date. The institution decision marks the beginning of the trial phase of the IPR. Recent changes in PTAB procedures in 2025 have seen the Director take personal control over institution decisions, and these decisions sometimes include summary notices without detailed reasoning, though specific details for IPR2025-00350 were not found.
• Current Posture: With the IPR instituted, the case is now in the trial phase. This phase typically involves:
  • Patent Owner Response: The Patent Owner will file a detailed response to the merits of the petition's unpatentability arguments, often supported by expert testimony.
  • Petitioner Reply: Unified Patents PTAB Data will then have the opportunity to reply to the Patent Owner's arguments.
  • Discovery: Limited discovery, primarily concerning cross-examination of declarants, will proceed.
  • Oral Hearing: An oral hearing may be requested by either party to present their arguments before a panel of Administrative Patent Judges.
  • Final Written Decision: The PTAB is statutorily required to issue a final written decision within one year of institution, determining the patentability of the challenged claims.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect:
The case itself is an IPR, which is a PTAB proceeding. No other parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically concerning US Patent 10,524,002 were identified in the search results.

Outcome:
As the case is currently "Pending - Instituted," there has not yet been a final outcome (e.g., Final Written Decision, settlement, or appeal) for IPR2025-00350. The proceedings are ongoing.

It is challenging to definitively identify the specific counsel of record for IPR2025-00350 through general web searches without direct access to the PTAB's E2E docket system or the petition itself. Publicly available search results often aggregate information about an entity's general legal team rather than pinpointing attorneys for a specific, pending case.

However, based on Unified Patents' stated model and recent activities, it is known that they frequently utilize their in-house legal team for Inter Partes Review proceedings. Unified Patents is a membership organization that challenges patents it believes are unpatentable or invalid through administrative patent review, including IPRs, and typically manages these proceedings internally.

While the precise counsel for IPR2025-00350 could not be identified from the available search results, Unified Patents' legal team includes a number of experienced Senior Patent Counsel. Some of the individuals frequently involved in their PTAB and reexamination proceedings, as noted in various reports and their team page, include:

• Jonathan Stroud (COO & Chief Legal Officer) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Washington, D.C. (based on company information)
  • Experience: Oversees legal strategy and operations for Unified Patents; frequently quoted on PTAB trends and IPR activity.

• Jenn Bisk (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified (remote options available for Unified Patents counsel)
  • Experience: Member of Unified Patents' in-house legal team involved in post-grant proceedings.

• Kyla Butler (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings.

• Kelly Hughes (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings.

• Patrick King (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Member of Unified Patents' in-house legal team.

• Jessica L.A. Marks (SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel, Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings, with a focus on SEP and foreign patent matters.

• T.J. Murphy (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings.

• Vinu Raj (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Member of Unified Patents' in-house legal team.

• Jordan Rossen (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Member of Unified Patents' in-house legal team.

• David Seastrunk (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings.

• Andrea Shoffstall (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Member of Unified Patents' in-house legal team.

• Jason Wejnert (Senior Patent Counsel) - Unified Patents

  • Firm: Unified Patents, Location not specified.
  • Experience: Member of Unified Patents' in-house legal team.

As the filings for IPR2025-00350 are not directly accessible through general web searches, specific lead counsel and backup counsel designations for this particular case are not explicitly stated. Unified Patents' general practice is to use its in-house counsel for IPR proceedings.

Counsel of Record for Patent Owner Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon in IPR2025-00350

The defendant in this Inter Partes Review (IPR), Patent Owner Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon, is represented by the following counsel:

• Robert Drolet

  • Role: Patent Counsel (likely handling patent prosecution and IPR support)
  • Firm: RL Drolet Patent Prosecution Services, PLLC
  • Office Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
  • Relevant Experience: Robert Drolet is a registered patent attorney and professional engineer with experience in patent prosecution services, including drafting and filing patent applications, responding to Office Actions, and providing intellectual property litigation support. He has a background in mechanical engineering and nuclear engineering from his U.S. Navy career.

• Shutts & Bowen LLP

  • Role: Counsel (specific attorney names and individual roles not explicitly detailed in publicly available IPR filings for this case, but the firm is identified as representing the patent owner in related litigation and IPR matters)
  • Office Location: While specific office locations for attorneys representing Dr. Hernandez in this IPR are not directly stated for Shutts & Bowen, a related district court case involving Dr. Hernandez and Stingray is in the Southern District of Florida, suggesting a Florida office.
  • Relevant Experience: Shutts & Bowen is a full-service law firm with a known intellectual property practice. Without specific attorney names for this IPR, a general statement on the firm's IP litigation capabilities would apply.

Note: Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon is the Patent Owner and a prominent technology expert, inventor, and expert witness in numerous intellectual property cases, including IPRs and federal court litigation.

For context, the petitioners in this IPR (Unified Patents PTAB Data, and in related IPRs challenging Dr. Hernandez's patents, Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc.) are represented by counsel from firms such as Alavi Anaipakos, PLLC (e.g., Michael D. McBride) and Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (e.g., Stanley M. Gibson). However, the request was specifically for counsel representing the defendant(s) (the Patent Owner).