Untitled case

Unified Patents initiated an inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255, which has culminated in a Final Written Decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring assertions of low-quality patents, particularly by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), through various strategies, including filing IPRs. The patent owner in the IPR proceeding is listed as Trove Brands LLC. However, the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255, is actually owned by CamelBak Products, LLC, an American outdoor equipment company known for its hydration products and a subsidiary of Vista Outdoor Inc.

The context for this IPR stems from a parallel district court case, Trove Brands LLC v. CamelBak Products LLC, filed in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:23-cv-04267). In that litigation, Trove Brands, LLC, the maker of "Owala" series drink containers, sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement after CamelBak Products, LLC accused Trove's "Owala" products of infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255 and other related patents. Therefore, the "accused product" in the broader dispute is Trove Brands' "Owala" line of reusable drink containers. U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255, along with other patents asserted by CamelBak, generally covers improvements in reusable water bottles and drink containers, specifically relating to features found in products like CamelBak's "Better Bottle" and "Eddy+ Bottle."

The procedural posture of this case is an IPR (IPR2024-01137) before the PTAB, which has reached a Final Written Decision. The panel of Administrative Patent Judges for this IPR included Nathan A. Engels (Author Judge), Daniel J. Galligan, and Elizabeth M. Roesel. The PTAB is a specialized administrative court within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, offering an alternative forum to federal courts for challenging patent validity, often seen as a quicker and more cost-effective method. This case is notable because while Unified Patents typically targets NPEs, here it is challenging a patent held by an operating company, CamelBak Products, LLC, which is actively asserting the patent against a competitor, Trove Brands, LLC. This reflects Unified Patents' broader strategy of improving patent quality and deterring litigation, even when it involves disputes between established operating companies in specific technology sectors, such as hydration products.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2024-01137

This case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2024-01137, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. The petitioner is Unified Patents, and the patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255. The patent owner for U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255 is CamelBak Products, LLC.

IPR Proceedings

• Filing of Petition: Unified Patents filed the petition for inter partes review on July 1, 2024, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255.
• Institution Decision: The PTAB issued its decision to institute the IPR on January 28, 2025.
• Final Written Decision: The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024-01137 on January 15, 2026. While the decision reached a final stage, the specific outcome of whether the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255 were found patentable or unpatentable could not be determined from the available search results.

Parallel District Court Proceedings

U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255 is one of several patents asserted in a related district court litigation:

• Trove Brands LLC v. CamelBak Products LLC: On November 8, 2024, the court in this case issued an order construing claim terms for multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255. In this litigation, Trove Brands LLC sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement after receiving a patent infringement letter from CamelBak Products, LLC. CamelBak had asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255 and seven other patents related to reusable water bottles and drink containers against Trove's "Owala" series of drink containers.

The precise effect of the IPR's Final Written Decision on the Trove Brands v. CamelBak district court litigation, or any subsequent appeals of the IPR decision, could not be determined from the available information.

The plaintiff in IPR2024-01137 is Unified Patents. While Unified Patents employs a team of in-house patent counsel, specific counsel of record representing Unified Patents in this particular Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-01137) is not readily available in the provided search results or publicly accessible general case lists.

Unified Patents' internal legal team includes a number of Senior Patent Counsel such as Bill Saindon, David Seastrunk, Andrea Shoffstall, Jenn Bisk, Kyla Bulter, Kelly Hughes, Patrick King, Vinu Raj, and Jordan Rossen. Jonathan Stroud serves as the organization's COO & CLO. It is common for Unified Patents to file IPR petitions, sometimes with the assistance of external counsel, but the direct listing of their specific external representation for IPR2024-01137 is not found in the available information. Without direct access to the PTAB docket for IPR2024-01137, identifying the specific external attorneys and their firms is not possible at this time.

In IPR2024-01137, Unified Patents is the petitioner challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255, and CamelBak Products, LLC is the patent owner (defendant in the context of the IPR). While specific counsel for the IPR proceeding were not directly identifiable from publicly available PTAB docket searches, information from the parallel district court case, Trove Brands LLC v. CamelBak Products LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04267 (N.D. Cal.), which involves the same patent, provides strong indications of the legal teams representing CamelBak.

Based on the district court litigation, the following attorneys and firms represented CamelBak Products, LLC:

• David Thomas Pollock

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Reed Smith is a global law firm with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation.

• Christopher John Pulido

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Mr. Pulido has been actively involved in the Trove Brands v. CamelBak litigation, including filing motions on behalf of CamelBak.

• Jason Matthew Richardson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Shook Hardy & Bacon, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Shook, Hardy & Bacon is known for its litigation prowess, including intellectual property disputes.

• Ryan Justin Schletzbaum

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Shook, Hardy and Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO

• Lauren Elizabeth Douville

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Shook, Hardy and Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO

• Emily Sosolik

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Shook, Hardy and Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO

• Amelia Elizabeth Murray

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Chicago, IL

• Anna Maria Targowska

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, IL

• Jordan T. Bergsten

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, Washington, DC
  • Note: Boies Schiller Flexner is a prominent litigation firm.

• Mark Douglas Schafer

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, Washington, DC