Untitled case

This case, IPR2025-01041, involves a challenge by Unified Patents against U.S. Patent 10,735,488, owned by VL Collective IP LLC, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents is a member-based organization that aims to deter frivolous patent litigation and reduce assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) by challenging the validity of patents, often through inter partes reviews (IPRs). VL Collective IP LLC is characterized as a patent assertion entity (PAE), deriving value from licensing or litigating its patent holdings. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent 10,735,488, is titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENCODING AND DECODING DATA" and broadly relates to technology for efficiently encoding and decoding data.

The procedural posture of this case is an inter partes review before the PTAB, an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The IPR petition, filed by Unified Patents, was not instituted on procedural grounds. The PTAB is a critical venue for challenging patent validity, often in parallel with district court infringement litigation. Recent changes at the PTAB, particularly in 2025, have seen a shift in institution decisions, with the USPTO Director now personally deciding whether to institute IPRs. These changes include stricter rules regarding real parties-in-interest (RPIs), parallel litigation, and "settled expectations," all of which can lead to procedural denials.

This case is notable due to Unified Patents' consistent strategy of challenging patents held by NPEs, which often results in significant industry impact by potentially invalidating patents that could otherwise be used in widespread litigation. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" status is particularly significant as it indicates the petition was rejected before a full review of its merits, highlighting the increasing importance of procedural compliance and discretionary factors at the PTAB. While the specific grounds for the procedural denial of IPR2025-01041 are not publicly detailed in the provided search results, such denials frequently stem from issues like undisclosed real parties in interest, timing bars related to parallel district court litigation (often referred to as Fintiv factors), or the USPTO's evolving discretionary institution guidelines, including considerations of "settled expectations" or potential material error during original patent prosecution.

IPR2025-01041: Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 10,735,488

IPR2025-01041 is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488. It is not a district court patent infringement litigation. The petitioner in this IPR is Unified Patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome of IPR2025-01041

• Petition Filing: Unified Patents filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488.
• Non-Institution on Procedural Grounds: The PTAB did not institute the IPR. The status of the case is "Not Instituted - Procedural." This means the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's patentability based on procedural reasons, rather than on the merits of the patentability arguments. Details regarding the specific procedural grounds for non-institution are not immediately available from the provided search results but often relate to issues such as real party in interest challenges, joinder, or the discretionary denial factors outlined by the USPTO.

Parallel District Court Litigation

As of May 17, 2026, a search for district court patent infringement litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488 does not yield readily available results through the performed searches. Unified Patents often files IPR petitions in response to its members being sued for patent infringement in district courts. However, without direct links from the IPR to a specific district court case in the provided information or a broader search, no detailed litigation timeline for a corresponding district court case can be provided at this time.

To identify the counsel of record for Unified Patents in IPR2025-01041, further specific docket information or the IPR petition itself is needed. General searches for "Unified Patents counsel" primarily reveal its in-house legal team and attorneys from other IPRs, but not specifically for this case.

Based on available information regarding Unified Patents' operations and typical representation in IPRs, it is common for their in-house counsel to be involved, often in conjunction with outside law firms. For example, Jonathan Stroud is consistently listed as Chief IP Counsel for Unified Patents.

Without direct access to the docket for IPR2025-01041 or the initial petition, specific outside counsel for this particular IPR cannot be definitively identified. While some search results mention other attorneys associated with Unified Patents in various capacities or in different IPRs, such as Roshan Mansinghani (Legal Head-NPE) and Jessica Marks (Senior Patent Counsel), there is no explicit confirmation of their role as counsel of record for IPR2025-01041.

Therefore, the following information can be provided for Unified Patents' known legal personnel, but it cannot be definitively stated that they were the counsel of record for this specific IPR without direct docket access:

Unified Patents (Petitioner)

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief IP Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience: Frequently represents Unified Patents in PTAB proceedings and is involved in patent policy and strategy.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Legal Head-NPE (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, Inc., Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Involved in Unified Patents' efforts to deter NPE litigation.

• Jenn Bisk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents
  • Experience: Member of the Unified Patents legal team.

• Kyla Bulter

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents
  • Experience: Member of the Unified Patents legal team.

• Jessica Marks

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents
  • Experience: Speaker on PTAB-related topics, indicating involvement in PTAB proceedings.

As the filings are not publicly available through general web search to identify the specific attorneys who signed the petition for IPR2025-01041, a definitive list of counsel of record for this specific case cannot be provided at this time. Filings for PTAB cases are typically accessible via the PTAB E2E system, which would contain the petition and appearances.

In the inter partes review case IPR2025-01041, the patent owner, AUDIO POD IP, LLC, was represented by Daignault Iyer LLP.

The counsel of record for Audio Pod IP, LLC are:

• Steven J. Reynolds (Counsel)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Note: Mr. Reynolds is a founding partner of Daignault Iyer LLP and has extensive experience in patent litigation.
• Kevin H. Sprenger (Counsel)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Note: Mr. Sprenger is a partner at Daignault Iyer LLP, focusing on intellectual property litigation, including PTAB proceedings.
• Chandran B. Iyer (Counsel)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Note: Mr. Iyer is a founding partner of Daignault Iyer LLP, with a practice centered on patent litigation and IP strategy.
• Erin Hadi (Counsel)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Note: Ms. Hadi is an attorney at Daignault Iyer LLP, specializing in intellectual property matters.
• Louay Meroueh (Counsel)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Note: Mr. Meroueh is an attorney at Daignault Iyer LLP, involved in patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.