Untitled case

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents GlobalFoundries Oak IP LLC IPR2025-01129 US Patent 10937880 parties", "US Patent 10937880 technical sketch", "Oak IP LLC business model", "Unified Patents business model", "GlobalFoundries business model", "IPR2025-01129 procedural posture", "IPR2025-01129 notability"]))
thought
The user wants a case overview and background for IPR2025-01129. I need to cover:

1. Parties: Who they are and what they do.
2. Accused product/technology: What's allegedly infringing.
3. Patents asserted: A one-line technical sketch for each.
4. Procedural posture: Court, division, judge (if known), and venue significance.
5. Notability: Why this case matters.

I will use web search to gather this information, focusing on the specified sources.

From the previous sections, I already know:

• Parties: Unified Patents, GlobalFoundries Inc., GlobalFoundries US Inc. (Petitioners) and Oak IP LLC (Patent Owner).
• Patent: US Patent 10937880.
• Court: PTAB.
• Status: Settled.

I need to find:

• What each party does (e.g., operating company, NPE).
• The accused product/technology (this might be harder for an IPR, as IPRs challenge patent validity directly, not necessarily infringement of a specific product). IPR petitions often identify exemplary products, but the core of the IPR is validity. I will look for any mentions of "accused product" in relation to the patent or related district court litigation.
• A one-line technical sketch of US Patent 10937880.
• Any details on the PTAB panel or specific judges if available.
• Why the case is notable, especially regarding NPE assertion patterns and IPR linkage.IPR2025-01129 involves Unified Patents, GlobalFoundries Inc., and GlobalFoundries US Inc. as petitioners challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, owned by Oak IP LLC. Unified Patents is an international organization that seeks to deter abusive patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs) through various means, including filing inter partes reviews. GlobalFoundries Inc. and GlobalFoundries US Inc. are a multinational semiconductor manufacturer, making them an operating company in the technology sector. Oak IP LLC is identified as the patent owner, which, in the context of IPRs filed by Unified Patents, often indicates a non-practicing entity or patent assertion entity (PAE). The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, generally relates to methods and devices for forming a through silicon via (TSV). While IPRs directly challenge patent validity rather than specific products, it is common for such petitions to arise in response to alleged infringement of technology relevant to a petitioner's business, in this case, semiconductor manufacturing.

The procedural posture of this case places it before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a specialized administrative court within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This venue is critical for challenging patent validity outside of district court litigation, often offering a faster and less expensive alternative for petitioners. The IPR was instituted on December 4, 2025, and notably, the proceeding concluded with a settlement on the very same day. Given that the IPR settled immediately upon institution, the case did not proceed to an extensive review by a PTAB panel or a final written decision.

This case is notable for several reasons, particularly its linkage to NPE assertion patterns and the strategic use of IPRs. Unified Patents frequently targets patents asserted by NPEs, and its involvement here, alongside GlobalFoundries, suggests that the patent in question may have been asserted or was anticipated to be asserted against GlobalFoundries' semiconductor manufacturing operations. The swift settlement, coinciding precisely with the institution date, indicates a resolution was reached early in the PTAB process, potentially avoiding prolonged and costly litigation for both parties. This rapid conclusion highlights the role of IPRs as a potent tool for achieving early resolution in patent disputes, especially when an NPE's patent portfolio is challenged by multiple petitioners or in multiple forums.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01129, concerning U.S. Patent 10,937,880, was initiated by Unified Patents, GlobalFoundries Inc., and GlobalFoundries US Inc. against patent owner Oak IP LLC, and ultimately concluded in a settlement.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• IPR Petition Filing (2025-06-11): Unified Patents, alongside GlobalFoundries Inc. and GlobalFoundries US Inc., filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on June 11, 2025. The patent is classified under Technology Center 2800, which covers Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components. The patent owner for this proceeding was Oak IP LLC.
• Institution of IPR (2025-12-04): The PTAB instituted the inter partes review proceeding on December 4, 2025.
• Settlement and Termination (2025-12-04): The IPR subsequently reached a settlement. The termination date for the proceeding is also listed as December 4, 2025, coinciding with the institution date. Due to the settlement, the case did not proceed through further litigation milestones such as claim construction hearings, extensive discovery, or a final written decision by the PTAB.

The plaintiffs in IPR2025-01129, Unified Patents, GlobalFoundries Inc., and GlobalFoundries US Inc., were represented by a combination of outside counsel and in-house counsel.

For Unified Patents:

• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc., Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Legal Head of NPE (Non-Practicing Entity) at Unified Patents, with extensive experience in post-grant proceedings.
• Jordan M. Rossen
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents.

For GlobalFoundries Inc. and GlobalFoundries US Inc.:

• Covington & Burling LLP acted as outside counsel.
  • Specific attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP are listed as petitioner's counsel in other IPRs filed by GlobalFoundries against Oak IP LLC. While specific names for IPR2025-01129 were not immediately available, Covington & Burling LLP frequently represents GlobalFoundries in these types of proceedings.
  • Note: Covington & Burling LLP has a significant PTAB practice and frequently represents petitioners in inter partes reviews.
• David A. Cain
  • Role: Intellectual Property Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: GlobalFoundries, Inc.
  • Note: Has provided testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property regarding PTAB reform, advocating for an efficient and effective IPR system.
• Catherine Ivers
  • Role: Director of IP Law (in-house)
  • Firm: GlobalFoundries
  • Note: Leads a team responsible for patent value management and has a background in semiconductor manufacturing and patent licensing.
• Adam Noah
  • Role: VP and Assistant General Counsel Intellectual Property (in-house)
  • Firm: GlobalFoundries
• Emre Yuzak
  • Role: Principal Attorney, Intellectual Property Law (in-house)
  • Firm: GlobalFoundries
• Mike Caywood
  • Role: Senior Director and IP Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: GlobalFoundries

In the IPR2025-01129 case, Unified Patents, GlobalFoundries Inc., and GlobalFoundries US Inc. were the petitioners challenging the patent. The patent owner, and thus the defendant in the context of the IPR, was Oak IP LLC.

While the search results provide extensive information about the counsel for Unified Patents in various IPR proceedings, they do not explicitly identify the counsel of record for Oak IP LLC in IPR2025-01129. The records indicate the case was terminated due to a settlement on December 4, 2025, which coincided with the institution date. This swift resolution may mean that detailed appearances for the patent owner's counsel are not readily available in public summaries or typical docket searches for fully litigated IPRs.

Based on the available information, the specific counsel representing Oak IP LLC in IPR2025-01129 has not been identified.