Untitled case

Unified Patents has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 11,014,301 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a proceeding that has been instituted and is currently pending under case number IPR2025-01241. Unified Patents is a member-based organization focused on deterring frivolous patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs) and improving patent quality, primarily by filing challenges like IPRs against patents they believe are invalid. Unlike other third-party solutions, Unified Patents does not monetize transactions by paying for licenses or purchasing patents, aiming instead to disrupt monetization campaigns of NPEs without incentivizing further assertions.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,014,301, is titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR WIRELESS DATA TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION." Its current owner is Ben Wynne et al., as listed in PTAB documents. The patent generally relates to technologies for efficiently transmitting and receiving data wirelessly. While the specific product or service accused of infringement is not relevant in an IPR, where the patent's validity itself is challenged, the underlying technology involves wireless communication systems.

This case is notable in the current patent landscape as it takes place amidst a period of significant changes in PTAB practice. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director has assumed greater personal control over institution decisions for IPRs, leading to increased discretionary denials and a generally lower institution rate for petitions, particularly against NPEs. In this environment, an IPR successfully instituted by a challenger like Unified Patents, which has a track record of high success rates in challenging patents, underscores their strategic approach to invalidating patents. The PTAB's decision to institute this IPR suggests that Unified Patents presented a sufficiently compelling argument of unpatentability for at least some claims of patent 11,014,301, despite the broader trend of stricter institution standards.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent 11014301

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,014,301, is currently involved in both an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and a patent infringement lawsuit.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 11,014,301, designated as IPR2025-01241. The patent owner for 11,014,301 is Intrepid Automation, Inc.. The IPR was filed by 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. (collectively, "3DS"), and the petition for IPR2025-01241 was accorded a filing date of July 8, 2025. Unified Patents is the petitioner in this IPR. The case metadata indicates that the IPR has been instituted and is currently pending.

Intrepid Automation, Inc. also filed a Request for Discretionary Denial in a companion IPR, IPR2025-01242, which challenges related U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511. This request, filed around January 10, 2025, argued against institution due to ongoing litigation between the parties concerning ownership of both the '301 and '511 patents.

Patent Infringement Litigation

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
Intrepid Automation, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint, Case No. 3:2024cv02262, was filed on December 4, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,014,301 and 11,338,511. Intrepid Automation, Inc. also requested a jury trial. The complaint further accused 3D Systems of a "brazen anticompetitive scheme" and corporate espionage. This lawsuit marks another development in a "years-long legal battle" between the two companies, with a related trade secret case, 3D Systems, Inc. v. Wynne, et al., 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL, being ongoing.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
On December 4, 2024, 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Intrepid's complaint. This motion was subsequently denied by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on July 15, 2025.

Discovery Milestones:
Intrepid Automation, Inc. filed an expedited-discovery request, leading to an order on January 24, 2025, that vacated a February 7, 2025 hearing. More recently, on April 17, 2026, 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. filed a motion for sanctions for alleged violation of a stipulated protective order and patent prosecution bar.

Present Posture:
The patent infringement litigation, Intrepid Automation, Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation et al, Case No. 3:2024cv02262, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The IPR2025-01241 against patent 11014301 is pending and has been instituted, as per the case metadata.

Unified Patents is typically represented in its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings by a combination of external counsel from firms specializing in patent litigation and its in-house legal team. While a specific Power of Attorney filing directly for IPR2025-01241 listing counsel was not immediately available through public web searches, Unified Patents frequently relies on Erise IP, P.A. for its IPRs, alongside its own experienced in-house patent counsel.

Based on Unified Patents' consistent representation in similar IPRs, the following attorneys are likely to be involved:

• Jason R. Mudd

  • Role: Lead Counsel (external)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas (previously also Greenwood Village, Colorado office for filings)
  • Experience Note: A founding member of Erise IP, Jason Mudd focuses on complex intellectual property disputes and patent litigation. He represented the petitioner in the first-ever IPR conducted under the America Invents Act (AIA) and has served as lead counsel in over 50 IPR proceedings, arguing final oral arguments in more than 10 IPRs before the PTAB. He has been recognized as an "IP Trailblazer and Pioneer" by The National Law Journal and an "IP MVP" by Law360.

• Eric A. Buresh

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (external)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas
  • Experience Note: A founding member of Erise IP, Eric Buresh is an experienced patent litigator with a strong track record in district courts and has filed over 115 IPR proceedings. He is recognized among the top "go-to" firms for IPRs nationwide.

• Kelly R. Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (formerly with Erise IP, P.A.)
  • Experience Note: Kelly Hughes is Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents, handling PTAB filings, including inter partes reviews and ex parte reexaminations. She previously focused on patent litigation at Erise IP, particularly in software and electronics.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Assistant General Counsel / Head of Operations (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: As Assistant General Counsel and Head of Operations at Unified Patents, Roshan Mansinghani oversees the legal department and develops core legal strategies for deterring assertions of low-quality patents. He has participated in numerous post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.

• Jordan M. Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: Jordan Rossen is Senior Patent Counsel with Unified Patents and is an experienced intellectual property litigator who has represented clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission (ITC), district courts, and the Federal Circuit. He has been involved in a variety of technology fields, including computer hardware and software, wireless communications, and medical devices.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing the patent owner, Ben Wynne et al., in IPR2025-01241 is Andrew P. Zappia of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP.

Here's a breakdown of his information:

• Name: Andrew P. Zappia
• Role: Lead Counsel (implied by extensive IPR experience and firm's representation in similar matters)
• Firm: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
• Office Location: While not explicitly stated for this case, Troutman Pepper has numerous offices, and Andrew Zappia's profile indicates he practices in intellectual property disputes.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Andrew Zappia is highly experienced in IPR practice before the PTAB, having served as litigation counsel in over 40 IPR proceedings. He has successfully represented both patent owners and petitioners across a wide range of technology areas, including biotechnology, medical devices, and information technology. He also has an active abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) and biosimilar patent litigation practice, and has served as lead counsel in more than a dozen ANDA litigations in the U.S.

It's important to note that while "Ben Wynne et al." is listed as the patent owner, there are other individuals named "Wynne" with patent-related activities (e.g., Brian Wynne as an inventor for IMS Software Services Ltd., Wynne P. Jones with other patent applications), but Andrew Zappia is linked to IPR2025-01241 as counsel for the patent owner.