Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,026,088, which is owned by Maxell Ltd.. Unified Patents PTAB Data, the Petitioner, is a membership organization focused on deterring what it considers "frivolous patent litigation" and challenging patents it deems "poor quality" or invalid, often from Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). Maxell Ltd. is a Japanese operating company known for manufacturing products such as batteries, optical media, and functional materials, and is the original assignee of the patent. While Unified Patents primarily targets NPEs, they do challenge patents held by operating companies, particularly when those patents are asserted.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,026,088, titled "Communication system, communication device and communication terminal device," describes a wireless local area network (LAN) communication system. This system aims to provide secure and convenient temporary access for an external user's terminal to utilize a display function on a communication device, typically associated with projectors or other display technologies. The system involves an internal user's terminal explicitly granting permission for the external terminal to connect via a wireless LAN access point, with periodic confirmations to maintain security. Although an "accused product" is not directly adjudicated in an IPR, the existence of this IPR suggests that Maxell may be asserting the patent against products or services utilizing similar wireless display sharing technologies, as the patent family is linked to district court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

The case, IPR2025-01307, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has reached an "Instituted" status. This procedural posture indicates that Unified Patents successfully convinced the PTAB that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims of the '088 patent is unpatentable, allowing the review to proceed to the merits phase. The institution of this IPR is notable given recent trends at the PTAB, including lower institution rates, particularly against NPEs, and an increase in discretionary denials, as well as the implementation of a new bifurcated institution process in March 2025. Unified Patents' involvement highlights its ongoing strategy to proactively challenge patents, especially in the high-tech sector, to reduce the impact of what it perceives as invalid patent assertions.

This case, IPR2025-01307, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning US Patent 11026088, initiated by Unified Patents PTAB Data. While IPRs are frequently filed in parallel with patent infringement lawsuits in district courts, this specific case is an administrative challenge to the patent's validity rather than a district court infringement litigation. The developments below pertain primarily to the IPR proceeding.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01307:

• Patent Ownership: US Patent 11026088 was originally assigned to Maxell Ltd. and has undergone internal reassignments between Maxell Ltd. and Maxell Holdings, Ltd..
• Filing of IPR Petition: Unified Patents PTAB Data, an organization known for challenging patents often asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US Patent 11026088 in 2025. The precise filing date of the petition is not explicitly detailed in the provided information, but the case number IPR2025-01307 indicates it was filed in the 2025 fiscal year. Unified Patents undertakes such challenges independently of its members, paying for all fees and retaining sole control over the IPR strategy.
• USPTO Director's Increased Involvement in IPR Institutions (October 20, 2025): Effective October 20, 2025, USPTO Director John Squires announced he would personally determine all IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) institution decisions, encompassing both discretionary considerations and the merits. This change led to a significant increase in discretionary denials of IPR petitions, often issued as summary notices without detailed reasoning.
• Denial of IPR Institution (2026-01-09): On January 9, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), under the new process involving the Director's personal determination, issued a "Notice of Decisions on Institution" denying institution for IPR2025-01307. This contradicts the initial status provided in the prompt ("Instituted") and indicates that the IPR trial did not proceed. The denial of institution means the PTAB did not move forward with a full review of the patentability challenges raised by Unified Patents.

Impact on Patent Infringement Litigation:

The user requested details regarding "patent infringement litigation." While Unified Patents typically files IPRs in response to patent assertions in district courts, specific details regarding an underlying patent infringement lawsuit directly involving US Patent 11026088 (e.g., complaint, answer, Markman, trial, verdict) are not available in the provided search results. Given that the IPR was denied institution, any parallel district court litigation involving this patent would likely have proceeded without the benefit of a PTAB validity determination, as the IPR process was terminated at an early stage.

Therefore, for IPR2025-01307 and US Patent 11026088:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (IPR): Petition filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data in 2025.
• Pre-trial motions of substance: The IPR was denied institution before reaching substantive motions within the IPR trial phase.
• Claim construction (Markman) outcomes: Not applicable to the IPR, and no specific district court litigation involving this patent was identified where Markman could have occurred.
• Discovery milestones: Not applicable as the IPR was denied institution.
• Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions: Not applicable as the IPR was denied institution.
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal: The IPR was dismissed/terminated by way of a denial of institution on January 9, 2026.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings: The IPR itself (IPR2025-01307) was initiated by Unified Patents but ultimately denied institution.

Unified Patents PTAB Data, the Petitioner in IPR2025-01307, is a membership organization that actively challenges patents at the PTAB. While Unified Patents itself acts as the petitioner, it typically engages outside counsel to represent it in IPR proceedings. Although specific counsel for IPR2025-01307 is not directly identifiable through the provided search results, general trends and publicly available data from Unified Patents' own portal can shed light on the firms they frequently use.

Unified Patents often works with a variety of law firms for its IPR petitions. Their "Counsel | Case-level PTAB Analytics" portal lists numerous firms, indicating a diverse range of legal representation for petitioners in PTAB cases. Some of the law firms that frequently appear in PTAB proceedings as petitioners' counsel include:

• Fish & Richardson PC
• Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
• Irell & Manella LLP
• Finnegan, Henderson Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
• Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
• Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
• Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
• Perkins Coie LLP
• Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP

Without access to the specific docket for IPR2025-01307, the exact counsel of record for Unified Patents in this particular case cannot be definitively named. However, the firms listed above are among those with significant PTAB experience who frequently represent petitioners, including Unified Patents, in challenging patents. Unified Patents' own analytics show their Institutional Success Index (ISIX) for various petitioner law firms, further indicating their engagement with numerous outside counsel.

Maxell Ltd., the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01307, is represented by attorneys from Mayer Brown LLP. Based on related IPR proceedings and patent litigation involving Maxell, the following attorneys have been identified as representing Maxell in PTAB matters:

• Saqib J. Siddiqui (Partner) - Mayer Brown, Washington D.C. office. He was part of the Mayer Brown IP team that secured a $111.7 million jury verdict for Maxell in a patent infringement case against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Amanda Streff Bonner (Partner) - Mayer Brown, Chicago office. She was also part of the Mayer Brown IP team in the Maxell v. Samsung patent infringement case.
• Daniel Kim (Attorney) - Mayer Brown.
• Tariq Javed (Associate) - Mayer Brown, Washington D.C. office. He was part of the Mayer Brown IP team in the Maxell v. Samsung patent infringement case.
• Robert G. Pluta (Partner) - Mayer Brown, Chicago office. He was part of the Mayer Brown IP team in the Maxell v. Samsung patent infringement case. He also sent an email to the PTAB in IPR2025-01312, requesting a conference call to discuss Maxell's intent to file a motion to amend, acting as "Counsel for Patent Owner".

While not definitively confirmed as counsel for this specific IPR (IPR2025-01307), a "Patent Owner's Power of Attorney" filing in a related IPR (IPR2025-01310) appoints practitioners at Mayer Brown LLP with Customer Number 26565 to prosecute the proceeding and transact all business with the USPTO, indicating Mayer Brown's general representation of Maxell in these types of cases. Maxell has engaged Mayer Brown in other significant patent litigation, including a successful infringement case against Samsung.