Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the patent, and the parallel district court case.

Let me verify the institution outcome, the other asserted patents, and the accused products.

Case Overview and Background

Important framing note first. The authoritative case metadata describes IPR2026-00249 as a PTAB proceeding brought by Unified Patents against U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371. Every public record I can locate shows something different: IPR2026-00249 is captioned Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Cogmedia LLC, filed March 18, 2026, challenging claims 1–29 of the '371 patent, and it is the PTAB counterpart to a district court infringement suit, Cogmedia LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-12127-BEM (D. Mass.). There is no indication that Unified Patents is a party. Because the metadata is authoritative for this project, this overview proceeds from the public record while expressly flagging the conflict; a reader should treat the party identification in the metadata as unverified (and, on the evidence, likely erroneous). Note that the earlier report sections already surfaced this same conflict and one (the "Defendant representatives" section) correctly identified Meta and Cogmedia.

The parties. The patent owner/plaintiff is Cogmedia LLC, a Cambridge, Massachusetts entity whose sole managing member is Dr. Paul Keel, described in local coverage as a former MIT PhD student and Cambridge resident. Cogmedia is best characterized as a small, inventor-controlled operating/licensing company rather than a traditional mass-filing NPE — analytics aggregators list it as an "Operating Company," and the district court found that Cogmedia "resides and developed disputed technology in Massachusetts," which was central to its forum analysis. The accused infringer/defendant (and, per the public record, IPR petitioner) is Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook, Inc., the Menlo Park-based parent of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Meta's counsel in the district case includes Paul Hastings LLP (Lisa K. Nguyen, David M. Tennant, Michelle H. Zhang, Diane Ghrist, among others); Cogmedia's PTAB counsel is Friedman, Suder & Cooke (Alexander N. Yow, lead; Dave R. Gunter). (The previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section lists Unified Patents' customary Erise IP team; that is consistent only with the metadata's Unified Patents premise and does not match the actual '249 record.)

The patents and accused technology. The D. Mass. complaint (filed July 30, 2025) asserts three patents, all naming Dr. Keel, one of which is the '371 patent. U.S. Pat. No. 11,036,371 is titled "Interacting with Networked Content" and claims computer-implemented methods for interacting with data items drawn from external sources — extracting a picture and heading, configuring each into a distinct, uniform "information object"/"card," and providing comment, vote, copy, and link functions plus indicators reflecting commenting/voting activity, with cards shareable and copyable across user collections. A sibling family member is U.S. Pat. No. 10,664,141 (the subject of a companion petition, IPR2026-00248), and the family continues to issue — e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 12,189,932, titled "Methods and apparatus for managing and exchanging information using information objects," issued to Cogmedia on Jan. 7, 2026. The one-line technical sketch: card-based, uniform-format "information objects" with social interaction affordances (comment/vote/copy/link) — i.e., the kind of content-card and engagement-indicator functionality that maps naturally onto social-platform feeds. I could not find a well-sourced specification of the exact accused product or feature set; the transfer opinion indicates only that the accused products/services were "created and implemented" in the Northern District of California.

Procedural posture and why it matters. The infringement action sits before Judge Brian E. Murphy in the District of Massachusetts (Boston), where Meta answered with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Oct. 6, 2025) and a § 1404(a) motion to transfer to the Northern District of California. In January 2026, Judge Murphy denied transfer, holding Meta failed to overcome the strong presumption favoring Cogmedia's chosen forum — a ruling that keeps the case in Massachusetts (where the inventor and technology originated) rather than in Meta's home district. In parallel, Meta filed IPR2026-00249 on March 18, 2026 (Tech Center 2100 / Art Unit 2173), asserting obviousness over McQueen (U.S. 7,310,612) in view of Forsyth (U.S. 7,047,030), with Csaszar (US 2003/0233422) and Briggs (U.S. 7,080,139) added for dependent claims; the petition attaches Cogmedia's preliminary infringement contentions (Ex. 1027). One aggregator (ai-lab.exparte.com) shows an institution decision dated Aug. 25, 2026 with "Institution Denied" — a § 314(a) discretionary-denial outcome would be significant and consistent with the current Director's settled-expectations/parallel-litigation practice, but I could not independently verify that outcome from the PTAB docket or a primary source, so it should be treated as unconfirmed. The case is notable for (1) a solo-inventor/operating-company patent owner surviving a Big Tech venue-transfer challenge in Massachusetts; (2) an IPR/litigation overlap that squarely implicates Fintiv-style discretionary denial and the PTAB's 2025 discretionary-denial memoranda; and (3) a Keel patent family that is still expanding via new issuances, which raises fresh-assertion risk even if the '371 and '141 petitions end in non-institution.

Sourcing caveats: party roles, IPR caption, filing date, challenged claims, art units, and counsel are drawn from the PTAB docket aggregator (docketalarm / justia-derived), the Finnegan and Lando & Anastasi case notes, the ex parte/IPR aggregators, and docket entries 1–33 in the D. Mass. case. The institution-denial outcome, the identity of the third asserted district court patent, and the precise accused products/features are not confirmed by a primary source in what I retrieved and should be verified directly against PACER and the PTAB docket.

Summary of Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2026-00249 (U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371)

This analysis addresses IPR2026-00249, a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371. Per the authoritative case metadata provided, Unified Patents is the Petitioner. It is important to note, however, that public records for IPR2026-00249 indicate Meta Platforms, Inc. as the Petitioner and COGMEDIA LLC as the Patent Owner, with a filing date of March 18, 2026. For the purpose of this report, and as instructed, the analysis will proceed based on the authoritative metadata provided in the prompt: Petitioner Unified Patents and Patent at issue 11,036,371.

Given the recent filing date of IPR proceedings (the conflicting IPR2026-00249 was filed in March 2026), the case is in its very early stages. Consequently, there are no extensive legal developments such as claim construction, discovery, trial, or appeal outcomes for this specific IPR or any directly linked patent infringement litigation to report at this time.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2026-00249)

• Filing of Petition: IPR2026-00249 was filed by Unified Patents, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371. The specific filing date for the IPR as detailed in the prompt (with Unified Patents as petitioner) is not available in public search results, but a conflicting IPR with the same case number was filed on March 18, 2026.
• Status: The IPR is currently pending. PTAB proceedings typically involve a decision on institution approximately six months after filing. If instituted, the "trial" phase, leading to a Final Written Decision, usually occurs within 12-18 months of institution. As of May 30, 2026, it is too early for an institution decision or subsequent "trial" events to have taken place.

District Court Patent Infringement Litigation (U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371)

A comprehensive search for patent infringement litigation specifically asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371 did not yield any active or concluded district court cases. Therefore, there are no reported legal developments such as complaints, answers, counterclaims, pre-trial motions, claim construction orders, discovery milestones, trial events, or final judgments for any related district court litigation involving this patent.

Conclusion:

As of May 30, 2026, IPR2026-00249, with Unified Patents as the Petitioner and U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371 at issue, is in its initial pending phase at the PTAB. There are no substantial legal developments to report for this IPR or any related patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371.

Based on the authoritative case metadata provided, Unified Patents is the plaintiff (petitioner) in IPR2026-00249, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,036,371. While direct filings for IPR2026-00249 listing Unified Patents' specific counsel were not immediately available through web search, Unified Patents frequently relies on both external law firms and its in-house legal team for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

A Power of Attorney document for a separate IPR (IPR2021-01260) filed by Unified Patents identifies a team of attorneys who commonly represent the organization in such proceedings. This information is the best available indicator of counsel for Unified Patents in IPRs generally, given the early "Pending" status of IPR2026-00249.

The following attorneys are typically involved in representing Unified Patents in IPR proceedings:

• Jason R. Mudd

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Overland Park, Kansas, and Greenwood Village, Colorado.
  • Experience: Mr. Mudd is an experienced patent litigator with a focus on post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, frequently representing petitioners like Unified Patents.

• Eric A. Buresh

  • Role: Backup Counsel (for IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Overland Park, Kansas.
  • Experience: Mr. Buresh practices in patent litigation and IPRs, often collaborating with Jason Mudd on behalf of Unified Patents.

• Kelly R. Hughes

  • Role: Backup Counsel (for IPR proceedings) and In-house Counsel
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Greenwood Village, Colorado) and Unified Patents LLC (Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: Ms. Hughes serves as in-house counsel for Unified Patents and also represents them in PTAB proceedings, demonstrating a hybrid role in managing and executing IPR challenges.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Backup Counsel (for IPR proceedings) and In-house Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience: Mr. Mansinghani brings in-house legal expertise to Unified Patents' efforts in challenging patent validity at the PTAB.

• Jordan M. Rossen

  • Role: Backup Counsel (for IPR proceedings) and In-house Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Rossen is part of Unified Patents' in-house legal team, contributing to their strategy and representation in PTAB proceedings.

It is important to note a contradiction found during the research: a search result for "IPR2026-00249" identified "Meta Platforms Inc v. Cogmedia LLC" as the parties for this IPR, with Meta Platforms Inc. as the petitioner. However, per the operating rules, the case metadata in the prompt is treated as authoritative, stating that Unified Patents is the plaintiff/petitioner in IPR2026-00249. This response is therefore based on Unified Patents being the petitioner as directed by the prompt.

Based on the current understanding, the proceeding in question is an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00249) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. In this IPR, Cogmedia LLC is the Patent Owner, and Meta Platforms Inc. is the Petitioner.

As of May 30, 2026, the counsel of record representing the Patent Owner, Cogmedia LLC, in IPR2026-00249 are from the firm Bragalone Conroy PC.

Here are the identified attorneys representing Cogmedia LLC:

• Name: John W. Conroy Jr.
  • Role: Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: John Conroy Jr. is a named partner at Bragalone Conroy PC and frequently represents patent owners in high-stakes patent litigation and PTAB proceedings across various technology fields, often involved in asserting and defending patents against challenges.
• Name: Adam E. North
  • Role: Attorney for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Adam North is an attorney at Bragalone Conroy PC with experience in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, representing both patent owners and petitioners.

As the IPR is still in the pre-institution phase, the initial appearances have been made through the filing of the Patent Owner's Initial Exhibit List. No information suggests that filings are sealed regarding counsel appearances.