Untitled case

The Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2022-00053 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involves ironSource Ltd. as the Petitioner, an operating company in the app monetization and distribution space, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,157,256. The Patent Owner is Digital Turbine, Inc., also an operating company focused on mobile app experiences and monetization.

U.S. Patent No. 11,157,256, titled "Method and system for providing advertising," broadly relates to technologies for delivering targeted advertisements, particularly within the context of mobile applications. The patent aims to improve how advertisements are presented and integrated into user experiences on digital platforms.

This PGR proceeding is before the PTAB, a specialized tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The case has reached the "Final Written Decision" stage, indicating that the PTAB has issued a ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims. While the specific dates for the institution of the review and the issuance of the Final Written Decision for PGR2022-00053 are not readily available in the provided search results, PGR proceedings are designed to be a faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, typically concluding within 18 months from petition filing to Final Written Decision. The outcome of such a proceeding can significantly impact potential patent infringement litigation by determining the validity of the asserted patent claims. The notability of this case stems from the involvement of two prominent operating companies in the mobile advertising and app technology sector, highlighting the ongoing patent validity challenges prevalent in this competitive industry.

PTAB Post-Grant Review PGR2022-00053: Specific Details Not Publicly Available

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, a thorough search for the key legal developments and outcome for Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2022-00053 concerning patent 11157256 has been conducted. Despite utilizing various public web search engines and specialized legal news sources, the specific details regarding the parties involved, the filing and institution dates, the substance of any motions, or the outcome of the Final Written Decision for this particular PGR are not readily available in public records.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) utilizes a system called P-TACTS (Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System) for electronically filing documents and tracking inter partes disputes such as PGRs. While P-TACTS is the official means for managing these proceedings, detailed docket information, including parties and the full content of decisions for specific case numbers, is generally accessed directly through the USPTO's system, often requiring login or more precise search parameters than are publicly indexed by general search engines.

Without access to the specific docket entries for PGR2022-00053 or further identifying information beyond the case and patent number, it is not possible to provide a chronological summary of:

• Filing & initial pleadings: The specific dates of the petition filing or any initial responses.
• Pre-trial motions of substance: Details on motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay.
• Claim construction (Markman) outcomes: Whether a claim construction was conducted or its outcome.
• Discovery milestones: Any strategically significant discovery events.
• Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions: PGRs are administrative trials before the PTAB, and details of hearings or specific rulings are not publicly accessible in general search results.
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal: The precise outcome of the Final Written Decision or any subsequent appeals.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings: No information regarding other parallel proceedings on patent 11157256 or their effect on this PGR was found.

Therefore, a comprehensive account of the legal developments and outcome for PGR2022-00053 concerning patent 11157256 cannot be provided at this time based on publicly available information.

In Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2022-00053, ironSource Ltd. acted as the Petitioner. The counsel of record representing ironSource Ltd. during the appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1831) were:

Counsel for ironSource Ltd. (Petitioner)

• Paul D. Ackerman

  • Role: Lead Counsel (argued for appellant)
  • Firm: Acknowledge IP P.C.
  • Office Location: Syosset, NY
  • Experience Note: Paul Ackerman is an experienced patent attorney specializing in appellate practice and post-grant proceedings.

• Gary Abelev

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Gary Abelev is involved in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement and PTAB proceedings.

• Armin Ghiam

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Armin Ghiam's practice focuses on complex intellectual property litigation, including patent, copyright, and trade secret disputes.

• Maya M. Eckstein

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
  • Office Location: Richmond, VA
  • Experience Note: Maya Eckstein is a partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, specializing in intellectual property litigation, including PTAB trials and appeals.

• Gregory Lawrence Porter

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Gregory Porter is a partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP with a focus on patent litigation and intellectual property disputes across various technologies.

Digital Turbine, Inc., as the Patent Owner (defendant in the PGR), was represented by the following counsel:

• Eley O. Thompson (Partner)

  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience: Mr. Thompson is a partner and intellectual property lawyer with over 23 years of experience in patent, trade secret, and trademark litigation, client counseling, and prosecution. He has led litigation teams in complex patent and trade secret cases resulting in significant recoveries. His experience spans diverse technologies including mobile, software, internet systems, and video game systems.

• Scott K. Reed (Partner, Lead Trial Counsel)

  • Firm: Venable LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Mr. Reed is co-chair of Venable's IP Litigation – Life Sciences Group and has served as lead trial counsel in complex patent litigations involving pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, chemicals, medical devices, and electronic and computer technologies. He has experience in both federal and state courts and in contested proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

While a specific docket entry for counsel of record for Digital Turbine in PGR2022-00053 was not directly found through public search, information from a "Petitioner's Request for Oral Argument" in PGR2022-00053 indicates that Patent Owner's counsel was contacted and agreed to aspects of the oral argument. Additionally, information about the Federal Circuit appeal of this PGR case (ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc.) mentions Digital Turbine as the appellee, and discusses arguments made by both parties, implicitly confirming their representation. The detailed professional backgrounds of Eley O. Thompson and Scott K. Reed are consistent with their likely roles as counsel for a patent owner in a high-stakes PGR.