Untitled case

IPR2026-00084 involves a challenge by Unified Patents PTAB Data, an entity associated with Unified Patents, against U.S. Patent No. 11,204,736, owned by Zophonos Inc. Unified Patents is a membership organization that proactively seeks to deter Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) from asserting what it deems "bad patents" and aims to protect its members from "frivolous patent litigation." Zophonos Inc. appears to operate as an NPE, given Unified Patents' typical strategy of targeting such entities with inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The patent at issue, titled "Multi-frequency sensing method and apparatus using mobile-clusters," broadly covers systems and methods for smart devices to sense various environmental phenomena like sound, blue light, and RF/microwave radiation, then analyze, report, and control outputs based on these inputs. Specific applications include sound output control and detection of hazardous millimeter-wave, blue light, or RF exposure.

This case is being heard before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The procedural posture is particularly notable as the petition was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This indicates that the PTAB declined to initiate a full inter partes review on the merits of the patentability arguments, instead dismissing the petition based on procedural grounds. This outcome aligns with recent trends at the PTAB, where there has been a significant increase in discretionary denials of IPR petitions, often stemming from stricter procedural changes and a broader exercise of the Director's discretion to deny institution, especially against patents held by NPEs.

The case is notable primarily due to Unified Patents' role as a defensive aggregator, systematically challenging patents asserted by NPEs to reduce the burden of patent litigation on its operating company members. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" status highlights the current environment at the PTAB, where petitioners face increasing hurdles to getting their challenges heard. While no specific accused product or service is identified in the context of an IPR (which challenges patent validity, not infringement), Unified Patents' involvement strongly suggests that Zophonos Inc. may have asserted or threatened to assert Patent No. 11,204,736 against operating companies, potentially within the consumer electronics or mobile technology sectors, prompting this defensive IPR filing.

The prompt asks for key legal developments and outcomes for "this patent infringement litigation," but the provided case is an IPR. I need to address both the IPR's specific timeline and, importantly, any related patent infringement litigation involving the patent at issue (US 11204736) as indicated by the context that Unified Patents targets NPEs who assert patents.

Here's a breakdown of the information found and how it relates to the request:

IPR2026-00084 (the primary case in the prompt):

• Status: "Not Instituted - Procedural."
• Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data (associated with Unified Patents).
• Patent Owner: Zophonos Inc.
• Patent at Issue: US Patent 11204736.
• Filing Date: The petition was filed on 2025-11-03.
• Non-Institution Date: The decision to not institute was rendered on 2026-03-03.
• Reason for Non-Institution: "Procedural." While the specific procedural reason for this IPR's denial isn't detailed in the immediate search results, broader context from other searches indicates a trend of increased discretionary denials at the PTAB, especially against NPEs, due to stricter procedural changes and centralization of institution authority under the USPTO Director in late 2025 and early 2026. This includes the PTAB's Workload Management memorandum (March 26, 2025) which formalized discretionary denial as a front-loaded gate, making IPRs more challenging to institute. One common procedural reason for Unified Patents' IPRs being denied institution is related to Real Party in Interest (RPI) issues, where the PTAB sometimes requires Unified Patents to name its members as RPIs. Although no specific ruling on RPI for IPR2026-00084 was found, it is a known procedural hurdle for Unified Patents.

Parallel/Related Patent Infringement Litigation involving US Patent 11204736:

• District Court Case: Zophonos Inc. sued Samsung (case number 2:25-cv-00752) in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Filing Date of District Court Case: The complaint was filed on July 30, 2025 (or around August 3, 2025, according to different sources, but July 30, 2025, seems more specific from the RPX article).
• Patents Asserted in District Court: US Patent 11204736 was one of three patents asserted in this lawsuit, along with 10,656,906 and 11,900,016.
• Accused Products: The lawsuit concerned Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro earbuds, used with a Samsung Galaxy smartphone and the Galaxy Wearable app, specifically features like Ambient Sound, Conversation Mode, Siren Detect, Adapt sound, and Voice Detect.
• Counsel for Zophonos: Susman Godfrey LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC.
• Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Connection to IPR: The IPR by Unified Patents (filed November 3, 2025) likely responded to this district court litigation initiated by Zophonos against Samsung in July/August 2025. Unified Patents' mandate is to protect its members (which often include large tech companies like Samsung) from NPE assertions. The fact that IPR2026-00084's institution decision was March 3, 2026, and it was "Not Instituted - Procedural," means it did not advance to a full review of the patentability on the merits, leaving the district court litigation to proceed without an IPR decision on validity.

Other relevant points:

• Another IPR, IPR2026-00083, also filed by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd / Samsung Electronics America Inc. against Zophonos Inc. concerning patent 10656906 (another patent asserted in the Samsung litigation) was also "Not Instituted - Procedural" on 2026-03-03. This reinforces the pattern of procedural denials against challenges to Zophonos's patents around the same time.
• The context from the Q1 2026 Patent Dispute Report highlights a significant drop in IPR petitions and low institution rates against NPEs, driven by stricter procedural changes and discretionary denials since late 2025. This provides important background for why IPR2026-00084 was "Not Instituted - Procedural."

Now I will structure the answer chronologically, distinguishing between the IPR and the related district court litigation.

Timeline:

1. Patent Issuance: US Patent 11204736 was issued. (A YouTube video from Feb 29, 2020, mentions Levaughn Denton, inventor and CEO of Zophonos, Inc., receiving a patent, implying the patent was issued around that time. However, the specific issue date for 11204736 is not directly found, but generally, a 2020 issue date is consistent with the timeframe of the video mentioning it as a new patent.)
2. District Court Filing: Zophonos Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung (2:25-cv-00752) in the Eastern District of Texas on July 30, 2025. Zophonos asserted US Patent 11204736, along with patents 10,656,906 and 11,900,016, alleging infringement by Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro earbuds. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
3. IPR Petition Filing (IPR2026-00084): Unified Patents PTAB Data filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2026-00084) challenging US Patent 11204736 on November 3, 2025. This IPR was likely filed defensively in response to Zophonos's litigation against Samsung.
4. IPR Non-Institution Decision (IPR2026-00084): On March 3, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision declining to institute IPR2026-00084. The status was recorded as "Not Instituted - Procedural." This procedural denial occurred in a period of increased discretionary denials at the PTAB, driven by stricter guidelines and a Director-centric approach to institution decisions.
5. Ongoing District Court Litigation: As of the latest information, the district court case (2:25-cv-00752) between Zophonos and Samsung would likely be proceeding, as the IPR challenging the patent's validity was not instituted. No further specific developments for the district court case (e.g., Markman, summary judgment) were found in the provided search snippets, but its existence and the IPR's non-institution are key.

I need to make sure to distinguish between the IPR case and the underlying district court litigation clearly. The user's request is for "key legal developments and outcome for this patent infringement litigation," and then lists types of events that mostly apply to district court litigation, but then also "Any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect on the litigation." This confirms I need to cover both.

The prior summary indicates "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as the petitioner for IPR2026-00084. Search result lists "Samsung Electronics Co Ltd · Samsung Electronics America Inc." as the petitioner for IPR2026-00084, but then lists "Unified Patents" as the general petitioner type in other results. It's common for Unified Patents to file IPRs on behalf of its members, or for its members to file after Unified Patents' initial research. The prompt's metadata states "Unified Patents PTAB Data" is the plaintiff, and the case overview states "an entity associated with Unified Patents." Given the prompt's authoritative metadata and the nature of Unified Patents, I will continue to refer to Unified Patents as the petitioner, acknowledging that Samsung is likely the party benefiting and potentially involved behind the scenes. However, search result explicitly says "Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co Ltd · Samsung Electronics America Inc." This is a contradiction. I should flag it.

Let's re-evaluate the petitioner for IPR2026-00084.
The initial prompt and "Existing case summary" state: "Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents PTAB Data", "IPR2026-00084 involves a challenge by Unified Patents PTAB Data, an entity associated with Unified Patents". [Previous context]
However, search result explicitly states: "IPR2026-00084 · 11204736, Not Instituted - Procedural. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd · Samsung Electronics America Inc. Zophonos Inc. 2025-11-03, 2026-03-03, 2026-03-03, 2600: Communications."
This is a direct contradiction regarding the identity of the petitioner for IPR2026-00084. I must flag this. Given that search result is a "PTAB Case List for Petitioner SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC | Unified Patents," and it explicitly lists the IPR number, patent, and parties, it seems highly reliable for the petitioner's identity in the PTAB record. Unified Patents' business model often involves its members being the actual petitioners, even if Unified Patents facilitates or drives the challenge. Therefore, I will state that Samsung is the petitioner in the IPR. The initial prompt's "Unified Patents PTAB Data" may refer to the entity tracking the IPR or a generic classification rather than the formal petitioner of record. I will flag this discrepancy.

Revised plan:

1. Acknowledge the IPR is not a patent infringement litigation but addresses validity of a patent being asserted in litigation.
2. Start with the district court litigation filing by Zophonos against Samsung, as this precedes the IPR.
3. Then discuss the IPR filing by Samsung (formerly thought to be Unified Patents PTAB Data, with a flag).
4. Detail the IPR's non-institution decision and the general context of procedural denials at the PTAB.
5. Conclude on the current posture regarding both the IPR and the likely ongoing district court litigation.

The structure should follow the user's requested chronological order for "legal developments and outcome for this patent infringement litigation." Since the IPR is a parallel proceeding to the district court litigation, it makes sense to interweave them chronologically.

Confidence Score: 5/5 - I have found direct information on the IPR and its outcome, and critically, found the related district court litigation that the IPR was almost certainly responding to. I can now piece together a chronological narrative.

One more check for the "procedural" reason. While the exact wording for IPR2026-00084 isn't specified beyond "procedural," the broader context of PTAB denials in early 2026 points to discretionary denials under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or § 325(d), often relating to RPI issues, Fintiv factors, or other workload management directives. Without the specific institution decision, I cannot pinpoint the exact reason for this IPR. I should state this limitation.

Final confirmation:

• Filing & initial pleadings (complaint, answer, counterclaims). Covered by Zophonos v. Samsung.
• Pre-trial motions of substance. The IPR itself is a type of pre-trial challenge to validity. The non-institution decision is a key event here.
• Claim construction (Markman) outcomes. Not found for the district court case; likely too early.
• Discovery milestones. Not found.
• Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions. Not found; likely too early.
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal. IPR outcome is "Not Instituted - Procedural." District court case likely ongoing.
• Any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect on the litigation. The IPR is the parallel proceeding. Its non-institution means it did not have an effect on staying or terminating the district court litigation.

I will ensure to highlight that the non-institution of the IPR means the district court litigation can proceed without PTAB review of the patent's validity.This case involves an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (IPR2026-00084), challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,204,736, owned by Zophonos Inc. While the prompt focuses on "patent infringement litigation," the primary case identified is an IPR, which is an administrative proceeding to challenge patent validity, not an infringement suit. However, the IPR was initiated in response to a related patent infringement lawsuit filed by Zophonos Inc. in district court.

Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed (Zophonos Inc. v. Samsung):

• Date: July 30, 2025.
• Event: Zophonos Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung (Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00752.
• Patents Asserted: The lawsuit asserted three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,204,736, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,656,906 and 11,900,016.
• Accused Products: Zophonos alleged infringement by Samsung's Galaxy Buds Pro earbuds, specifically features related to sound sensing and adjustment through the Samsung Galaxy smartphone and the Galaxy Wearable app (e.g., Ambient Sound, Conversation Mode, Siren Detect, Adapt sound, and Voice Detect).
• Assignments: The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Zophonos Inc. was represented by Susman Godfrey LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC.

2. IPR Petition Filed (IPR2026-00084):

• Date: November 3, 2025.
• Event: A petition for inter partes review (IPR2026-00084) was filed challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,204,736.
  • Note on Petitioner Discrepancy: The initial case metadata and overview identified "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as the plaintiff/petitioner. However, official PTAB case lists show "Samsung Electronics Co Ltd · Samsung Electronics America Inc." as the petitioner for IPR2026-00084. This suggests that while Unified Patents may have been involved in identifying the patent or supporting the challenge, Samsung was the formal petitioner of record.
• Purpose: This IPR was likely a defensive measure in response to Zophonos's patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung.

3. IPR Non-Institution Decision (IPR2026-00084):

• Date: March 3, 2026.
• Event: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision declining to institute IPR2026-00084.
• Outcome: The status of the IPR is "Not Instituted - Procedural." This means the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the patentability arguments on the merits.
• Context of Procedural Denials: This outcome aligns with a broader trend at the PTAB in late 2025 and early 2026, characterized by a significant increase in discretionary denials of IPR petitions, particularly against non-practicing entities (NPEs). Stricter procedural changes and a centralized, Director-centric approach to institution authority have made it more challenging for petitioners to get IPRs instituted. While the specific procedural reason for the denial in IPR2026-00084 is not detailed in the available snippets, such denials often stem from factors like real party in interest (RPI) issues or application of Fintiv factors.
• Effect on Litigation: The non-institution of the IPR means that the district court litigation between Zophonos Inc. and Samsung (2:25-cv-00752) is not subject to a stay pending a PTAB validity determination for U.S. Patent No. 11,204,736 and can proceed in the Eastern District of Texas.

4. Parallel PTAB Proceeding (IPR2026-00083):

• Date: November 3, 2025 (Filing); March 3, 2026 (Non-Institution).
• Event: Concurrently, Samsung also filed IPR2026-00083, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,906, another patent asserted by Zophonos in the same district court litigation. This IPR also received a "Not Instituted - Procedural" decision on March 3, 2026.

Present Posture:
As of May 29, 2026, IPR2026-00084 is closed with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. The related patent infringement litigation, Zophonos Inc. v. Samsung (2:25-cv-00752) in the Eastern District of Texas, is presumed to be ongoing. No further specific developments regarding claim construction (Markman), discovery, or trial events for the district court case are available in the provided information.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents PTAB Data IPR2026-00084 counsel", "Unified Patents IPR attorneys", "Unified Patents legal team", "Zophonos Inc. patent counsel", "Unified Patents PTAB Data representatives"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Unified Patents PTAB Data, in IPR2026-00084. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience. I will use web search with specific queries focusing on the IPR case number and Unified Patents' counsel in general.Unified Patents PTAB Data, as the petitioner in IPR2026-00084, typically uses outside counsel for its IPR filings. However, specific counsel of record for this particular IPR (IPR2026-00084) are not readily available through public web searches, nor are the detailed docket entries that would typically list appearing attorneys. This could be due to the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status, meaning the case did not proceed to the merits phase where a full record of appearances would be more firmly established, or simply that the information is not easily indexed or publicly accessible without direct PACER or PTAB End-to-End system access.

In general, Unified Patents frequently works with various law firms specializing in patent litigation and IPR proceedings. Without direct access to the docket for IPR2026-00084, it is not possible to definitively identify the specific attorneys who represented Unified Patents PTAB Data in this particular proceeding.

In the patent infringement litigation, Zophonos Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (2:25-cv-00752) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys have appeared as counsel of record for the defendant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.:

• Abby Lynn Parsons
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in available records, but Arnold & Porter is a major international firm.
  • Relevant Experience: Arnold & Porter is a prominent firm frequently representing large technology companies like Samsung in complex patent litigation and defense.
• Daniel S. Shimell
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Shimell is associated with Arnold & Porter, a firm known for its extensive work in intellectual property and patent defense for major corporations.
• Jacob Zimmerman
  • Role: Counsel (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: The Zimmerman Firm
  • Office Location: Not specified, likely specialized or local counsel.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Zimmerman has entered an appearance pro hac vice for all defendants, indicating a role in the litigation, potentially as specialized or local counsel.
• Robert W. Stout
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in available records.
  • Relevant Experience: As part of Arnold & Porter, Mr. Stout is involved in representing major clients in patent infringement matters.
• Ali R. Sharifahmadian
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Sharifahmadian is part of Arnold & Porter's team handling patent litigation for clients such as Samsung.
• Jin-Suk Park
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Park contributes to Arnold & Porter's representation of defendants in complex patent disputes.
• Melissa Richards Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas (common for local counsel in EDTX)
  • Relevant Experience: Gillam & Smith is a well-known firm frequently serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.