Untitled case

This case, IPR2026-00183, involves a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,539,663 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions and improving patent quality, primarily by filing inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patents owned by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or those asserting patents in defined technology zones. The patent owner, Qomplx LLC, is an operating company specializing in cybersecurity, risk analytics, simulation, and artificial intelligence, providing cloud-native data factory solutions to analyze threats and manage complex digital risks for government and enterprise clients.

While an IPR does not involve an "accused product" in the traditional infringement sense, the validity challenge against US Patent 11539663 by Unified Patents is directly linked to ongoing patent infringement litigation. Qomplx LLC has recently initiated lawsuits against major technology companies, including Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks, asserting this and other patents. The asserted patent, US Patent 11539663, generally relates to systems and methods for data handling, particularly concerning a "midserver," likely within a network security or data analysis context as indicated by its application in Qomplx's infringement claims.

The procedural posture of this case is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where it is currently pending. This venue is significant because IPRs offer a streamlined, often faster and more cost-effective, alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. The PTAB employs a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for proving invalidity, which is generally considered an easier burden for petitioners to meet compared to the "clear and convincing evidence" standard required in district courts. This case is notable due to Qomplx LLC, an operating company, having recently engaged in patent assertions against prominent tech firms, prompting Unified Patents' challenge. This IPR reflects Unified Patents' strategy to combat what it perceives as poor-quality patent assertions within key technology sectors, and its outcome could significantly impact the related district court infringement cases.

I'll research the parallel district court litigation and PTAB proceedings involving Qomplx's patent 11,539,663.

Good — I now have a clearer picture, including a significant metadata discrepancy. Let me dig into the district court dockets and PTAB outcomes.

Let me gather the PTAB institution decisions and check the Unified Patents question.

Key Legal Developments & Outcomes — Parallel Litigation and PTAB Proceedings

Important scope and metadata flags before the chronology:

Two threshold corrections to the earlier-generated sections and the case metadata:

1. The case metadata appears to be wrong about the petitioner. Every public source locates IPR2026-00183 as Microsoft Corporation v. Qomplx LLC, filed 2026-01-13/14, challenging U.S. Patent 11,539,663 — not a Unified Patents petition. See GreyB IPVerse ("Petitioner: Microsoft Corporation; Respondent: Qomplx LLC; Status: Institution Denied") at https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2026-00183 and Arctic Invent's case page at https://cases.arcticinvent.com/us/patent/us/petition-for-inter-partes-review-of-us-patent-no-11539663/ipr2026-00183/. I found no PTAB filing by Unified Patents against Qomplx on any of the asserted patents. This matters analytically: Unified Patents' model targets NPE-held patents, whereas Qomplx is an operating company asserting a six-patent portfolio against Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks — the opposite profile. Treat the "Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents" metadata as unverified/erroneous pending confirmation from the PTAB docket (PTAB Center, https://ptacts.uspto.gov).

2. The earlier "Defendant representatives" section contains a citation error. It states that "Unified Patents' PTAB case list indicates IPR2026-00362 as the IPR challenging U.S. Patent 11539663, with Palo Alto Networks Inc. as the petitioner." IPR2026-00362 is indeed Palo Alto Networks v. Qomplx on the '663 patent — but that is a Palo Alto petition, not a Unified Patents one. Both '663 petitions (Microsoft's IPR2026-00183 and PAN's IPR2026-00362) were denied institution. See Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, "L&W Obtains Two Noninstitutions on Behalf of Qomplx" (2026-09-23), http://lowensteinweatherwax.com/lw-obtains-two-noninstitutions-on-behalf-of-qomplx/.

Because there is no single "patent infringement litigation" here, I cover the two parallel district court actions as the operative litigation, with the PTAB track interleaved chronologically.

---

I. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-08-28)

Both complaints were filed the same day, 2025-08-28:

• QOMPLX LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:25-cv-01383-ADA (W.D. Tex., Austin Division, Judge Andrew D. Austin Davis). The complaint asserts six patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 12,143,424 ('424), 12,218,934 ('934), 12,231,426 ('426), 12,301,627 ('627), 12,301,628 ('628), and 11,539,663 ('663). Accused products include Microsoft Fabric / Eventstream (mapped to the '424 "distributed computational graph" claims) and Microsoft Entra ID (mapped to the '934/'426 time-series-authentication claims). Venue was premised heavily on Microsoft's San Antonio/Austin data centers and offices. Complaint text via Docket Alarm exhibit reproduction: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00364/Palo_Alto_Networks_Inc/docs/05-15-2026-Petitioner/Exhibit-1020-Ex_1020.pdf
• QOMPLX LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00913 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap). Qomplx is also identified as f/k/a QPX LLC. Accused products include PAN's "SLS" cloud-scale data platform. See RPX Empower / Ex Parte docket summaries: https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00913/qomplx-llc-v-palo-alto-networks-inc

Microsoft's counterclaims (invalidity/non-infringement) are reflected indirectly through its early invalidity positions (below); I could not confirm the specific answer/counterclaim docket entry number from the available search results.

---

II. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Palo Alto Networks — Motion to Dismiss (E.D. Tex., late 2025).
PAN filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 11). The docket shows a Qomplx response filed under seal (D.I. 28, redacted D.I. 31 on 2025-12-05, with a Berger declaration), PAN's reply (D.I. 39, 2025-12-16), and a Qomplx sur-reply (D.I. 41, 2025-12-23). The case continued to a Docket Control Order, which strongly implies the motion was denied or mooted — I could not locate a published ruling on the MTD, so treat the disposition as unconfirmed.

No Rule 12 motion or transfer motion is evident in the W.D. Tex. Microsoft case. Notably, Microsoft has litigated intra-district transfer motions aggressively in other W.D. Tex. patent cases (see, e.g., Judge Davis's transfer rulings in the 2020–21 Microsoft campaign, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.[1098128](/patent/1098128)/gov.uscourts.txwd.1098128.61.0.pdf), but I found no transfer motion in 1:25-cv-01383. No stay pending IPR has been sought by either defendant — a point Qomplx affirmatively pressed in opposing PAN's IPRs (see §V).

Scheduling orders.

• E.D. Tex.: Docket Control Order (D.I. 33, 2025-12-10) setting Markman/claim construction hearing 2027-02-01, pretrial conference 2027-07-12, and jury selection 2027-08-16; First Amended Docket Control Order ordered 2026-01-03; unopposed motion to further amend (D.I. 42, 2025-12-30).
• W.D. Tex.: Amended Scheduling Order (D.I. 43) governed the claim construction sequence (dates below). No trial date surfaced in the search results.

---

III. Discovery Milestones of Strategic Significance

• 2025-11-24 — Qomplx's preliminary infringement contentions served in the Microsoft case (cited as Ex. 1011 in IPR2026-00326).
• 2026-01-12 — Palo Alto Networks' preliminary invalidity contentions served in the E.D. Tex. case (cited as Ex. 2004 in IPR2026-00371).
• 2026-01-26 — Microsoft's invalidity contentions and Court-ordered technical production deadline. This is the flashpoint. In Qomplx's Preliminary Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions (W.D. Tex., served 2026-03-02), Qomplx alleged Microsoft produced only 375 documents — over 300 of them prior art and the rest public user-facing documentation — and "not a single line of source code" or internal document concerning the accused Microsoft Fabric/Entra ID functionality. Qomplx asserted Microsoft was withholding all confidential material on the theory that the Court's Interim Protective Order was inadequate, even after the parties stipulated to a protective order, and reserved the right to supplement its constructions. This is a live, strategically significant discovery dispute that Qomplx used to frame claim construction. Text: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1559013](/patent/1559013)/download-documents?artifactId=WcoCy8GkkgfB-PwNLuKyyVD14Mr6zirOASPmZvb60xSMmkDCTN6wg50
• 2025-12-16 — Protective Order entered in the E.D. Tex. case (D.I. 40, Judge Gilstrap), following a joint motion (D.I. 35).
• 2026-07-27 to 2026-08-04 — A wave of pro hac vice admissions on both sides in W.D. Tex. (Microsoft: Benjamin J. Byer, D.I. 65–66; Qomplx: Shaya Shamsian, Jeffrey Linxwiler, Joshua William Grossman, D.I. 67–72), indicating the case remains actively staffed and litigated.

---

IV. Claim Construction (Markman)

The W.D. Tex. Microsoft case has advanced through full claim construction briefing, but no Markman order or hearing transcript was located:

Substantive disputes on the '663 patent: Qomplx proposed a narrow, structure-laden construction of "midserver" — *"a server that functions as an interface between an external network and a cloud-based

I'll research counsel of record for the petitioner (plaintiff) in this matter.

Important: search results indicate a petitioner identity discrepancy. Let me dig deeper.

Let me verify the petitioner's counsel of record and check whether Unified Patents also has a filing against this patent.

Counsel of Record — "Plaintiff" / Petitioner Side (IPR2026-00183)

⚠️ Threshold flag: the metadata conflicts with every public source I could find

Before listing counsel, I must restate and amplify a discrepancy the earlier "Defendant representatives" section also flagged:

Sources: ipverse.greyb.com case page; ai-lab.exparte.com case page; cases.arcticinvent.com; lowensteinweatherwax.com.

Additional correction to the earlier sections: Those sections stated that Unified Patents is associated with IPR2026-00362. That is also not supported. IPR2026-00362 and IPR2026-00371 were filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc., not Unified Patents (per the L&W release and the GreyB record for IPR2026-00362). I found no Unified Patents IPR against U.S. 11,539,663 in any of my searches. Likewise, the earlier sections' dates (petition filed 1/29/26 by Unified Patents; POPR filed 5/29/26) do not match the Microsoft docket (filed Jan. 13–14, 2026; institution denied June 11–12, 2026).

I therefore report both possibilities below, and label clearly which is sourced.

---

A. If the petitioner is Microsoft Corporation (the well-sourced position)

Lead counsel

Andrew M. Mason — Lead Counsel (petitioner-side)

• Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP — One World Trade Center, 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600, Portland, OR 97204
• USPTO Reg. No.: 64,034
• Note: Co-chairs Klarquist's post-grant practice group and is Microsoft's long-standing PTAB lead in dozens of IPRs (e.g., Microsoft v. Hypermedia Navigation, Microsoft v. Uniloc 2017, Microsoft v. Darletech, Microsoft v. X1 Discovery, Microsoft v. Dialect, Microsoft v. ParTec), typically on obviousness grounds under § 103. Recognized in IAM Patent 1000 for IPR/reexam strategy.

Sources: GreyB lists "Petitioner Counsel | Mason, Andrew et al." for IPR2026-00183; Ex Parte's attorney page lists him on IPR2026-00183 (Microsoft v. Qomplx, TC 2400, filed 01/14/26) alongside IPR2026-00182/-00184 against Qomplx; representative Microsoft powers of attorney naming Mason as lead counsel are on the PTAB docket (IPR2019-01026 POA; IPR2020-00483 POA). IAM profile: iam-media.com.

Back-up counsel — inferred, not confirmed for this docket

I could not retrieve the actual § 42.10(b) power of attorney for IPR2026-00183 (the GreyB decision-document list shows none published, and no docketalarm page surfaced for this proceeding). The names below are the Klarquist practitioners Microsoft routinely names as back-up in its IPR POAs (same firm, customer no. 24197, same Portland office). Treat as likely, unverified:

• Todd M. Siegel (Reg. No. 73,232) — co-chair, post-grant group
• Samuel B. Thacker — PTAB/briefing
• Derrick W. Toddy (Reg. No. 74,591)
• John D. Vandenberg (Reg. No. 31,312)
• John M. Lunsford (Reg. No. 67,185)
• Joseph T. Jakubek (Reg. No. 34,190)

Basis for the roster pattern: Klarquist/Microsoft POA, IPR2017-00898 and IPR2015-00258. Do not treat the back-up list as docket-verified.

In-house

No Microsoft in-house attorney was identified as counsel of record on this docket. Historically Microsoft's POAs are signed by a corporate officer (e.g., David Howard, Corporate Vice President–Deputy General Counsel, in 2018 filings) but the signatory is not counsel of record.

---

B. If the petitioner is Unified Patents (per the case metadata only)

I could not locate any counsel of record for Unified Patents in IPR2026-00183, or any Unified Patents petition against the '663 patent at all. No PTAB, GreyB, Ex Parte, or docketalarm entry ties Unified Patents to this proceeding or this patent. Unified Patents, as a defensive aggregator, ordinarily appears through its in-house legal team and designated outside PTAB firms rather than a district-court litigation team, but I have no verified names to give you here, and I will not guess.

If the metadata is correct and this is a Unified Patents matter, the record of counsel has not been surfaced publicly (or the proceeding number in the metadata is a mislabel). Either way: nothing about petitioner-side counsel should be stated as fact until the POA/mandatory notices for the correct proceeding number are pulled from PTACTS.

---

C. Related district-court "plaintiff" counsel (cross-reference, not repeated)

If by "plaintiff" you mean Qomplx LLC as patent-infringement plaintiff in the parallel district-court suits asserting the '663 patent (Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:25-cv-01383-ADA, W.D. Tex.; Qomplx LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00913, E.D. Tex.), that roster (Irell & Manella; Scott Douglass & McConnico; Miller Fair Henry) was already set out in the earlier "Defendant representatives" section and I won't duplicate it here. On the PTAB side, Qomplx's owner-side counsel is Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (Kenneth Weatherwax lead; Nathan Lowenstein, Dennis Courtney, Colette Woo on the team) per the Qomplx power of attorney and the L&W announcement.

---

Bottom line

• Sourced petitioner-side counsel: Andrew M. Mason, Klarquist Sparkman LLP (Portland, OR), Reg. No. 64,034 — lead counsel for Microsoft Corporation in IPR2026-00183.
• Not sourced: any back-up counsel roster for this specific docket (inferred from Klarquist's standing Microsoft team — flagged above), any in-house counsel, and any counsel for Unified Patents.
• Flag for the case file: the "Unified Patents as plaintiff" metadata appears inconsistent with every public record of IPR2026-00183, which is captioned Microsoft Corporation v. Qomplx LLC, filed January 2026, with institution denied in June 2026 (GreyB lists decision date June 11, 2026; Ex Parte lists June 12, 2026 — the two sources disagree by one day, so the exact docket date should be confirmed in PTACTS). This should be reconciled before the case summary is finalized.

The provided case details indicate a potential discrepancy in the metadata. The prompt states that IPR2026-00183 was filed by Unified Patents challenging U.S. Patent 11539663. However, public records for IPR2026-00183 show Microsoft Corp. as the petitioner, challenging U.S. Patent 11539663, with Qomplx LLC as the Patent Owner. Additionally, while Unified Patents is noted as an organization that files IPRs, their PTAB case list indicates IPR2026-00362 as the IPR challenging U.S. Patent 11539663, with Palo Alto Networks Inc. as the petitioner.

Given that IPR2026-00183 lists Qomplx LLC as the Patent Owner, the "defendant" in this IPR context is Qomplx LLC. The following counsel are representing Qomplx LLC in IPR2026-00183 and related district court litigation:

For Patent Owner Qomplx LLC in IPR2026-00183:

• Colette Woo - Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Not specified in available snippets, but her designation is for provisional recognition as a PTAB attorney.
  • Note: Designated as backup counsel for Qomplx LLC in IPR2026-00183.

For Plaintiff Qomplx LLC in District Court Litigation (Patent Owner in IPR):

Qomplx LLC is asserting U.S. Patent 11539663 (among others) in district court litigation. Therefore, the counsel representing Qomplx LLC in those infringement cases would be acting on behalf of the patent owner.

In QOMPLX LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (1:25-cv-01383, W.D. Tex.):

• Alan J. Heinrich - Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Representing Qomplx LLC in patent infringement litigation against Microsoft.
• Ian Robert Washburn - Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Also counsel for Qomplx LLC in patent infringement litigation against Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks.
• Aron Berger - Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP
  • Note: Granted pro hac vice admission to represent Qomplx LLC in the Microsoft case.
• Paige Arnette Amstutz - Local Counsel
  • Firm: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Filed the initial complaint on behalf of Qomplx LLC in the Microsoft case.
• Robert Pierce Earle - Local Counsel
  • Firm: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Representing Qomplx LLC in the Microsoft litigation.
• Eli Levinson - Counsel
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided text, but signed a certificate of service for Qomplx LLC.

In QOMPLX LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (2:25-cv-00913, E.D. Tex.):

• Ian Robert Washburn - Counsel (designated attorney in charge)
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Designated as attorney in charge for Qomplx LLC in the Palo Alto Networks litigation.
• Aron Berger - Counsel
  • Firm: Irell & Manella
• Charlotte J. Wen - Counsel
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles
• Dominik Slusarczyk - Counsel
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles
• Claire Abernathy Henry - Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Note: Filed documents on behalf of Qomplx LLC in the Palo Alto Networks case.

It's important to reiterate that while the initial prompt identified Unified Patents as the plaintiff in IPR2026-00183, public records indicate Microsoft Corp. is the petitioner in that specific IPR, and Unified Patents is associated with IPR2026-00362 against the same patent. This response focuses on the counsel for Qomplx LLC as the patent owner, which is the "defendant" in an IPR proceeding, and the plaintiff in the related district court infringement cases.