Untitled case

Unified Patents has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In this proceeding, Unified Patents acts as the Petitioner, consistent with its business model as a membership organization focused on deterring what it considers unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, primarily by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). The Patent Owner and Respondent in this IPR is Charge Fusion Technologies LLC, which holds title to the challenged patent. While the prompt identifies "Defendant(s): Unified Patents," Unified Patents' stated action of "challenging the validity" of the patent clarifies its role as the petitioner in the IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338 is titled "Dynamic power delivery system" and generally describes systems and methods related to dynamic power delivery. This patent falls within Technology Center 3600, which encompasses various fields including Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review. While the specific accused product or service in an IPR is the validity of the patent itself, the context for Unified Patents' involvement typically stems from underlying patent infringement assertions made by patent owners, often NPEs, against operating companies in relevant technology sectors.

The IPR, designated IPR2025-00032, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and has been instituted, meaning the PTAB has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The IPR is being overseen by PTAB Judge Brent M. Dougal. This case is notable given Unified Patents' prominent role in the patent landscape, where it systematically challenges patents to reduce the impact of what it labels "patent trolls" on various industries. Such IPRs provide an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for challenging patent validity outside of district court litigation, often impacting companies that are targets of patent assertion campaigns.

---

Clarification regarding conflicting information in the prompt and search results:
The prompt states "Defendant(s): Unified Patents" while also indicating "Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of US patent 11563338." In an IPR, the party filing the challenge is the Petitioner, and the party defending the patent is the Patent Owner/Respondent. Unified Patents' business model confirms it operates as a Petitioner challenging patents. Therefore, the statement "Defendant(s): Unified Patents" in the metadata is understood to refer to Unified Patents' participation in the IPR as the named challenging entity, despite the common usage of "defendant" for the patent owner in broader litigation contexts. Additionally, while the Unified Patents portal for IPR2025-00032 shows "Tesla Inc." as the Petitioner for patent 11,563,338, per the instruction to treat the provided metadata as authoritative, this overview assumes Unified Patents is the petitioner of record for this specific case as stated in the prompt's summary.Unified Patents, a member-based organization dedicated to deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, particularly by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), is the Petitioner in this Inter Partes Review (IPR). The IPR challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338. The Patent Owner and Respondent is Charge Fusion Technologies LLC, an entity that has engaged in patent infringement litigation against operating companies such as Polestar and Tesla concerning electric vehicle (EV) charging systems, consistent with the behavior of a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or NPE. This IPR is a strategic move by Unified Patents to challenge the patent's validity, reflecting its mission to mitigate what it considers frivolous patent litigation.

U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, titled "Dynamic power delivery system," generally describes systems and methods for dynamically managing power delivery, which is broadly relevant to the electric vehicle charging technology space. While there is no "accused product" in an IPR, the proceeding directly scrutinizes the validity of the patent claims themselves, often in response to their assertion in district court litigation. The IPR, designated IPR2025-00032, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been instituted, indicating that the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The case is being handled by PTAB Judge Brent M. Dougal.

This IPR is notable primarily due to Unified Patents' active role in combating NPE assertions. Unified Patents targets patents, often related to technologies like EV charging, that are used in litigation against operating companies. By challenging patents such as 11,563,338, Unified Patents aims to reduce the economic burden and distraction that patent infringement lawsuits pose to its members and the broader industry, especially when the underlying patents are believed to be invalid. Charge Fusion Technologies LLC's history of asserting its patent portfolio against major automotive manufacturers underscores the significance of this IPR in the ongoing landscape of patent validity challenges.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-00032 and Related Litigation

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00032, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, which was initiated by Tesla Inc. as the Petitioner against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC, as the Patent Owner. The IPR is closely related to an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit filed by Charge Fusion Technologies against Tesla.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2025-00032)

• Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338 ('338 patent)
• Petitioner: Tesla Inc.
• Patent Owner: Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
• Filing of IPR Petition: Tesla Inc. filed the petition for IPR2025-00032 on October 18, 2024, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338. This petition was filed in response to Charge Fusion's attempt to assert the '338 patent against Tesla in a district court litigation.
• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR on May 19, 2025. [cite: 5 (from previous search output)]
• Final Written Decision and Termination: The IPR proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision issued on May 13, 2026. [cite: 5 (from previous search output)] The specific outcome of the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00032 (i.e., whether the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338 were found patentable or unpatentable) is not available in the public search results.
• Appeal: There is no information available in the search results regarding an appeal of the Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00032 to the Federal Circuit.

Related District Court Litigation

• Case Name: Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC v. Tesla, Inc.
• Court & Case Number: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488
• Filing & Initial Pleadings: Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. on October 15, 2021, initially asserting infringement of three patents.
• Assertion of '338 Patent: After the PTAB issued final written decisions on the initial three IPRs (challenging different patents), Charge Fusion sought leave to assert three additional patents against Tesla in the district court litigation, including U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, on June 5, 2024.
• Effect of IPR on Litigation: The filing of IPR2025-00032 against the '338 patent by Tesla indicates a defensive maneuver in response to Charge Fusion's assertion of this patent in the district court case. It is common for district court litigation to be stayed pending the outcome of related IPRs, especially after institution, but the specific status of the Western District of Texas case concerning the '338 patent (e.g., whether it was stayed or continued) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.
• Other Patents in Dispute: Tesla has challenged other patents owned by Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC, related to electric vehicle charging systems, in separate IPR proceedings and subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit. For instance, in February 2026, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's decision that Tesla failed to prove claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 unpatentable. In March 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a partial win for Tesla, finding some claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135 unpatentable while affirming others. These cases demonstrate a broader intellectual property dispute between the parties over EV charging technology.

Disclaimer: The prompt provided that Unified Patents is the defendant in IPR2025-00032. However, public records and legal news consistently identify Tesla Inc. as the Petitioner and Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-00032. Unified Patents is generally known for filing IPR petitions as a challenger of patents, not as a patent owner defending against an IPR. Therefore, the analysis proceeds with Tesla as the Petitioner and Charge Fusion Technologies as the Patent Owner for the IPR, and Tesla as the defendant in the related district court litigation.

IPR2025-00032 is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, not a patent infringement case. In an IPR, Unified Patents is the Petitioner challenging the validity of U.S. Patent 11,563,338. The party defending the patent is the Patent Owner. The case status is "Instituted" and "Pending."

As of June 16, 2026, a public record directly identifying the Patent Owner and their specific counsel of record for IPR2025-00032 is not readily available through general web searches. While search results discuss IPR proceedings in 2025 and Unified Patents' role in various IPRs, they do not specifically name the Patent Owner or their legal representation for IPR2025-00032.

To definitively identify the Patent Owner's counsel, one would typically consult the official docket for IPR2025-00032 on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) End-to-End (E2E) system or through PACER, which would list all parties and their appearing attorneys. Without direct access to these specific docket entries, the counsel for the Patent Owner cannot be identified and detailed.

Unified Patents is the Petitioner in IPR2025-00032, not a defendant, and the case is currently pending, having been instituted. The web search did not yield the specific counsel of record for Unified Patents in IPR2025-00032. However, Unified Patents utilizes a dedicated internal legal team for its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings and also frequently engages external counsel.

Based on their general practices and past IPR representations, the following attorneys and firms are known to represent Unified Patents in PTAB matters:

Internal Counsel for Unified Patents:

• Jonathan Stroud
  • Role: Chief Operating Officer & Chief Legal Officer (COO & CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note on experience: Manages Unified Patents' legal and corporate work, focusing on PTAB, district court, and appellate litigation, and was previously a patent attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner LLP, involved in early post-grant review work.
• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Head of Operations / Legal Head-NPE
  • Firm: Unified Patents
  • Note on experience: Identified as a legal head for Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) matters at Unified Patents and has represented them in Federal Circuit appeals alongside outside counsel.
• Jessica L.A. Marks
  • Role: SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel / Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents
  • Note on experience: Has represented Unified Patents in Federal Circuit appeals alongside outside counsel and participates in webinars on PTAB topics.
• Michelle Aspen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents
  • Note on experience: Has spoken in webinars regarding PTAB proceedings and strategies.
• Jordan Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents
  • Note on experience: Has participated in webinars discussing PTAB interactions.

External Law Firms and Notable Attorneys (Frequent Collaborators in IPRs):

While not confirmed for IPR2025-00032, Unified Patents frequently works with external law firms for its IPR challenges and appeals.

• Haynes and Boone, LLP
  • Note on experience: Haynes Boone has successfully represented Unified Patents in significant patent appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming PTAB invalidation decisions. Attorneys such as Partners Debbie McComas, Jonathan Bowser, David McCombs, and Angela Oliver have represented Unified Patents. Joseph Matal, a Partner in the Intellectual Property Department at Haynes and Boone, has also participated in discussions with Unified Patents' Chief IP Counsel regarding patent quality.
• Duane Morris LLP
  • Note on experience: Duane Morris has been recognized as a top firm representing petitioners before the PTAB, according to Unified Patents' institutional success index (2018-2025).
• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
  • Note on experience: Skadden's Intellectual Property Litigation Group has represented Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination requests filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to challenge patent validity.