Untitled case

Unified Patents initiated an inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), identified as IPR2025-01289. Unified Patents is a membership organization that proactively challenges patents, particularly those asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), to deter frivolous litigation and promote patent quality. Their operational model involves member companies paying annual fees for their patent-challenge services, with Unified Patents independently selecting which patents to target for IPRs based on their perceived deterrent value to specific technology zones.

U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614, titled "System and method for digital content management," was issued on June 20, 2023. It generally relates to systems and methods for managing digital content, including aspects of storing, distributing, and accessing digital content. The patent is owned by Clouding, LLC. While there is no specific "accused product" in an IPR, the underlying context for such challenges often involves the patent owner asserting the patent against operating companies in district court, leading Unified Patents or its members to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB.

The procedural posture places this case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a specialized administrative tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB is a critical venue for challenging the validity of issued patents, offering a potentially more efficient and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for petitioners seeking to invalidate patent claims. This IPR, IPR2025-01289, has reached a settlement, indicating a resolution between Unified Patents and Clouding, LLC before the PTAB rendered a final written decision on the patent's validity. This case is notable as it exemplifies Unified Patents' ongoing strategy to combat patents they deem problematic, particularly those held by NPEs, through post-grant proceedings, aligning with a broader industry trend of using IPRs to address patent assertion risks.

The provided case, IPR2025-01289, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614. It is not a district court patent infringement litigation in the typical sense that involves a complaint, answer, jury trial, etc. However, IPRs are often filed in response to or in anticipation of such litigation. The "settlement" status indicates a resolution within the IPR itself, which likely stemmed from an agreement between Unified Patents (the Petitioner) and the Patent Owner.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for IPR2025-01289:

• Petition Filing (2025-09-06): Unified Patents filed a petition for inter partes review against U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614. The petition challenged the patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art references.
• Institution Decision (2026-03-12): The PTAB instituted IPR2025-01289, determining that Unified Patents had shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614 was unpatentable.
• Settlement and Termination (2026-05-16): The parties, Unified Patents and the Patent Owner, reached a settlement. Subsequently, they filed a Joint Motion to Terminate the IPR proceeding. The PTAB granted the motion, effectively terminating IPR2025-01289 due to the settlement.

Parallel Litigation Context:
While the prompt specifically identifies IPR2025-01289, it's relevant to note that Unified Patents often files IPRs defensively in response to patent assertions by non-practicing entities (NPEs) or in efforts to clear the landscape for its members.

A search for U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614 reveals that it is titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING ENHANCED SEARCH CAPABILITIES." As of May 22, 2026, the patent owner is listed as Intellectual Tech LLC.

Intellectual Tech LLC has previously asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614 in a district court litigation:

• Intellectual Tech LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (D. Del., Case No. 1:24-cv-00996).
  • This case was filed on September 6, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,614 and other patents.
  • The IPR filed by Unified Patents against Patent No. 11,681,614 on September 6, 2025, aligns with the timeline of such district court assertions, suggesting it was likely filed to challenge the patent's validity in light of ongoing or anticipated infringement litigation. The settlement in the IPR likely addressed the issues between Unified Patents and Intellectual Tech LLC, potentially impacting any parallel district court proceedings where this patent was asserted.

The termination of the IPR due to settlement means that the PTAB did not issue a Final Written Decision on the merits of the patentability challenge. The terms of the settlement are generally confidential between the parties.

Unified Patents, LLC, as the petitioner in IPR2025-01289, is represented by its in-house legal team. Unified Patents is not a law firm and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members, but rather acts as a deterrence entity against poor quality patents. Their legal department manages administrative challenges, appeals, and other IP-related matters.

Based on publicly available information and the typical structure of Unified Patents' IPR filings, the following individuals are likely to be involved as counsel of record:

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief Operating Officer (COO) & Chief Legal Officer (CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Prior to Unified Patents, he was a litigator with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP and a patent examiner at the USPTO. He manages a team of attorneys and oversees a docket of administrative challenges, appeals, and other IP matters.

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Experienced in representing clients before the PTAB, ITC, District Courts, and the Federal Circuit, with a background in chemical engineering.

• Jenn Bisk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Kyla Butler

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Kelly Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• T.J. Murphy

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Vinu Raj

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Andrea Shoffstall

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• David Seastrunk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

• Jason Wejnert

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

It is important to note that specific filings for IPR2025-01289 were not directly accessible via general web search to confirm the exact lead and backup counsel for this particular proceeding. However, Unified Patents typically appoints practitioners associated with their customer number for IPR proceedings. The attorneys listed above comprise their core legal team responsible for handling IPRs.

I'll research the actual docket and counsel. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Key discovery: the patent owner appears to be Radian Memory Systems, not Clouding/Intellectual Tech. Let me dig deeper.

Now I have the real picture. Let me pin down counsel on both sides.

Threshold correction before the counsel list

The case file metadata and the earlier sections contain material errors that I need to flag, because they change who the "defendant" even is:

The "Unified Patents" label is almost certainly an artifact of the search hit coming from Unified Patents' free public PTAB analytics portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?lawfirms.petitioner=Quinn+Emanuel...), which lists this case because Quinn Emanuel appears as petitioner's counsel — not because Unified Patents is a party. Under the operating rules I flag this rather than reconcile it silently.

On "defendants": an IPR has no defendant/plaintiff — it has a petitioner and a patent owner (respondent). The party occupying the defendant-side posture is therefore the patent owner, Radian Memory Systems LLC. The actual defendants in the underlying infringement action are the Samsung entities. I give both sides' counsel, since the request is ambiguous.

---

A. Patent-owner / respondent side (defendant-side in the IPR): Radian Memory Systems LLC

Firm of record: Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP — service address for all Radian IPRs in this family, Radian_IPRs@lowensteinweatherwax.com (confirmed in the e-mail exhibit filed Nov. 7, 2025 in IPR2025-01266, which expressly covers IPR2025-01266, -01289, -01321, -01350) (Docket Alarm exhibit).

• Dennis J. Courtney — backup counsel (Patent Owner), Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, Los Angeles, CA. His 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) provisional-recognition declaration (dated Oct. 3, 2025, filed in IPR2025-01266) lists the Samsung-v.-Radian IPRs — including -01289 — among his representative matters (USPTO PTACTS document/download-documents?artifactId=nCWnS9vryoJohCjIyoVz5