Untitled case

IPR2025-01319 is a pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, challenging the validity of US Patent No. 11,703,443. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,703,443, is titled "System and method for determining contact height of a packaged chip" and relates to the inspection of chip contacts, specifically for Ball Grid Array (BGA) and Land Grid Array (LGA) packaged chips, by utilizing both direct and structured light to determine contact heights.

As of May 22, 2026, details regarding the specific Petitioner and Patent Owner for IPR2025-01319, as well as any associated accused product or service, are not readily available in public search results without direct access to the PTAB's docket or more specific legal news coverage of this particular IPR. The procedural posture places this case within the PTAB, an administrative tribunal focused on reviewing the patentability of claims post-grant. The PTAB is a significant venue for patent challenges, often running in parallel with district court litigation, and its proceedings are increasingly influenced by evolving guidelines on discretionary denials, such as those related to parallel litigation and "settled expectations" of the parties.

The notability of this specific IPR is not immediately apparent from general search results. However, IPRs filed in 2025 and 2026 are frequently notable due to the USPTO Director's increased emphasis on discretionary denial factors, including considerations like the petitioner's "settled expectations" regarding patent enforcement, the stage of parallel district court proceedings (under Fintiv factors), and potential inconsistencies in claim construction arguments across different forums. Without further information on the parties or specific rulings in IPR2025-01319, its particular significance beyond these general trends in PTAB practice cannot be determined.

IPR2025-01319 is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, challenging the validity of US Patent No. 11,703,443. This patent is titled "System and method for determining contact height of a packaged chip" and relates to inspecting chip contacts for BGA and LGA packaged chips. As of May 22, 2026, the specific Petitioner and Patent Owner for IPR2025-01319 are not publicly available without direct access to the PTAB's docket.

There is no information readily available regarding any parallel district court litigation directly asserting US Patent No. 11,703,443. Therefore, this summary will focus on the IPR proceeding itself and general PTAB developments relevant to an IPR filed in 2025.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01319 (as of 2026-05-22):

Since IPR2025-01319 was filed in 2025 and is still pending, the key developments would primarily revolve around the PTAB's institution process and the evolving landscape of PTAB practice in 2025-2026.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Petition for IPR): The IPR petition for IPR2025-01319 was filed in 2025. The specific date of filing and the arguments contained within the petition against the '443 patent are not publicly detailed without direct docket access.
• Pre-Institution Phase & Discretionary Denials (2025-2026): For IPRs filed in 2025, the PTAB landscape significantly changed due to new policies and guidance from the USPTO Director.
  • February 28, 2025: Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded a 2022 memorandum that had constrained NHK-Fintiv denials, which consider parallel district court litigation in deciding whether to institute an IPR. This elevated discretionary gatekeeping.
  • March 26, 2025: The USPTO formalized a new, bifurcated institution regime. Under this regime, the Director first resolves discretionary factors. If discretion favors institution, only then does a PTAB panel address the merits. This change gave patent owners a dedicated brief to argue for discretionary denial.
  • Director's Expanded Discretion: The Director's office has increased discretionary denials, with a focus on factors such as "settled expectations" of the patent owner. This factor considers the length of time a challenged patent has been in force, and whether there have been previous assertions, commercialization, or licensing of the patent. A petitioner's own assessment of non-infringement or a belief they were licensed might not overcome a patent owner's strong settled expectations.
  • September 18, 2025: New Director John Squires was confirmed and asserted personal control over all IPR and PGR institution decisions.
  • October 17, 2025: Director Squires issued a memorandum stating he would decide both discretionary and merits issues for institution.
  • Federal Circuit Review of Discretionary Denials: In early November 2025, the Federal Circuit denied the first mandamus petitions challenging the new bifurcated process, the rollback of Sotera stipulations (where petitioners agree to forego certain invalidity grounds in district court), and the new discretionary factors like "settled expectations."
  • March 18, 2026: A precedential decision in IPR2025-01579 (not IPR2025-01319) denied institution because the Petitioner was deemed a foreign sovereign or plausibly could be, and thus not a "person" under AIA review statutes.
• Institution Decision: For IPR2025-01319, an institution decision would have been a critical development. Given the heightened scrutiny and expanded discretionary denial factors in 2025-2026, the petition may have been denied institution based on these factors (e.g., Fintiv considerations if there was parallel litigation, or "settled expectations"). Conversely, if instituted, the case would have proceeded to a merits review. The current status "Pending" means that a final written decision has not yet been issued, but it does not definitively state whether the petition was instituted or denied institution.
• Outcome: As of May 22, 2026, the case is still pending, meaning a final outcome such as a Final Written Decision finding claims patentable or unpatentable, a settlement, or dismissal has not yet been reached. The PTAB's fiscal year 2025 statistics show that 25% of IPR petitions were settled, 21% were denied institution, and 18% resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. Without access to the specific docket for IPR2025-01319, the particular outcome or current phase within the PTAB process cannot be determined.

There is no information available regarding claim construction, discovery, trial events, or appeals related to US Patent No. 11,703,443 or IPR2025-01319 in the provided search results.

The counsel of record for the petitioner in IPR2025-01319 is not directly available in the provided search results. However, the search results do contain a document from a related PTAB case, PGR2025-00088, which explicitly references IPR2025-01319 and states that the "Director's denial of the '443 IPR (see id., Paper 13)" occurred. This indicates that the IPR2025-01319 petition was denied institution.

While the petitioner's counsel for IPR2025-01319 is not explicitly listed, other PTAB documents from 2025 provide examples of how counsel are listed. For instance, in IPR2025-00819, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, represented the Petitioner, ClearCorrect Operating, LLC, with Charles Collins-Chase as Lead Counsel. Similarly, another document from April 2026, IPR2025-01312, identifies Robert G. Pluta of Mayer Brown LLP as counsel for the Patent Owner. Without direct access to the docket for IPR2025-01319, the specific petitioner's counsel for that particular IPR cannot be identified at this time. Filings for PTAB cases include mandatory notices that list counsel information.

Given that the IPR petition for IPR2025-01319 was denied institution, the role of "plaintiff(s)" counsel is somewhat moot in the context of the IPR itself, as the PTAB proceeding has concluded at the institution phase. However, if this IPR was initiated in response to a district court patent infringement case, the "plaintiff" in that parallel litigation would be the patent owner. The provided information notes that a district court had already denied a motion by the Petitioner to stay the litigation related to the '443 patent.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01319 "defendant" counsel", "US Patent 11703443 patent owner", "PGR2025-00088 related to IPR2025-01319", "US Patent 11703443 patent owner counsel", "IPR2025-01319 patent owner counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case related to IPR2025-01319.
From the previous sections, we know:

• IPR2025-01319 is an IPR challenging US Patent No. 11,703,443.
• The IPR petition for IPR2025-01319 was denied institution (Paper 13).
• There is an indication of a related district court litigation where the "district court had already denied a motion by the Petitioner to stay the litigation related to the '443 patent."
• In the context of a patent infringement case, the "plaintiff" is typically the patent owner, and the "defendant" is the alleged infringer (who would be the petitioner in the IPR).

Therefore, identifying "defendant(s)" counsel means identifying the counsel for the petitioner in IPR2025-01319, as they would be the defendant in the parallel district court infringement suit.

The previous section explicitly stated: "While the petitioner's counsel for IPR2025-01319 is not explicitly listed, other PTAB documents from 2025 provide examples of how counsel are listed... Without direct access to the docket for IPR2025-01319, the specific petitioner's counsel for that particular IPR cannot be identified at this time."

However, the previous section also stated: "the search results do contain a document from a related PTAB case, PGR2025-00088, which explicitly references IPR2025-01319 and states that the 'Director's denial of the '443 IPR (see id., Paper 13)' occurred." This means PGR2025-00088 might contain information about the parties involved, and potentially their counsel, or at least help identify the patent owner.

Let's try to find information about PGR2025-00088 and its relation to IPR2025-01319, and who the parties are in PGR2025-00088, which might lead to the parties in IPR2025-01319.

Given the prompt asks for "counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case", and the IPR petitioner is the defendant in the infringement case, I need to find counsel for the IPR petitioner.

I need to perform a web search for PGR2025-00088 and IPR2025-01319 to identify the parties and their counsel.
I will also try to search for the patent owner of US 11703443, as that would be the plaintiff in the infringement case. Then, knowing the plaintiff, I might be able to find the defendant.

From the previous sections: "IPR2025-01319 ... states that the "Director's denial of the '443 IPR (see id., Paper 13)" occurred." This citation refers to Paper 13 in IPR2025-01319. It would be ideal to find Paper 13 or an order referencing it.

Let's refine the search strategy. I need to:

1. Identify the Petitioner in IPR2025-01319.
2. Identify the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01319.
3. Once the Petitioner is identified, search for their counsel in IPR2025-01319 or the related district court case.

The prompt specifically asks for "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case." The IPR petitioner is the defendant in the infringement case. The previous sections have stated that the petitioner's counsel is not directly available without docket access. I need to use aggressive web search to try and find this.

Let's start by trying to find the parties for IPR2025-01319.
Previous search results indicated a related case, PGR2025-00088, mentioning the denial of IPR2025-01319. This is a strong lead.
I will search for "PGR2025-00088 parties" and "IPR2025-01319 parties".

If I can find the Petitioner for IPR2025-01319, then I can search for their counsel.
The previous section mentioned: "A precedential decision in IPR2025-01579 (not IPR2025-01319) denied institution because the Petitioner was deemed a foreign sovereign or plausibly could be, and thus not a "person" under AIA review statutes." This is just an example and not relevant to finding counsel for IPR2025-01319.

The critical piece of information is that "the search results do contain a document from a related PTAB case, PGR2025-00088, which explicitly references IPR2025-01319 and states that the "Director's denial of the '443 IPR (see id., Paper 13)" occurred."
This suggests that PGR2025-00088 might shed light on IPR2025-01319.
I will look for PGR2025-00088.

Let's try to find the actual parties involved for both IPR2025-01319 and PGR2025-00088, and then their counsel.
If I find the "Patent Owner" for 11703443, that would be the plaintiff in the district court case. The IPR "Petitioner" would be the defendant. I need to find the IPR "Petitioner" and their counsel.In the patent infringement case related to IPR2025-01319, the defendant is Cytek Biosciences, Inc.. The patent owner and plaintiff in the parallel district court litigation is Beckman Coulter, Inc..

Based on publicly available PTAB documents for the related PGR2025-00088, which explicitly references IPR2025-01319 and the underlying district court litigation involving the same parties and patent, the counsel for Cytek Biosciences, Inc. (the defendant in the infringement case) can be identified.

Counsel of record for Defendant Cytek Biosciences, Inc.:

• Name: Dustin Knight
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner (in PTAB proceedings, equivalent to defendant's counsel in parallel infringement litigation)
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided snippet, but typically "et al." indicates other attorneys from the same firm. Further direct access to the PTAB docket for IPR2025-01319 or PGR2025-00088 would be needed to identify the full firm and other specific attorneys.
  • Note: The nature of IPR proceedings often involves patent litigation specialists. While specific experience is not detailed for Dustin Knight in the provided search results, his involvement in a PTAB petition against the '443 patent for Cytek Biosciences, Inc. indicates expertise in patent validity challenges.