Untitled case

Unified Patents initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US patent 11936693, designated as IPR2025-01085, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents is a member-based organization focused on deterring non-practicing entities (NPEs), often referred to as "patent trolls," from asserting what they consider to be poor-quality patents in various technology sectors. Their strategy involves filing IPR petitions to challenge the validity of such patents, aiming to increase the costs for NPEs and reduce frivolous patent litigation without paying for licenses or settlements involving money to the patent owners. The specific patent owner for US patent 11936693 is not explicitly identified in the available search results. Similarly, a detailed technical sketch or an overview of any allegedly infringing products, services, or technologies is not available from the provided information for this particular patent.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review, an administrative proceeding conducted by the PTAB, a judicial body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Unified Patents filed the IPR petition on March 5, 2025. IPRs provide an avenue to challenge the patentability of claims in an issued patent based on prior art in the form of patents or printed publications. The case status indicates that it has since settled.

This case is notable due to Unified Patents' active role in the patent landscape, particularly their consistent use of IPRs as a defensive strategy against NPE assertions. By challenging patents before the PTAB, Unified Patents aims to neutralize patents that could otherwise lead to expensive and protracted infringement litigation for their members. The settlement of this IPR aligns with Unified Patents' stated goals, as they consider a "no money settlement" a successful outcome in their deterrence efforts against the assertion of low-quality patents.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01085 key legal developments and outcome", "Unified Patents IPR2025-01085 docket", "US patent 11936693 owner", "PTAB IPR2025-01085 settlement details", "patent 11936693 litigation history", "IPR2025-01085 final disposition"]))
thought
The user is asking for the key legal developments and outcome of IPR2025-01085, which is an IPR filed by Unified Patents challenging US patent 11936693.
The previous sections established that this is an IPR proceeding, not a district court patent infringement litigation. Therefore, the structure of "patent infringement litigation" provided in the prompt needs to be adapted to the context of an IPR.

I need to focus on IPR-specific milestones, such as:

• IPR Petition filing date.
• Patent Owner Preliminary Response (if any).
• Institution decision.
• Any motions (e.g., motion to amend claims).
• Settlement details or final written decision.
• Any appeals to the Federal Circuit.

The prompt explicitly states "This IPR, case number IPR2025-01085, was filed on March 5, 2025, and later settled." and "The case status indicates that it has since settled." This information is already known.

I need to use web search to find:

1. Patent Owner: Identify the patent owner of US patent 11936693. This is crucial for understanding who Unified Patents settled with.
2. Institution Decision: Was the IPR instituted? If so, when?
3. Settlement Details: When was the settlement reached? What was the outcome (e.g., joint motion to terminate, adverse judgment)?
4. Docket entries: Find specific docket entries related to the petition, institution, and settlement to get exact dates.

Let's refine the search queries to focus on these IPR-specific details.Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01085, against US patent 11936693 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This proceeding is an administrative challenge to patent validity rather than a district court patent infringement litigation, so the typical "litigation" milestones like complaints, answers, and Markman hearings do not directly apply. Instead, the key legal developments center on the IPR process itself.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01085:

• Patent Owner Identification: The owner of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,693 is Broadcom Corporation.
• IPR Petition Filing: Unified Patents filed the IPR petition (IPR2025-01085) challenging the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,693 on March 5, 2025.
• Settlement and Termination: On May 16, 2025, the PTAB entered an Order granting the Joint Motion to Terminate and dismissed the IPR proceeding. This indicates that Unified Patents and Broadcom Corporation reached a settlement agreement. The IPR was terminated prior to a decision on institution, as the period for a patent owner preliminary response would typically extend until around June 2025 (three months from petition filing), with an institution decision due around September 2025 (six months from petition filing). The early termination signifies a pre-institution settlement.
• Final Disposition: The IPR was terminated due to settlement between Unified Patents and Broadcom Corporation, the patent owner. This aligns with Unified Patents' stated goal of achieving "no money settlements" to deter the assertion of low-quality patents.

There were no developments related to pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions, as these are features of district court litigation and not applicable to a settled IPR proceeding before the PTAB. Similarly, no verdict or appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred given the early termination through settlement.Unified Patents initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US patent 11936693, designated as IPR2025-01085, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This proceeding is an administrative challenge to patent validity rather than a district court patent infringement litigation, so the typical "litigation" milestones like complaints, answers, and Markman hearings do not directly apply. Instead, the key legal developments center on the IPR process itself.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01085:

• Patent Owner Identification: The owner of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,693 is Broadcom Corporation.
• IPR Petition Filing: Unified Patents filed the IPR petition (IPR2025-01085) challenging the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,693 on March 5, 2025.
• Settlement and Termination: The IPR proceeding was terminated on May 16, 2025, due to a settlement between Unified Patents and Broadcom Corporation. The PTAB granted a Joint Motion to Terminate and dismissed the proceeding. This occurred before the PTAB issued a decision on whether to institute the IPR (pre-institution settlement), which is consistent with the process where IPRs can be "Terminated-Settled". This early termination signifies a resolution without a full review of the patentability claims by the PTAB.

There were no developments related to pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions, as these are features of district court litigation and not applicable to a settled IPR proceeding before the PTAB. Similarly, no verdict or appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred given the early termination through settlement. The settlement aligns with Unified Patents' strategy of resolving challenges to what they perceive as low-quality patents.

Unified Patents, as an organization dedicated to challenging patents, often employs a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for its IPR petitions. While a specific power of attorney filing for IPR2025-01085 was not directly found in the search results, information from other Unified Patents IPRs and their general practice allows for an informed identification of likely counsel.

Based on Unified Patents' typical approach to IPRs, the following attorneys are likely to have been involved as counsel for the petitioner, Unified Patents, in IPR2025-01085:

In-House Counsel (Unified Patents):

• Jordan Rossen, Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents (Washington, DC).
  • Note: Jordan Rossen prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, he practiced intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings for eleven years, handling cases before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and Federal Circuit.
• David Seastrunk, Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents (location not specified, likely San Jose, CA or remote given Unified's structure).
  • Note: David Seastrunk prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. He previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, with experience in post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC investigations.
• Michelle Callaghan, Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents (location not specified, likely San Jose, CA or remote).
  • Note: Michelle Callaghan prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Before joining Unified, she defended clients against patent demands in district courts, challenged patents before the PTAB, and prepared opinions on patent validity and infringement at Erise IP.
• Roshan Mansinghani, Legal Head-NPE, Unified Patents (Washington, DC).
  • Note: Roshan Mansinghani is the Legal Head-NPE for Unified Patents and a frequent speaker on patent litigation and NPE strategies.
• Jonathan Stroud, Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents (San Jose, CA).
  • Note: Jonathan Stroud is the Chief IP Counsel for Unified Patents and a co-founder. He is actively involved in the organization's mission to deter patent abuse through IPRs and other means.

External Counsel (Law Firm):

Unified Patents frequently works with outside counsel, and firms like Erise IP, P.A. are often listed on their PTAB filings. For example, in IPR2021-01260, Unified Patents appointed Kelly R. Hughes and Eric A. Buresh of Erise IP, P.A. as lead and back-up counsel respectively, in addition to their in-house counsel. Given this, it is highly probable that attorneys from Erise IP, P.A. would also have been involved in IPR2025-01085.

• Kelly R. Hughes, Lead Counsel, Erise IP, P.A. (Greenwood Village, CO or Overland Park, KS).
  • Note: Kelly R. Hughes has served as lead counsel for Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings before the PTAB.
• Eric A. Buresh, Back-Up Counsel, Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, KS).
  • Note: Eric A. Buresh has served as back-up counsel for Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings before the PTAB.

It is important to note that Unified Patents operates as a "deterrence entity" and not a law firm representing its members, and it acts independently in its IPR filings and settlements. The specific attorneys listed on the official Power of Attorney for IPR2025-01085 would provide the definitive list of counsel. However, based on their publicly available information and filings in similar IPRs, the individuals above represent the typical counsel of record for Unified Patents in PTAB proceedings.

Defendant Representatives

The defendant in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding is the Patent Owner. In IPR2025-01085, challenging US patent 11936693, the Patent Owner is Wiz, Inc.. This clarifies an initial discrepancy where previous information, and some general searches, had indicated Broadcom Corporation as the owner of patent 11936693. However, direct evidence from an email concerning the settlement of IPR2025-01085, alongside IPR2025-01084 and IPR2025-01087, clearly names "Counsel for Patent Owner Wiz, Inc." in relation to these IPRs.

The counsel of record representing Wiz, Inc., the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01085, are from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

• Matthew A. Argenti, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Matthew Argenti is listed as counsel for Patent Owner Wiz, Inc. in the joint request for authorization to terminate IPR2025-01085 due to settlement.

• Michael Rosato, Of Counsel

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Note: Michael Rosato is cc'd on the settlement authorization request for IPR2025-01085, indicating involvement as counsel for the Patent Owner.

• Wes Derryberry, Of Counsel

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Note: Wes Derryberry is cc'd on the settlement authorization request for IPR2025-01085, indicating involvement as counsel for the Patent Owner.

• Joe Baillargeon, Of Counsel

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Note: Joe Baillargeon is cc'd on the settlement authorization request for IPR2025-01085, indicating involvement as counsel for the Patent Owner.

It is important to note that the IPR was terminated due to a settlement, and therefore detailed docket entries beyond the termination request and order may not be publicly available or extensively litigated.