Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00116, is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and challenges the validity of US patent 11973864. The petitioner is Unified Patents, a membership organization dedicated to deterring patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) by challenging the validity of patents they assert. Unified Patents achieves this by monitoring NPE activity, conducting patent analytics, and filing post-grant challenges like IPRs against patents they believe are unpatentable or invalid. While the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the plaintiff, records from Unified Patents' own portal indicate that Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd are listed as petitioners for IPR2026-00116. This aligns with Unified Patents' business model where they often act to protect their members, who may also file petitions. The patent owner is Network 1 Technologies Inc., which appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity, consistent with Unified Patents' stated mission to target NPEs.

U.S. Patent No. 11973864 is generally related to the field of Computer Networks, Multiplex communication, Video Distribution, and Security (classified under Technology Center 2400 at the USPTO). A precise one-line technical sketch based on the full patent text is not readily available through public search engines for this specific patent number, potentially due to its recent issuance or the way the patent search results are presented. Information regarding an accused product, service, or technology in a parallel district court infringement litigation is not explicitly available for this IPR. However, it is typical for IPRs filed by entities like Unified Patents to target patents that have been asserted in infringement suits against their members.

The procedural posture of this case is an IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. While some sources indicate the IPR as "Pending", another recent entry from Unified Patents' own portal lists IPR2026-00116, with Samsung as petitioner, as "Not Instituted - Merits" as of April 28, 2026. This "Not Instituted - Merits" status means the PTAB has reviewed the petition and decided not to proceed with a trial on the merits of the patentability challenge, which is a significant outcome for the patent owner. The case is notable as it exemplifies Unified Patents' strategy of challenging patents held by NPEs, and the outcome of the institution decision, particularly a denial on the merits, can be indicative of the strength of the patent or the prior art presented.

PTAB Inter Partes Review IPR2026-00116 Regarding US Patent 11973864

This case concerns an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00116, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of US Patent 11973864. The petitioner for this IPR is Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc., challenging the patent owned by Network 1 Technologies Inc.. Although the prompt identifies Unified Patents as a plaintiff, Unified Patents generally acts as an organization that tracks and often supports IPR petitions, with specific companies filing as the formal petitioners.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• IPR Petition Filing (2025-11-07): Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed the petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00116, challenging US Patent 11973864. The patent owner is Network 1 Technologies Inc..
• Institution Decision (2026-04-28): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision declining to institute the Inter Partes Review on the merits. The status of the IPR is "Not Instituted - Merits" as of this date, which also marks its termination. This indicates that the PTAB found the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least one claim challenged in the petition.
• Outcome and Final Disposition: The outcome of IPR2026-00116 is a denial of institution on the merits by the PTAB on April 28, 2026. This means the IPR did not proceed to the substantive trial phase to determine the patentability of the challenged claims of US Patent 11973864.
• Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial, Post-Trial Motions: Due to the denial of institution, these stages, typically part of a full IPR trial, did not occur within this IPR proceeding.
• Parallel Litigation: As of the current date, search results did not identify any active or concluded district court patent infringement litigation specifically asserting US Patent 11973864. While Network 1 Technologies Inc. has been involved in other patent litigations concerning different patents (e.g., against Google and YouTube regarding content identification systems), no such parallel litigation directly involving US Patent 11973864 was found.

Unified Patents, as the petitioner in IPR2026-00116, typically utilizes a combination of its experienced in-house legal team and external law firms specializing in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. While specific counsel for IPR2026-00116 has not been explicitly identified in publicly available records, the following attorneys and firms are frequently involved in Unified Patents' inter partes review challenges:

In-House Counsel (Unified Patents):

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: General Counsel (previously Chief IP Counsel and Chief Patent Counsel).
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Chevy Chase, MD headquarters, with remote options possible).
  • Experience: Oversees Unified Patents' legal and corporate operations, including PTAB reviews, appeals, and risk management. He is an Adjunct Professor of Law teaching post-grant patent office proceedings and previously worked as a patent attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, and as a patent examiner at the USPTO.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Head of Operations (previously Legal Head-NPE and Assistant General Counsel).
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Dallas, TX or Washington, D.C. as potential office locations based on past filings).
  • Experience: Leads Unified Patents' efforts to deter the assertion of low-quality patents by non-practicing entities, overseeing numerous USPTO invalidation proceedings annually. He has over a decade of experience in patent litigation and trials, and previously practiced in the Intellectual Property Practice at Baker Botts L.L.P.

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C. as a potential office location).
  • Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. He is an experienced intellectual property litigator who has represented clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission (ITC), district courts, and the Federal Circuit, with a background in chemical engineering. He previously practiced at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings.

External Counsel (Firms frequently representing Unified Patents in IPRs):

Unified Patents often works with outside counsel for their IPR challenges. Two firms that have been noted for their significant involvement and success in PTAB proceedings for petitioners, and have represented Unified Patents in past matters, include:

• Erise IP, P.A.

  • Office Locations: Overland Park, Kansas, and Greenwood Village, Colorado.
  • Experience: Erise IP is consistently ranked among the best-performing firms at the PTAB for IPR petitioners and has represented Unified Patents in prior IPR cases. The firm has a strong reputation in patent litigation, including numerous district court cases, Federal Circuit appeals, and ITC proceedings, with a particular focus on successfully navigating the complexities of IPRs.

• Haynes and Boone, LLP

  • Office Locations: Dallas, Washington, D.C., and other locations across the United States.
  • Experience: Haynes and Boone is recognized as a leading firm for filing IPRs on behalf of petitioners, with a high institution rate and success in canceling claims. Their attorneys have been involved in hundreds of IPR and PGR proceedings before the PTAB, often in conjunction with parallel patent litigation, across various technology sectors. They have represented Unified Patents in some past discussions and proceedings.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2026-00116, the defendant (Patent Owner) is Network 1 Technologies Inc.. As of the current date, the specific counsel of record representing Network 1 Technologies Inc. in this particular IPR has not been explicitly identified in the available public search results. The case status is "Not Instituted - Merits" as of April 28, 2026.

To definitively identify counsel, a direct review of the official PTAB docket for IPR2026-00116 would be necessary. Such details, including appearances of counsel, are typically found in documents like the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, Power of Attorney filings, or other submissions to the Board. Without access to the specific docket entries, a precise list of attorneys, their roles, and firms cannot be provided. Therefore, counsel has not yet been publicly identified through the available search avenues.