Untitled case

This is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01239, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of US patent 12028793. The case reached a "Procedural Termination," meaning it concluded without a final decision on the merits of the patentability challenge. The specific parties involved (Petitioner and Patent Owner) are not directly identifiable from the provided search results for this IPR number. The challenged patent, US 12028793, is not explicitly described in the provided information, so a one-line technical sketch cannot be given without further details.

A "Procedural Termination" in an IPR can occur for various reasons, including the parties reaching a settlement and filing a joint request for termination, the petitioner failing to correctly identify all real parties-in-interest, or a patent owner requesting adverse judgment against the challenged claims. The PTAB typically requires settlement agreements to be filed for transparency when an IPR is terminated due to settlement. Without specific docket entries for IPR2025-01239, the exact reason for its procedural termination remains unsourced.

The PTAB is an administrative tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that reviews the patentability of claims in issued patents based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. IPRs are a common and often faster and less expensive alternative to challenging patent validity in district court litigation. The procedural posture of an IPR before the PTAB is significant because the Board employs specific rules and standards for institution, trial, and termination. While the exact details for IPR2025-01239 are not available, IPRs often run in parallel with district court infringement lawsuits, and a termination of the IPR can impact the trajectory of such related litigation. The case is notable as it represents a challenge to an active patent, but its "Procedural Termination" means the validity of patent 12028793 was not decided by the PTAB on the merits.

The provided case, IPR2025-01239, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging US Patent 12028793, not a traditional patent infringement litigation in a district court. As such, many of the requested legal developments, such as initial pleadings, pre-trial motions, Markman outcomes, discovery, trial events, and post-trial motions, are not applicable to an IPR proceeding.

There is no publicly available information indicating any parallel district court patent infringement litigation specifically asserting US Patent 12028793. Therefore, the details requested for such litigation cannot be provided.

Regarding the IPR proceeding itself, IPR2025-01239 has a status of "Procedural Termination". While the exact date and specific reason for the procedural termination of IPR2025-01239 are not detailed in the available search results, a procedural termination in an IPR context typically occurs before a final written decision is issued, often due to settlement between the parties, a request for adverse judgment by the petitioner, or the PTAB's discretionary denial of institution for various reasons, including changes in PTAB policy or workload management in 2025.

General developments at the PTAB in 2025 that could influence IPRs include:

• March 26, 2025: The USPTO introduced new interim procedures for PTAB workload management, establishing a bifurcated approach to institution decisions. This allowed patent owners to submit a brief focused solely on discretionary denial issues, with the Director then deciding whether to exercise discretion to deny institution before a merits review.
• Late 2025: The USPTO Director centralized discretionary decision-making, withdrew petitioner-friendly "safe harbors," and introduced new factors, such as "settled expectations," for discretionary denials. There were also proposed rule changes that would require an IPR petitioner to stipulate not to pursue certain invalidity challenges in other forums as a condition for IPR institution.
• December 2025 - January 2026: The Director issued notices of decisions on institution, identifying proceedings denied institution based on discretionary factors, and others that would proceed to merits review. IPR2025-01239 was not explicitly listed in the January 9, 2026, notice that detailed discretionary denials or merits reviews for other IPRs in the same series, suggesting its termination occurred independently or prior to that specific decision batch.

Without specific docket information for IPR2025-01239, further details on its filing date, parties involved, or the precise nature of its procedural termination cannot be definitively stated.

Counsel of record representing the petitioner in IPR2025-01239 could not be identified through the conducted web searches.

The case IPR2025-01239 resulted in a "Procedural Termination" and was specifically noted as having institution denied after a review of discretionary considerations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In instances where institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) is denied, detailed information regarding the petitioner and their legal representation may not be as widely published or summarized in publicly accessible databases as it would be for cases that proceed to trial or a final written decision. The available search results discuss general PTAB procedures and list counsel for various other IPR cases from 2025 (e.g., IPR2025-00819, IPR2025-00228, IPR2025-00099), but do not provide specific attorney or firm details for IPR2025-01239.

Without direct access to the PTAB docket for IPR2025-01239, which would contain the mandatory notices and powers of attorney filed by the parties, it is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record for the petitioner. Therefore, the names, roles, firms, and relevant experience for the petitioner's attorneys in this specific case cannot be provided. Filings related to this case were not found in a publicly searchable and summarized format that would yield this information.

This request asks to identify counsel for "the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case." However, the provided case is IPR2025-01239, an Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is an administrative proceeding challenging patent validity, not a district court patent infringement case. In an IPR, the parties are typically referred to as the "Petitioner" (who challenges the patent) and the "Patent Owner" (who defends the patent). Therefore, I will focus on identifying counsel representing the Patent Owner for IPR2025-01239.

A search for details regarding IPR2025-01239, including its docket and associated parties and counsel, did not yield immediate results in the provided snippets. The USPTO Open Data Portal lists IPRs with similar numbers from different years (e.g., IPR2022-01239), but not the specific IPR2025-01239 and its associated patent 12028793.

Given the "Procedural Termination" status, specific details about the parties and their counsel for this particular IPR are not readily available through general web searches of public PTAB decisions. Procedural terminations can occur for various reasons, such as settlement, where parties often file a joint request for termination, which would typically list counsel. However, without access to the specific docket entries for IPR2025-01239, identifying the Patent Owner and their legal representation is not possible with the information at hand.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01239 cannot be identified from the publicly available search results at this time. Filings for this specific IPR would be needed to determine the parties and their legal representation.