Untitled case

Unified Patents initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging US patent 12087871, which was ultimately not instituted. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring non-practicing entities (NPEs) from asserting what it considers to be poor quality patents, often by filing IPR petitions to challenge patent validity. The patent at issue, US Patent 12087871, titled "Microstructure enhanced absorption photosensitive devices," describes photosensitive devices, specifically silicon photodiodes that feature microstructure-enhanced absorption characteristics. These devices are designed for detecting signals at high data bandwidths and particular wavelengths with high quantum efficiency. While Unified Patents typically targets patents asserted by NPEs in underlying infringement litigation, no specific accused product or service, nor any related district court litigation involving patent 12087871, could be reliably sourced from public records.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00993) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The petition was "Not Instituted - Procedural," reflecting a significant trend in PTAB practice during 2025. This period saw a sharp increase in procedural denials, largely due to policy changes implemented by USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart and subsequently by Director John Squires. These changes included a greater emphasis on discretionary denials, the reintroduction and expanded application of the Fintiv factors for assessing parallel district court litigation, and the introduction of a "settled expectations" doctrine, which often disfavored challenging older patents. Under these new policies, the Director personally assumed authority over institution decisions, frequently issuing summary denials without detailed explanations.

This case is notable because its "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome aligns with the broader shift in PTAB jurisprudence during 2025, making it significantly harder for IPR petitions to proceed to trial. While the specific reason for the procedural denial of IPR2025-00993 is not publicly detailed, it falls within this period of heightened discretionary denials by the USPTO Director. This trend has had a substantial impact on patent challengers, particularly those like Unified Patents, who rely on IPRs as a cost-effective mechanism to address patent quality and deter NPE assertions.

Unified Patents initiated Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2025-00993 against US patent 12087871 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), but the IPR was ultimately not instituted due to procedural reasons. Specific details regarding the patent owner of US patent 12087871, the precise filing date of IPR2025-00993, and the exact procedural grounds for its non-institution could not be definitively identified through the available public search tools. Furthermore, without identifying the patent owner, any related patent infringement litigation in district court could not be identified.

Generally, throughout 2025, the PTAB saw a significant increase in procedural denials of IPR petitions, a trend largely attributed to new rules and increased Director discretion. These changes, initiated by former Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart and expanded by Director John Squires, included the Director assuming personal responsibility for IPR institution decisions and the emphasis on various discretionary factors. Reasons for such denials often included considerations of "settled expectations" based on patent age or petitioner delay, substantial investment in parallel district court proceedings, overlap between IPR grounds and court invalidity contentions, and real party-in-interest (RPI) issues. Proposed rules in October 2025 further aimed to codify restrictions for IPRs, requiring petitioners to abandon all Section 102/103 defenses in other forums to be eligible for IPR. This shift contributed to a downward trend in total PTAB petitions by year-end 2025 and a record-high number of ex parte reexamination requests as an alternative challenge mechanism.

However, the specific circumstances surrounding the procedural denial of IPR2025-00993 concerning US patent 12087871 remain undisclosed in the publicly available information. Without the identification of the patent owner for US patent 12087871, no associated district court patent infringement litigation could be identified or outlined.

While specific counsel filings directly for IPR2025-00993 were not found, Unified Patents, as a prolific petitioner in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, typically utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and specialized outside patent litigation firms, such as Erise IP, P.A. Based on filings in a similar IPR (IPR2021-01260), the following attorneys are highly likely to have represented Unified Patents in IPR2025-00993.

Counsel of Record for Unified Patents (Likely)

In-House Counsel (Unified Patents, LLC)

• Jonathan Stroud
  • Role: Chief Operating Officer (COO) & Chief Legal Officer (CLO) (formerly General Counsel/Chief IP Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Chevy Chase, MD)
  • Relevant Experience: Oversees Unified Patents' legal and corporate operations, including PTAB proceedings, district court litigation, and appeals. He is an adjunct professor teaching post-grant patent office proceedings and previously practiced as a patent attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he was involved in early post-grant review work.
• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Head of Operations (formerly Legal Head-NPE / Assistant General Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Dallas, TX or Chevy Chase, MD)
  • Relevant Experience: Leads Unified Patents' efforts to deter assertions 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, including a previous practice in the Intellectual Property Practice at Baker Botts L.L.P.
• Jordan M. Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Relevant Experience: 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, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and the Federal Circuit across various technology fields.
• Kelly R. Hughes
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Overland Park, Kansas or Greenwood Village, Colorado)
  • Relevant Experience: Handles PTAB filings, including inter partes reviews and ex parte reexaminations. Before Unified Patents, she was a patent litigator with Erise IP, focusing on software and electronics.

Outside Counsel (Erise IP, P.A.)

• Jason R. Mudd
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas or Greenwood Village, Colorado)
  • Relevant Experience: Focuses on complex intellectual property disputes, particularly patent litigation, representing clients in federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and PTAB post-grant proceedings. He successfully represented the petitioner in the first-ever inter partes review under the America Invents Act and has served as lead counsel in over 50 IPRs. Erise IP is consistently ranked among the best-performing firms at the PTAB for petitioners.
• Eric A. Buresh
  • Role: Back-up Counsel (Founding Member/Partner)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas or Greenwood Village, Colorado)
  • Relevant Experience: A highly-regarded patent litigator with a track record of success in district courts and over 30 Federal Circuit appeals. He has filed more than 115 IPR proceedings at the PTAB and has secured numerous defense verdicts in patent infringement matters. Erise IP, co-founded by Buresh, is recognized as a top-performing IP litigation firm.

It is important to note that while these attorneys are consistently involved in Unified Patents' IPRs, the specific team for any given case can vary. The information regarding their roles and experience is drawn from public records and professional profiles.

Despite extensive searching through public databases and legal news sources, the counsel of record representing the patent owner (the defendant in an IPR) in IPR2025-00993 cannot be definitively identified at this time.

The case status of "Not Instituted - Procedural" indicates that the Inter Partes Review was terminated on procedural grounds, likely before the patent owner was required to file a comprehensive response or before detailed appearances by counsel were widely publicized. Without direct access to the specific docket filings for IPR2025-00993, which typically include mandatory notices listing lead and back-up counsel, the information regarding the patent owner's legal representation remains unavailable through public web searches.

Furthermore, attempts to definitively identify the current owner of US patent 12087871 via USPTO assignment records were not conclusive through the provided search functionality, which is a necessary step before identifying their specific counsel for this particular IPR.