Untitled case

This case, IPR2026-00079, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), not a traditional patent infringement litigation. As of the current date, specific details regarding the Petitioner and Patent Owner for IPR2026-00079, or the full patent number and a detailed technical sketch for the patent identified as "12112357," could not be definitively identified through public web searches. Such information would typically be available on the USPTO's PTAB E2E system or Open Data Portal. However, the case status indicates "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the PTAB declined to initiate a trial to review the patentability of the claims for reasons that were not based on the merits of the invalidity arguments, but rather on procedural grounds. This could include issues like the petition being time-barred, lacking the proper format, or falling under the PTAB's discretionary denial doctrines.

Inter Partes Review is a specialized administrative proceeding enacted by the America Invents Act (AIA) to challenge the validity of issued U.S. patents. Unlike district court litigation, IPRs focus solely on patentability grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty) and 103 (non-obviousness), based only on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. The procedural posture before the PTAB offers a faster and generally less expensive alternative to district court proceedings for challenging patent validity, with a lower evidentiary standard (preponderance of the evidence versus clear and convincing evidence in district court) and no presumption of patent validity.

The concept of an "accused product or service" is more pertinent to district court patent infringement cases. In the context of an IPR, a petitioner, often an operating company or a party facing infringement allegations, seeks to invalidate a patent's claims to remove a potential barrier to its own products or services, even if no formal infringement suit has been filed or is ongoing. The notability of such a case often lies in the strategic use of IPRs to challenge patents, the potential impact on the patent owner's enforcement efforts, or the broader implications for the technology sector involved. Without specific party and patent details for IPR2026-00079, further comment on its unique notability or industry impact is not possible.

This analysis focuses on IPR2026-00079, a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 12112357. No corresponding district court patent infringement litigation involving Patent No. 12112357 could be identified through available public records.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR Filing and Status: IPR2026-00079 was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of claims of U.S. Patent No. 12112357. The proceeding reached a status of "Not Instituted - Procedural." This indicates that the PTAB declined to initiate a full inter partes review trial, not on the merits of the patentability challenge itself, but due to a procedural deficiency or requirement that was not met by the petitioner. While the precise filing date, petitioner, and patent owner for IPR2026-00079 are not specifically detailed in the available search results, the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status means the case was terminated before a decision on the merits of patentability.

Effect on Litigation

Given that no parallel district court patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 12112357 could be found, IPR2026-00079's "Not Instituted - Procedural" status had no observable effect on any identified judicial proceeding.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome (District Court Litigation)

Without an identified district court patent infringement case associated with U.S. Patent No. 12112357, the requested details regarding filing and initial pleadings, pre-trial motions, claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal cannot be provided.

In an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, there are no "plaintiffs" as would be found in a patent infringement lawsuit. Instead, there is a "Petitioner" who challenges the validity of a patent and a "Patent Owner" who defends the patent. As IPR2026-00079 was not instituted for procedural reasons, the public record regarding counsel may be limited, potentially only showing the Petitioner's counsel.

I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record for either the Petitioner or the Patent Owner in IPR2026-00079 through public web searches. This may be due to the relatively recent case number (suggesting a recent filing in 2026), the fact that the proceeding was "Not Instituted - Procedural," which often means the case did not advance far enough for detailed counsel information to become widely publicized or easily accessible through standard search methods, or that the relevant filings are not yet indexed or publicly available in a searchable format.

Therefore, the counsel of record for the party analogous to a "plaintiff" (the Petitioner) cannot be definitively identified at this time through publicly available information. Filings related to IPR proceedings are typically available on the PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system, which would require specific access to review the petition and any appearances.

I'll search for the parties and counsel associated with this proceeding and patent.

Valuable — the case is Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Weple IP Holdings LLC, U.S. Patent No. 12,112,357. Let me now identify the parties' counsel and any parallel district court case where a "defendant" exists.

Now I have the parallel district court case. Let me pin down the defendant's full counsel list on the docket and the PTAB counsel.

Threshold correction before the counsel list

Two points where the earlier sections of this case are now contradicted by sourced records — flagging explicitly per instructions:

1. The parties and patent are now identified. IPR2026‑00079 is Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Weple IP Holdings LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,112,357 ("Mobile Device Streaming Media Application"). Petition filed Oct. 31, 2025; discretionary denial Feb. 24, 2026; case closed Feb. 24, 2026 (Tech Center 2400, Art Unit 2446). See the PTAB docket index at Docket Alarm (IPR2026‑00079) and the petition summary at ai‑lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00079. Note the petition was filed the same day Meta filed three companion petitions on Weple's sister patents — IPR2026‑00080 (’591 patent) and IPR2026‑00081 (’1,357 patent) — all three denied.
2. A district court case does exist, contrary to the earlier "no parallel litigation" finding: Weple IP Holdings LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2:24‑cv‑01316‑JLR (W.D. Wash., Seattle), Judge James L. Robart. Filed Aug. 22, 2024. That is the only forum in this dispute with a true "defendant" — Meta Platforms, Inc.

Also note the framing point carried over from the prior section: an IPR has no plaintiff or defendant. The party analogous to a defendant is the Patent Owner, Weple, and the party analogous to a plaintiff is the Petitioner, Meta. I address both sides below, with the defendant (Meta) as the primary answer.

---

Defense counsel — Meta Platforms, Inc. (the "defendant")

Appeal: The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for Meta on Jan. 9, 2026 (Dkt. 67), dismissing all remaining claims (’2,357, ’591, ’1,357) under § 101 and denying Weple leave to amend. Weple appealed; the Federal Circuit docket for No. 26‑1476 (docketed Feb. 26, 2026) lists Cooley LLP / Dena Chen on Meta's side and Ballard Spahr LLP / John Devlin on Weple's side. The district docket also carries a "STAYED" case flag.

Petitioner's PTAB counsel (Meta, in IPR2026‑00079)

Meta filed a Notice: Power of Attorney with the petition on Oct. 31, 2025, and an updated exhibit list on Feb. 9, 2026, followed by a Rule 131 refund notice Apr. 6, 2026. I could not open the power of attorney or the petition's counsel block, so I cannot state the IPR counsel of record from the filing itself. The strongest available signal is Docket Alarm's attorney indexing, which ties Heidi L. Keefe to the Meta v. Weple PTAB dockets — consistent with Cooley handling both forums (which matters doctrinally, given the Board's Revvo/Terumo/TikTok line on counsel taking inconsistent claim‑construction positions across forums). Treat Cooley‑at‑PTAB as probable, not verified.

Patent Owner / plaintiff side (Weple IP Holdings LLC) — for completeness

• Jason Zucchi — Avantech Law LLP; lead infringement counsel for Weple (PHV application Dkt. 25, admitted Dkt. 27).
• Sabrina Wilson — Avantech Law LLP (PHV application Dkt. 24, admitted Dkt. 26).
• John Devlin — Ballard Spahr LLP, Seattle; local counsel, filed Weple's PHV applications; listed for Weple on the Fed. Cir. docket in No. 26‑1476.
• Todd Werner and William Woodford — admitted PHV for Weple (Dkts. 8 and 7, on applications Dkts. 3–4). Firm affiliations not confirmed by my sources; likely Avantech‑affiliated.
• PTAB counsel for Weple: Weple filed a Mandatory Notice on Nov. 21, 2025 and an Updated Mandatory Notice on Jan. 27, 2026, and a discretionary‑denial brief on Jan. 8, 2026 (with a supporting exhibit, Dkt. 2001, that is the Dkt. 67 order). I was unable to retrieve the mandatory notices and therefore cannot name Weple's IPR counsel — do not assume it is Avantech without checking the notice.

---

Sourcing caveats

• I did not have direct PACER or PTAB E2E access. Party names, dates, and docket numbers above come from the Docket Alarm PTAB and W.D. Wash. dockets, CourtListener RECAP (Dkts. 47 and 67), VitalLaw/IP Law Daily case reports, and a UniCourt docket summary of the W.D. Wash. case. The UniCourt page is the source for the specific PHV admission orders (Dkts. 7, 8, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29).
• Firm affiliations for Weinstein and Mead are inferred, not confirmed — the UniCourt text identifies them only as attorneys admitted for "Defendant Meta Platforms Inc." Cooley is the only defense firm identified in any reporting on this case, but the individual Cooley office assignments should be verified against the firm website before use.
• Office locations for Dena Chen are likewise unverified in my sources; Cooley's Seattle office would be the natural local anchor, but I have not confirmed it.
• No sealed filings are indicated; the gaps here are retrieval failures on my end (E2E documents), not sealing.

Why this matters for the case assessment

The IPR2026‑00079 discretionary denial is now explainable and was almost certainly § 314(a)/Fintiv‑type rather than a merits ruling: Meta petitioned on Oct. 31, 2025 — more than a year after Weple amended to add the ’2,357 patent (Oct. 31, 2024) and roughly 14 months into a case where the court had already invalidated three of six patents under § 101 and had a fully briefed motion for judgment on the pleadings pending. Meta lost that motion on the merits Jan. 9, 2026 (Dkt. 67), and the Board denied institution six weeks later. The practical consequence: the ’2,357 patent was invalidated by the district court on § 101 grounds rather than cancelled by the Board on § 103 grounds, and that holding now rides on the Federal Circuit appeal in No. 26‑1476 — where Cooley (Chen) continues for Meta against Ballard Spahr (Devlin) and Avantech (Zucchi).