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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2026-00079 Patent Trial and Appeal Board counsel for Patent Owner", "PTAB IPR2026-00079 Patent 12112357 Patent Owner counsel", "PTAB IPR2026-00079 docket"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the "defendant(s)" in this case.
In an IPR proceeding, the "defendant" is analogous to the "Patent Owner."
The previous sections already stated that "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." It also notes that this is likely due to the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status and the recent filing.

My task is to identify the counsel, providing name, role, firm, and a one-line note on experience.
Given the previous findings, it is highly probable that this information is still not publicly available. I should perform a fresh search to confirm, and if still not found, reiterate the reasons.

Search queries to use:

• "IPR2026-00079 Patent Trial and Appeal Board counsel for Patent Owner"
• "PTAB IPR2026-00079 Patent 12112357 Patent Owner counsel"
• "PTAB IPR2026-00079 docket"

Let's see if new information has become available since the previous sections were generated, even though the timeframe is short (May 16, 2026).
The previous section stated "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."
Also "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."

It's very unlikely that this information will be available, but I must perform the search to confirm.In an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, the party analogous to a "defendant" is the "Patent Owner." As previously noted, IPR2026-00079 was "Not Instituted - Procedural." Due to this procedural outcome and the relatively recent case number (filed in 2026), publicly accessible records for counsel of record for the Patent Owner remain unavailable through standard web searches.

Information regarding counsel for IPR proceedings is typically found on the PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system, which would require specific access to review the petition and any appearances. Without access to these detailed filings, the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, and experience for the Patent Owner in IPR2026-00079 cannot be identified at this time.