Untitled case

Case Overview: Pedersen '920 Patent Litigation (W.D. Tex., No. 1:23-cv-01020)

Parties and posture. Based on the case metadata (patent 6,965,920; W.D. Tex.; filed 2023), this matter is part of a large, coordinated assertion campaign over U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 by plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen — an individual inventor (not a university or traditional operating company) represented by Houston's Ramey LLP (William P. Ramey III, and later Jacob B. Henry before the PTAB). Pedersen has sued at least a dozen software, cloud, and marketing-technology vendors on this single patent, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Salesforce, Oracle, Adobe, Intuit, Wix.com, Zendesk, Zoho, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Upland Software, and Ziff Davis, nearly all in the Western District of Texas. Important caveat: I was unable to independently confirm the specific defendant in docket 1:23-cv-01020 through the searches available; the only PACER/RECAP match for that exact number is an unrelated South Dakota case (Foster v. New Angus LLC, D.S.D.), and the case metadata provided does not name the parties. The number's "1:23-cv-" prefix is consistent with the Austin Division of W.D. Tex., which is where several Pedersen cases landed after intra-district transfer from the Waco Division (e.g., Pedersen v. Zoho, 1:23-cv-00071), so this is likely one of the transferred Pedersen '920 cases — but the specific defendant and assigned judge should be verified against PACER before relying on them.

Patent and accused technology. The sole patent in suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," which issued November 15, 2005, from an application filed July 12, 2001 (claiming priority to a July 12, 2000 provisional). The patent is directed to a system and method for the central specification and management of how electronic messages from multiple senders are distributed to recipients: recipients supply profile data with delivery parameters (where, when, and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered), and an "individual message generator" assembles and routes each message to the recipient-specified destination (see claim 1, col. 11, ll. 26–31; Fed. Cir. opinion in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090). In the related Pedersen v. Zoho case, the accused products were Zoho's email-marketing software; in other suits, Pedersen targeted marketing-automation/email-distribution platforms such as Oracle Responsys. The accused technology is essentially modern marketing-automation and bulk-email personalization software that routes messages according to recipient preferences — a broad, software-implemented claim set that made the '920 patent a magnet for litigation.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. The case sits in the W.D. Tex., a venue that became the nation's patent-litigation hub under Chief Judge Alan D. Albright's Waco Division (the original Pedersen suits were filed there as 6:22-cv-XXXXX-ADA-DTG, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland); several cases were later transferred intra-district to Austin (yielding 1:23-cv-XXXXX numbers), and in Pedersen v. Zoho Judge Pitman denied a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal challenge in 2023, holding Pedersen's allegations on the "recipient specified by a messenger" limitation plausible. The case is notable for three reasons. First, it exemplifies a serial individual-inventor assertion pattern — one ~2001-era email-management patent deployed against a broad swath of the marketing-cloud industry. Second, validity has been the fulcrum: Unified Patents filed IPR2023-00029, the PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims (claims 1 and 14–17) on May 15, 2023, issued a final written decision holding the claims unpatentable as obvious over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090, nonprecedential; Lourie and Hughes, JJ., and Chief District Judge Kleeh). Adobe's parallel IPR2023-00986 terminated after a settlement and license agreement. Third, the district-court campaign has largely unraveled as a result: multiple companion cases (Intuit, Ziff Davis, Monday.com, Upland) were stayed pending IPR or voluntarily dismissed, and with the Federal Circuit's affirmance the asserted claims now stand invalidated, which will almost certainly control the outcome of any surviving '920 district-court cases, including this one, unless the record shows different claims or defendants not covered by the IPR estoppel analysis.

Caveat on case identity

Before the timeline: the metadata for 1:23-cv-01020 (W.D. Tex.) lists only the patent (US 6,965,920, "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System") and gives no party names. Web-available sources do not directly confirm which defendant is paired with that docket number. What is well documented is that inventor Peter Henrik Pedersen, through William P. Ramey III / Ramey LLP, ran a multi-front campaign on the '920 patent in WDTX against roughly a dozen defendants (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Salesforce, Zoho, Adobe, Intuit, Wix, Zendesk, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Blackbaud, Ziff Davis, SAP, Upland, Aurea, etc.), filing in both the Waco (6:22-cv-XXXXX) and Austin (1:23-cv-XXXXX) divisions. 1:23-cv-01020 is almost certainly one of the 2023 Austin-division suits in that campaign — Ramey publicly announced 2023 filings against Oracle, Salesforce, and Zoho on the '920 patent, and the Zoho case is separately confirmed as 1:23-cv-00071. The specific defendant in 1:23-cv-01020 (most plausibly Oracle or Salesforce, filed in the same wave) could not be verified from the sources retrieved, so items below that are case-specific are flagged as such; the confirmed PTAB/IPR events are common to every case in the campaign.

Key legal developments (chronological)

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2022–2023)

• Pedersen began asserting the '920 patent in WDTX (Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright) in 2022 — e.g., Pedersen v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 6:22-cv-00409 (filed 2022-04-22); Pedersen v. SAP America, 6:22-cv-00591; Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, 6:22-cv-00597 (2022-06-08); Pedersen v. Blackbaud, 6:22-cv-00921, v. Constant Contact, 6:22-cv-00922, v. Monday.com, 6:22-cv-00923, v. Wix.com, 6:22-cv-00925, v. Zendesk, 6:22-cv-00927 (all early September 2022). Complaints alleged direct infringement under § 271(a) (e.g., claim 1) and sought damages, injunctive relief, and pre/post-judgment interest.
• In 2023, Ramey announced a new wave of suits against Oracle Corp., Salesforce.com, Inc., and Zoho Corp. in WDTX on the '920 patent; the Zoho suit (1:23-cv-00071) was transferred from Waco to the Austin Division (2023-01-23). 1:23-cv-01020 falls in this 2023 wave, but its defendant is unconfirmed in the retrieved sources. (Source: Ramey LLP press releases; Unicourt case summary of 6:22-cv-00409; CourtListener opinion in Zoho case.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss (12(b)(6)) — denied: In Pedersen v. Zoho Corp., 1:23-cv-00071 (Austin Div., 23-CV-71-DII), Zoho moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to plausibly allege direct infringement because its software lets a "messenger" select recipient criteria, not a specific "recipient." The Court disagreed, holding the claim language and prosecution history (distinguishing the Kamakura '310 patent) did not make Pedersen's reading implausible, and denied the motion. (CourtListener, Dkt. 6, 12; opinion at courtlistener.com/opinion/10215106.) Comparable 12(b)(6) motions were a feature of the campaign generally; outcomes for 1:23-cv-01020 specifically are unconfirmed.
• IPR-driven stays/transfers: Multiple defendants pursued PTAB review rather than merits litigation (see § 7). Wix's case was dismissed 2023-08-23, and SAP America exited via a voluntary Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice (no merits ruling, no fee award). Specific stay rulings in 1:23-cv-01020 were not confirmed in the sources retrieved.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman order for 1:23-cv-01020 was found. The campaign was largely resolved through the PTAB before claim construction; the only substantive claim-construction-type analysis on the public record is the claim-scope debate in the Zoho 12(b)(6) opinion (above).

4. Discovery milestones

• No case-specific discovery milestones for 1:23-cv-01020 are on the accessible public record; the litigation was overtaken by the IPR before any strategic discovery rulings surfaced in the sources reviewed.

5. Trial / verdict / post-trial motions

• No trial or verdict occurred in the Pedersen '920 campaign. The decisive event was the PTAB's invalidation of the asserted claims, which mooted the district-court merits track. No JMOL/new-trial/fee motions are documented for this docket in the sources retrieved.

6. Settlement / dismissal / judgment / present posture

• Several campaign cases ended by dismissal: Wix.com, 6:22-cv-00925 — dismissed 2023-08-23; SAP America, 6:22-cv-00591 — voluntary dismissal without prejudice (leaving the patent technically enforceable as to SAP but with the IPR outcome later extinguishing it). For 1:23-cv-01020, the public record retrieved does not disclose a specific final disposition; its practical fate was dictated by the PTAB final written decision (below) invalidating claims 1 and 14–17 — the claims at the heart of every suit. As of the retrieval date, no appeal from any district-court judgment in this docket was found.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and effect on the litigation

• IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen): Petition on claims 1 and 14–17; trial instituted on all challenged claims on 2023-05-15 (Unified represented by Haynes and Boone's Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Matt Beck, later in-house). This is the proceeding that effectively killed the campaign.
• IPR2023-00867 (Oracle Corp. v. Pedersen): Filed 2023; Pedersen's updated mandatory notices (2023-08-29) identify it and related proceedings (Unified Patents portal).
• IPR2023-00986 (Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen): Pending, preliminary response due 2023-10-11.
• Final written decision & appeal: The Board held claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious. Pedersen appealed; on 2026-03-26 the Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion, Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC (substantial-evidence review). (Unified Patents insights 2023-05-15 and 2026-03-26; Fed Circuit Blog, Opinions & Orders, 2026-03-26.)
• Effect: With the asserted claims invalidated and the affirmance final, the district-court suits on the '920 patent (including 1:23-cv-01020) lost their predicate — the patent is no longer enforceable against any defendant, and Pedersen's enforcement campaign is concluded as a practical matter.

Bottom line

1:23-cv-01020 was part of Peter Henrik Pedersen's serial WDTX enforcement of US 6,965,920. The controlling "development" is not in the district docket itself but upstream: PTAB institution (2023-05-15), the final written decision invalidating claims 1 and 14–17, and the Federal Circuit affirmance (2026-03-26). That sequence — not a merits trial — is the outcome that resolved the litigation. The specific defendant, counsel, and terminal docket order for 1:23-cv-01020 could not be verified from publicly indexed sources in this search; PACER (W.D. Tex.) would be the definitive check.

Counsel of Record — Case No. 1:23-cv-01020 (W.D. Tex.)

⚠️ Verification caveat

I was unable to retrieve the PACER/CM-ECF docket sheet for 1:23-cv-01020 directly through the available search tools — no docket entry, complaint, or attorney appearance record for that specific case number surfaced in CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets, or news coverage. The case metadata you provided does not name the parties, and the docket may be sealed or simply not indexed in the free sources searched. I could not confirm from the docket itself which attorneys have formally appeared in 1:23-cv-01020.

What follows is grounded in the well-documented litigation campaign over U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System"), which is the patent identified in your case metadata.

---

Plaintiff-side counsel identified for the '920 patent campaign (strongly likely counsel of record)

The '920 patent is owned and asserted by Peter (Henrik) Pedersen, and his W.D. Tex. infringement suits on this patent have been handled by Ramey LLP of Houston. Ramey LLP publicly announced that it filed Pedersen's complaints in the Western District of Texas against the campaign's defendants over the '920 patent. Given the patent match, Ramey LLP is the expected plaintiff firm of record in 1:23-cv-01020, though I could not confirm the specific appearance in this docket number.

1. William P. Ramey III — Lead counsel

• Firm/Location: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006
• Experience: Managing partner of the IP boutique; appears as plaintiff's counsel in Pedersen's '920 suits in W.D. Tex., including Pedersen v. Google LLC (6:21-cv-01152) and Pedersen v. Salesforce.com Inc. (6:22-cv-00409), and served as back-up counsel for patent owner Pedersen in IPR2023-00867 (Oracle Corp. v. Pedersen, U.S. Patent 6,965,920). He signed the complaint filings and PTAB powers of attorney for Pedersen (e.g., the IPR2023-00867 Power of Attorney, executed April 2023, lists Ramey as back-up counsel and Henry as lead).

2. Jacob B. Henry — Lead/co-counsel

• Firm/Location: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006
• Experience: Partner at Ramey LLP; designated lead counsel for patent owner Pedersen in IPR2023-00867 (Oracle v. Pedersen) on the '920 patent, and signed the Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notice (Aug. 29, 2023) in that IPR. He is the Ramey attorney most active on the '920 patent's PTAB defense.

Other Ramey LLP attorneys may also be listed on the complaint (the firm's press release names the firm as filer but the snippet only shows "William P."), but I did not find reliable sourcing identifying any additional named attorneys on the 1:23-cv-01020 filing specifically, and I will not invent names.

---

Important qualifications

• Party names unconfirmed: The case metadata says party names were not confirmed. The Ramey press release announcing a "new suit" against Blackbaud, Inc., Constant Contact, Inc., Monday.com, Inc., Wix.com, Inc., and Zendesk, Inc. over the '920 patent is the closest match to a 2023-docketed W.D. Tex. action, but the earlier related cases against those same five defendants were docketed in 2022 in the Waco Division (6:22-cv-00921 through 6:22-cv-00927). I cannot definitively tie 1:23-cv-01020 (Austin Division prefix "1") to that press release without the actual docket.
• No local-counsel designation identified: I found no source identifying a separately designated local counsel for Pedersen; Ramey LLP's Houston office is in-state (Texas), so out-of-distance/local counsel designations may not exist.
• In-house counsel: Pedersen is an individual inventor (per PTAB records, believed associated with AiPi Solutions); no in-house counsel is documented.
• Case status context: The '920 patent was challenged in IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen); the PTAB's May 10, 2024 final written decision found the challenged claims unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in a written opinion on March 26, 2026. Related Pedersen '920 district cases were stayed or dismissed pending that IPR (e.g., Monday.com stay order, 6:22-cv-00923). This may bear on whether 1:23-cv-01020 is stayed, dismissed, or proceeding.

Bottom line

The only well-sourced plaintiff-side counsel for Pedersen's 6,965,920 litigation are William P. Ramey III and Jacob B. Henry of Ramey LLP (Houston). If you need the precise attorney-of-record list for 1:23-cv-01020, it must be pulled from PACER (W.D. Tex., case 1:23-cv-01020) — that is the one authoritative step the available search tools could not complete.

Based on the available sources, I can identify the case but not confirm specific defense counsel of record from the public record I retrieved. Here is what is established, and what remains unverified.

Case identification

• 1:23-cv-01020 (W.D. Tex., filed 2023) involves U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System"). That patent number matches the Ramey LLP press release announcing a "new suit" on behalf of Peter Pedersen against Blackbaud, Inc.; Constant Contact, Inc.; Monday.com, Inc.; Wix.com, Inc.; and Zendesk, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (rameyfirm.com, "RAMEY LLP FILES NEW SUIT ON BEHALF OF PETER PEDERSEN"). Ramey LLP's office is listed at 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 8, Houston, TX 77006 (PTAB filing, IPR2023-00867, dated Aug. 29, 2023).
• These five defendants are therefore the most probable defendants in this case, though the docket sheet itself was not retrievable in my searches to confirm the exact party list for 1:23-cv-01020 (the case metadata provided in the prompt also notes party names were not confirmed).

Plaintiff-side counsel (confirmed)

• William P. Ramey III — lead plaintiff's counsel, Ramey LLP (Houston, TX). He filed the Pedersen '920 patent complaints in W.D. Tex. (see Ramey LLP press release; also UniCourt, Peter Pedersen v. Salesforce.com Inc., 6:22-cv-00409, noting Ramey as plaintiff's counsel). Ramey is a well-known patent plaintiff-side litigator active in Judge Albright's W.D. Tex. docket.

Defendant-side counsel — status

I could not verify any defense counsel of record for 1:23-cv-01020 from the available public sources. No PACER docket entries, CourtListener docket pages, firm announcements, or Law360/Reuters articles naming the defendants' counsel in this specific case surfaced in my searches. The docket may simply not be indexed in the free sources I accessed, or appearances may have been made in filings not captured by those sources. I am not going to invent names.

What I can offer as related, but not case-specific data points:

• In the separate, earlier Pedersen action Pedersen v. Salesforce.com Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00409, also on the '920 patent), the defendant's attorney of record was Brian Christopher Nash (UniCourt case summary). That is a different case and different defendant, so do not treat Nash as counsel here without docket confirmation.
• The parallel IPR on the '920 patent (IPR2023-00029, Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen) was handled on the petitioner's side by Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Michael McCarty, and Matt Beck of Haynes and Boone, then in-house by Kelly Rose Hughes and Alyssa J. Holtslander of Unified Patents (Unified Patents blog; Federal Circuit opinion, Pedersen v. Unified Patents, appeal No. 2024-2090, decided Mar. 26, 2026). Those are IPR petitioner-side counsel, not district court defense counsel.

Relevant procedural context

• The PTAB issued a final written decision on May 10, 2024, holding the asserted claims of the '920 patent unpatentable (IPR2023-00029), and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 (nonprecedential). This almost certainly led to stays and/or dismissals in the parallel WDTX actions (e.g., Pedersen v. Wix.com, Inc., 6:22-cv-00925, was dismissed Aug. 23, 2023 per the IPR mandatory-notice exhibit).

Bottom line

• Defendants (probable): Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Wix.com, and Zendesk (or their related entities).
• Defense counsel of record: Not confirmed. The public sources available to me do not name defense counsel for 1:23-cv-01020 specifically. To complete this analysis, pull the PACER docket (case 1:23-cv-01020, W.D. Tex.) — the first attorney-appearance entries (ECF designations of counsel, Rule 7.1 disclosures, and any motions to appear pro hac vice) would identify lead, local, and in-house counsel for each defendant. If the case has been stayed or dismissed post-IPR, there may be few or no substantive appearances beyond entry of appearance filings.