Untitled case

Unified Patents PTAB Data, a member-based organization, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00006, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397. Unified Patents operates as a "deterrence entity" aiming to reduce "frivolous patent litigation" and improve patent quality by proactively challenging patents, primarily those asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), through IPRs. While Unified Patents asserts its independence from its members in selecting and pursuing IPRs, its activities directly benefit member operating companies by targeting patents that could be asserted against their products or services. The identity of the patent owner for US 8610397, against whom Unified Patents filed this IPR, is not specified in the provided case metadata, but given Unified Patents' mission, it is highly likely to be an NPE or patent assertion entity.

U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397 is titled "Method and apparatus for detecting a vehicle having a keyless entry system" and generally relates to systems for detecting vehicles equipped with keyless entry systems. The procedural posture of this case is an IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This venue is significant as it provides an alternative, often faster and less expensive, pathway to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation. The case ultimately resulted in a settlement, meaning the IPR concluded without a final decision on the merits of the patent's validity by the PTAB.

This IPR is notable due to Unified Patents' involvement, as the organization is a prominent force in the patent landscape, strategically using IPRs to combat what it perceives as low-quality patents asserted by NPEs. The settlement of this IPR aligns with Unified Patents' stated practice of settling disputes if it serves its long-term deterrence goals, allowing them to reallocate resources to other challenges. Furthermore, the case takes place in a period marked by a significant decline in overall IPR petitions in early 2026, attributed to stricter discretionary denial practices at the PTAB, which underscores the evolving and challenging environment for petitioners seeking to invalidate patents through this forum.

This case, IPR2026-00006, involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397. Unified Patents PTAB Data initiated the challenge, which ultimately concluded in a settlement. Given that this is an IPR at the PTAB, the typical stages of a district court patent infringement litigation (such as complaints, answers, Markman hearings, discovery, and jury trials) are not applicable.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Specific docket entries and dates for IPR2026-00006, including the exact filing date of the petition and the date of settlement, are not publicly available through standard web searches of USPTO databases or legal news outlets as of May 28, 2026. However, based on the provided information and the nature of PTAB proceedings, the following general outline applies:

• Filing of IPR Petition: Unified Patents PTAB Data filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In an IPR, a petitioner requests that the PTAB review the patentability of one or more claims in an issued patent based on prior art patents and printed publications. Unified Patents is known for filing such petitions to challenge patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).
• Institution Decision (or lack thereof): After the petition is filed, the patent owner has an opportunity to file a preliminary response. The PTAB then decides whether to institute the IPR, meaning it will proceed to a full review of the challenged claims. An institution decision must be made within three months of the patent owner's preliminary response or the last day on which such a response could have been filed. If the PTAB declines to institute, the proceeding ends there. If instituted, the trial proceeds.
• Settlement: The case concluded in a settlement. In PTAB proceedings, parties may settle at any point before a final written decision is issued. Settlements in IPRs are common and often result in the termination of the IPR without a final judgment on the merits of the patentability challenge. The terms of such settlements are typically confidential, though notice of the settlement is usually filed with the PTAB, leading to the termination of the IPR. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) is the official means for filing documents and tracking these proceedings.

Without access to the specific docket for IPR2026-00006, the precise dates for the petition filing, institution decision (if any), and the settlement are not determinable. However, the overarching outcome is a settlement that terminated the IPR proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397.

Despite extensive searching, the specific counsel of record representing Unified Patents PTAB Data in IPR2026-00006 challenging US patent 8610397 could not be definitively identified from publicly available web search results.

Unified Patents, as a petitioner in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, typically utilizes a combination of in-house Senior Patent Counsel and, at times, external law firms to handle these matters. Past IPR filings by Unified Patents, such as IPR2021-01260, show a mix of counsel. For that case, attorneys listed on the Power of Attorney included Jason R. Mudd and Eric A. Buresh from Erise IP, P.A., alongside Unified Patents' internal counsel Jordan M. Rossen and Kelly R. Hughes.

However, detailed docket information, including Powers of Attorney or Notices of Appearance specific to IPR2026-00006 for patent 8610397, were not found in the provided search results from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) databases, Unified Patents' own portal, or legal news sources. While Unified Patents employs several Senior Patent Counsel who are active in PTAB proceedings, such as Kelly Hughes, Jordan Rossen, David Seastrunk, Michelle Callaghan, Jessica Marks, Ellyar Barazesh, and Ashraf Fawzy, and Jonathan Stroud as Chief IP Counsel, their specific involvement in IPR2026-00006 cannot be confirmed without direct access to the case's filings.

As the case has resulted in a settlement, comprehensive public records detailing counsel may not be as readily available as for ongoing or fully litigated proceedings. Therefore, the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in IPR2026-00006 remains unidentifiable through available public information.

In the context of an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the "defendant" refers to the patent owner whose patent is being challenged. To identify the counsel of record for the patent owner in IPR2026-00006, specific details about the patent owner are required. Currently, the available information does not explicitly state the patent owner for US patent 8610397 in IPR2026-00006.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the patent owner (defendant) cannot be identified without further information on the patent owner for IPR2026-00006. Filings for this specific IPR were not readily available in the initial search to ascertain the patent owner's representation.