Untitled case

Unified Patents, a member-based organization focused on deterring non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions and improving patent quality, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00031, against US Patent 8,635,697 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents' business model involves monitoring NPE activity and challenging the validity of patents owned by NPEs through post-grant procedures like IPRs, often to benefit its members who may be facing assertion of these patents. While the specific patent owner for US 8,635,697 is not identified in the provided search results, Unified Patents typically targets NPEs, suggesting the patent owner is likely a non-practicing entity.

The patent at issue, US 8,635,697, is titled "Apparatus for separating finegrained sand." It describes a device and method for recovering fine-grained sand from wastewater containing mud and other foreign materials, where the washing water with the sand is introduced into a separatory cone, and fresh water is introduced to wash away occluding substances and carry them upwards. Since this is an IPR, there is no "accused product or service" in the traditional sense of district court litigation; rather, the IPR challenges the patentability of the claims of patent 8,635,697 based on prior art.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with case number IPR2026-00031. The IPR was not instituted due to "procedural reasons," indicating that the PTAB declined to proceed to the merits phase of the review. This venue, the PTAB, is significant as it provides an administrative forum for challenging patent validity with a lower burden of proof than district court and typically a faster resolution. Non-institution for procedural reasons can stem from various factors, such as issues with the petition itself, the identification of real parties in interest (though in some cases, RPI determinations are deemed unnecessary if not implicating time bars or estoppel), or recent policy changes from the USPTO Director regarding IPR institution criteria, including parallel proceedings or prior validity findings. The case is notable for its reflection of Unified Patents' strategy to proactively challenge patents often asserted by NPEs and the specific outcome of "not instituted - procedural," which highlights the procedural complexities and evolving rules within the PTAB system.

IPR2026-00031: Procedural Non-Institution and Lack of Identified Litigation

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00031, concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,635,697, filed by Unified Patents, was not instituted for procedural reasons. This means the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not proceed to a full merits review of the patentability challenges raised in the petition.

Despite efforts to identify an underlying patent infringement litigation associated with this IPR and patent, specific details regarding a related district court case (including the patent owner as a plaintiff) could not be definitively found through available public search results. Unified Patents frequently files IPR petitions challenging patents that are asserted in ongoing litigation, often against non-practicing entities. However, the non-institution of this particular IPR due to procedural grounds indicates that the PTAB declined to review the patent on its merits, potentially due to deficiencies in the petition itself, issues of standing, or other administrative reasons.

As of the current date (2026-05-28), no specific legal developments regarding filing, pleadings, motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, or final disposition of a patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,635,697 have been identified from public records. The procedural non-institution of IPR2026-00031 means that the IPR did not result in a final written decision regarding the patent's validity, and therefore, it would not have directly stayed or impacted any parallel litigation on the merits of patentability.

Without identification of the specific patent owner (respondent in the IPR) and a corresponding litigation docket, a detailed chronological list of litigation developments cannot be provided.

Unified Patents, the petitioner in IPR2026-00031, typically leverages a combination of its in-house legal team and outside counsel for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific counsel filings for IPR2026-00031 are not publicly available due to its "Not Instituted - Procedural" status, Unified Patents' general practice in IPRs can be described based on other similar proceedings.

Based on publicly available information and past IPR filings by Unified Patents, the following attorneys and firms are frequently involved:

In-House Counsel for Unified Patents:

• Jonathan Stroud
  • Role: Chief Operating Officer & Chief Legal Officer (COO & CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Manages Unified Patents' legal and corporate work, focusing on PTAB, district court, and appellate litigation. He previously worked as a patent attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, where he was involved in early post-grant review work.
• Jordan M. Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: 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 for eleven years, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and the Federal Circuit.
• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Head of Operations (formerly Legal Head-NPE)
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Location: Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Involved in various IPR proceedings as in-house counsel for Unified Patents.
• Kelly R. Hughes
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house), also frequently appears through Erise IP, P.A.
  • Location: Greenwood Village, Colorado (for Erise IP, P.A. affiliation)
  • Experience Note: Appears as counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.
• David Seastrunk
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Location: Not specified, likely Washington, DC area.
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he was involved in all phases of post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC investigations.
• Michelle Callaghan
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Location: Not specified, likely Washington, DC area.
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Previously practiced at Erise IP, where she defended clients in district courts and challenged patents before the PTAB.

Outside Counsel (Frequently Engaged):

• Erise IP, P.A.
  • Location: Overland Park, Kansas; Greenwood Village, Colorado
  • Experience Note: A firm frequently engaged by Unified Patents for IPR petitions and litigation before the PTAB.
  • Attorneys often include:
    • Jason R. Mudd
      • Role: Lead Counsel (for IPRs where Erise is engaged)
      • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
      • Location: Overland Park, Kansas
      • Experience Note: Frequently represents petitioners, including Unified Patents, in IPR proceedings.
    • Eric A. Buresh
      • Role: Counsel
      • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
      • Location: Overland Park, Kansas
      • Experience Note: Appears as counsel for Unified Patents in PTAB cases.

Due to the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status of IPR2026-00031, a detailed listing of counsel specifically for this case could not be located in public records. The individuals and firms listed above represent the typical counsel of record for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2026-00031 counsel of record", "IPR2026-00031 patent owner counsel", "Unified Patents IPR2026-00031 counsel", "Unified Patents IPR attorneys", "counsel for patent 8635697 IPR", "PTAB IPR counsel records for not instituted cases", "PTAB IPR counsel search IPR2026-00031", "Unified Patents IPRs not instituted procedural"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in IPR2026-00031.
In an IPR, the petitioner is Unified Patents, and the defendant is the patent owner.
I need to find the attorneys representing the patent owner of US Patent 8,635,697 in IPR2026-00031.
The previous sections state that the IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural". Even with non-institution, counsel would have appeared for both sides, or at least the petitioner would have filed their petition with counsel, and the patent owner might have responded with preliminary responses through counsel.

I will search for "IPR2026-00031 counsel of record" or "IPR2026-00031 patent owner counsel" to identify the attorneys for the patent owner. I will also look for "Unified Patents IPR2026-00031 counsel" to see if that reveals any information about the patent owner's side, though that will more likely show Unified's counsel.

Since the case was not instituted, it's possible that the patent owner did not file a preliminary response, or if they did, the focus was on procedural issues rather than the merits. However, counsel would still be listed on any filings.I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing the defendant(s) (patent owner) in IPR2026-00031 based on the available information. Web searches for "IPR2026-00031 counsel of record," "IPR2026-00031 patent owner counsel," and related queries did not yield specific attorney names or firm affiliations for this particular case.

The search results provided general information about Unified Patents' activities, PTAB proceedings, and news related to IPRs in 2026, but no direct docket or counsel listings for IPR2026-00031. While Unified Patents is the petitioner, and its counsel may be publicly known, the patent owner's counsel is not readily ascertainable from the provided snippets.

Given that the IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural," it is possible that the patent owner's involvement, especially in terms of formal counsel appearances that are widely publicized, may have been limited if, for example, the procedural issue led to an early dismissal without extensive substantive responses from the patent owner. Without direct access to the PTAB's official docket for IPR2026-00031, identifying the specific attorneys and their firms for the patent owner remains unconfirmed.