Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: IPR2025-01260

This case involves an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01260, initiated by Unified Patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922. Unified Patents is a member-based organization focused on deterring non-practicing entities (NPEs) from asserting low-quality patents. It achieves this by challenging the patentability of such patents through various means, including filing IPRs at the PTAB, aiming to reduce frivolous patent litigation and NPE assertions in specific technology sectors. The identity of the patent owner for U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922 and the specific technology it covers are not immediately clear from the provided information, nor is the nature of the patent owner (e.g., operating company, NPE, individual).

The procedural posture of this case is before the PTAB, an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This venue is critical as it offers a specialized and often more efficient alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. Unlike district court infringement cases, an IPR does not involve an "accused product" in the traditional sense; rather, it scrutinizes the patentability of the claims themselves based on prior art. The petition, IPR2025-01260, was "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity due to procedural grounds, rather than a decision on the merits of the patentability arguments.

This case is notable in the broader context of patent litigation and IPR practice. Unified Patents' strategy of using IPRs to challenge patents often asserted by NPEs aims to increase the costs for those entities and deter future assertions of potentially invalid patents. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome is particularly significant given recent trends at the PTAB in 2025, which have seen a sharp increase in discretionary denials. These denials often stem from changes in the USPTO Director's rules and procedures for evaluating IPR petitions, including the reinstatement of Fintiv factors and the expansion of discretionary denial considerations. This outcome aligns with a general increase in procedural denials by the PTAB in the first half of 2025. Without details on the specific procedural reason for denial, it is difficult to ascertain the exact implications for this particular patent, but it generally indicates that the petition did not meet the PTAB's threshold for institution on grounds unrelated to the substantive prior art challenge.

This section will focus on the legal developments and outcome for IPR2025-01260, an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922, filed by Unified Patents.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

IPR2025-01260 Filing and Outcome:
Unified Patents filed an inter partes review petition, IPR2025-01260, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922. The petition was filed against Avant Location Technologies LLC, the current owner of the patent. The IPR was not instituted and was terminated on procedural grounds on September 11, 2025. This outcome means the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity, but not due to a decision on the merits of the patentability arguments.

Context of Procedural Denials:
The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome aligns with a broader trend observed at the PTAB in 2025, which saw a significant increase in procedural and discretionary denials of IPR petitions. This increase resulted from changes implemented by the USPTO Director regarding the evaluation of IPR and PGR petitions, including the reinstatement of Fintiv factors and the expansion of considerations for discretionary denial. These changes led to a 45% increase in procedural denials in the first six months of 2025 compared to the entire year of 2024, with June 2025 setting an all-time high for such denials. By the end of 2025, procedural denials had risen over 630% year-over-year. These procedural changes aimed to emphasize Director discretion in institution decisions and included requiring petitioners to identify all real parties in interest.

Patent Ownership:
U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922 was originally assigned to AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES S.L., a Spanish consulting firm. On July 17, 2023, the patent was transferred to AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, an entity identified by Unified Patents as a patent asserter (a Non-Practicing Entity or NPE). This transfer pattern is considered a strong indicator of NPE activity.

No Indication of Parallel District Court Litigation:
Based on the available information, there is no public record of a parallel patent infringement litigation in district court involving U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922 that was stayed or affected by this IPR proceeding. Unified Patents' role is primarily to challenge patents through PTAB proceedings rather than to be involved in infringement litigation as a plaintiff. While Unified Patents frequently challenges patents asserted by NPEs in district court, the IPR2025-01260 proceeding itself does not specify an associated district court case.

Other IPRs Against Avant Location Technologies LLC:
Unified Patents filed several other IPRs against Avant Location Technologies LLC on the same date (September 11, 2025), all of which were also "Not Instituted - Procedural." These include IPR2025-01258 and IPR2025-01261, both involving Apple Inc. as a requester, alongside IPR2025-01260. This suggests a broader campaign by Unified Patents against Avant Location Technologies LLC's portfolio, with consistent procedural denials across multiple petitions.

Unified Patents frequently handles IPR proceedings internally with its team of in-house patent counsel. While specific counsel for IPR2025-01260 are not immediately available in public search results, Unified Patents employs a number of Senior Patent Counsel who are experienced in PTAB practice.

Based on general practices for Unified Patents and PTAB proceedings, the following individuals from Unified Patents have experience with IPRs and may serve as counsel for such cases:

• Jonathan Stroud - Chief IP Counsel & COO, Unified Patents.
  • Leads the intellectual property strategy for Unified Patents and has participated in numerous webinars discussing PTAB practice and patent quality.
• Michelle Aspen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Has been listed as counsel of record for Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings.
• Ellyar Barazesh - Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Has been listed as counsel of record for Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Head of Operations (formerly Legal Head-NPE), Unified Patents.
  • Has been listed as counsel of record for Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings and has participated in webinars on PTAB topics.
• Jessica Marks - Senior Patent Counsel, SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Has spoken on webinars concerning PTAB matters.
• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Has participated in webinars discussing PTAB interactions.
• Jenn Bisk - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Kyla Bulter - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Kelly Hughes - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• T.J. Murphy - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Vinu Raj - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Andrea Shoffstall - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• David Seastrunk - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Jason Wejnert - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.

Unified Patents often handles PTAB proceedings with its in-house legal team, and generally, PTAB rules require both lead and backup counsel, though recent rule changes in October 2024 allow for solo representation and automatic pro hac vice admission in some circumstances. However, specific counsel for IPR2025-01260 were not readily identifiable through public web searches. Unified Patents is not a law firm and does not establish attorney-client relationships with its members.

I'll research counsel for the patent owner (the responding party) in IPR2025-01260 and related proceedings, since this is a PTAB IPR rather than a district court infringement case.

I found related documents. Let me search more specifically for the IPR2025-01260 power of attorney and confirm counsel.

Let me confirm the specific IPR2025-01260 docket and counsel, and check the petitioner identity discrepancy.

Counsel of Record — Defense Side (Patent Owner / Responding Party)

Threshold clarification on "defendant(s)": IPR2025-01260 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement case, so there is no caption "defendant." The party adverse to the petitioner and defending the patent (the functional "defense side") is the patent owner, Avant Location Technologies LLC. I address its counsel of record below, then note the parallel district court counsel for completeness.

⚠️ Metadata contradiction to flag: The case metadata lists Unified Patents as the petitioner/plaintiff. However, every PTAB docket source I located captions this proceeding Apple Inc. v. Avant Location Technologies LLC, IPR2025-01260 (filed Sept. 11, 2025; terminated Jan. 9, 2026 as a Director discretionary denial). See the docket mirror at gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com (IPR2025-01260) and a Jan. 9, 2026 "Notice of Decisions on Institution" listing IPR2025-01260 among discretionary denials (Paper 11, Director Squires). This also conflicts with the previously generated summary, which said the case was filed by Unified Patents and terminated Sept. 11, 2025 (Sept. 11, 2025 is the filing date, not termination). The earlier section separately concedes IPR2025-01258 and -01261 were "involving Apple Inc. as a requester." I cannot reconcile Unified Patents's appearance with the PTAB records; treat the Apple-vs-Avant caption as what the public docket shows, and the metadata as authoritative on party naming per my operating rules.

Patent Owner's Counsel of Record — Avant Location Technologies LLC

The same Fabricant LLP team appears across the consolidated Avant IPR family (IPR2025-01256, -01257, -01258, -01259, -01260, -01261, -01262). I located the executed Patent Owner's Power of Attorney for the sibling cases (IPR2025-01256, -01257) and the Board's service/refund notice in IPR2025-01259 naming the identical four attorneys for Patent Owner; the same roster is the near-certain counsel of record in -01260. I could not retrieve a POA filed under the -01260 case number itself, so the assignment to -01260 is inferred, not directly verified.

Sources: PTAB Patent Owner Power of Attorney, IPR2025-01256 (served Oct. 2, 2025) and IPR2025-01257; Board Notice ("FOR PATENT OWNER" naming Lambrianakos, Rubino, Pymento, Ostling, FABRICANT LLP) in IPR2025-01259 (mailed Apr. 7, 2026); Docket Alarm PTAB dockets for the Avant family.

Firm note: Fabricant LLP (also appearing as "Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP") is a Rye, NY IP boutique that functions as regular counsel to Avant Location Technologies and related Anjay Venture Partners NPE entities.

Petitioner's Counsel (opposing side, for reference)

Not the "defense," but for completeness the petitioner in the public docket is represented by Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX: Scott T. Jarratt, Jonathan R. Bowser, Adam C. Fowles, Dan Smith, Adam L. Erickson, and Laura Vu (per the IPR2025-01256 POA service list and the IPR2025-01259 Board notice). The earlier generated summary's list of Unified Patents in-house counsel (Stroud, Aspen, Barazesh, et al.) does not match the Haynes and Boone representation reflected in the Avant-family dockets.

Parallel District Court Counsel (Avant as plaintiff; the actual "defendants")

Avant has asserted the '922 patent family in EDTX (Judge Gilstrap), including Avant Location Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00757 (E.D. Tex.) and v. Samsung, and more recently v. ADT Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex.).

• Avant (plaintiff) lead counsel: Fabricant LLP — Alfred Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, Julian G. Pymento, Jacob Daniel Ostling, Justine Minseon Park.
• Avant local counsel: The Davis Firm PC, Longview, TX — William Ellsworth Davis III, Ty William Wilson, Rudolph Fink IV.
• Defendant (Apple/Ecobee) counsel: Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX), per the 2:24-cv-00757 docket.

Sources: PACER/dockets.justia.com docket for 2:24-cv-00757; UniCourt docket summary; PacerMonitor for 2:26-cv-00011; PatSnap litigation summaries.

Caveats

• Verified: Avant/Fabricant counsel roster for the sibling Avant IPRs and the two EDTX cases.
• Inferred (not directly verified): the -01260 case-specific POA/attorney listing — no document bearing the -01260 case number with counsel names surfaced in my searches; I am extrapolating from the identical team in the parallel Avant IPRs filed the same day.
• Not verifiable as stated: the metadata's designation of Unified Patents as petitioner. If Unified Patents did in fact file (e.g., as an additional petitioner, RPI, or a separate Unified-filed IPR under a different number), its counsel would be its in-house team and/or its usual outside firms, but I found no PTAB record tying Unified Patents to IPR2025-01260.