Untitled case

Unified Patents has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00190, against US Patent 9,456,053 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a member-based organization that aims to deter "frivolous patent litigation" by proactively challenging "low-quality patents" typically asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as patent trolls, across various technology sectors. Unified Patents operates independently of its members and does not serve as a law firm for them. The patent owner is Sandpiper Cdn LLC, an entity formed in March 2024, which acquired a portfolio of over 400 Content Delivery Network (CDN) patents from Level 3 Communications (later Lumen Technologies). Sandpiper Cdn LLC has initiated patent litigation against major tech companies, indicating its role as a patent assertion entity.

The IPR challenges the patentability of claims within US Patent 9,456,053, which is broadly related to Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). More specifically, the patent's technical domain encompasses computer networks, multiplex communication, video distribution, and security, with the underlying technology covering methods for delivering streaming resources like audio and video. This proceeding is before the PTAB, assigned as IPR2026-00190. While the case metadata indicates a "Pending" status, Unified Patents' own records show the status as "Not Instituted - Procedural," with a termination date in late April or mid-May 2026. This suggests that the PTAB declined to institute the IPR for procedural reasons, rather than a substantive decision on the merits of the patentability challenge.

This case is notable due to Unified Patents' consistent strategy of leveraging IPRs to combat patent assertions by NPEs, particularly those like Sandpiper Cdn LLC, which appear to have been formed primarily to monetize acquired patent portfolios. Furthermore, the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status is significant in the current PTAB landscape. Recent policy shifts, including the USPTO Director's personal screening of IPR petitions, emphasize discretionary factors in institution decisions, aiming to reduce duplicative challenges and ensure efficient use of agency resources. A procedural denial of institution can have substantial implications for petitioners, as it precludes a merits review of the patentability claims and impacts broader strategies for challenging asserted patents.

The primary patent infringement litigation relevant to IPR2026-00190 and U.S. Patent No. 9,456,053 is Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00664, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

• 2025-06-26: Filing of Complaint. Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00664). The complaint asserted several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,456,053, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,903, 8,924,466, 9,722,883, 9,762,692, and 10,701,173.
• 2025-12-29: IPR Petition Filed. Microsoft Corporation, as Petitioner, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00190, against Sandpiper CDN, LLC (Patent Owner) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,456,053 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• 2026-05-15: IPR Not Instituted. The PTAB issued a decision in IPR2026-00190, with the status "Not Instituted - Procedural." The IPR proceeding was terminated on this date, meaning the PTAB declined to initiate a full review of the patent's validity on procedural grounds.
• 2026-10-05: Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing Scheduled. The district court litigation, Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, has a Claim Construction Hearing scheduled for this date.
• 2027-03-01: Case Management Conference Scheduled. A Case Management Conference is scheduled in the district court litigation.

Present Posture:
The district court patent infringement litigation between Sandpiper CDN, LLC and Microsoft Corporation concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,456,053 (among others) is active and proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas. The parallel IPR challenging the '053 patent was not instituted by the PTAB on procedural grounds, thus it did not impact the district court litigation directly by, for example, imposing a stay. The parties are currently preparing for claim construction.

The counsel of record representing Unified Patents, the plaintiff in IPR2026-00190, cannot be definitively identified from publicly available information.

It is important to note a discrepancy between the provided case metadata and publicly available PTAB records. While the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the plaintiff for IPR2026-00190, the Unified Patents' own PTAB case list indicates that Microsoft Corp. is the Petitioner for IPR2026-00190, and Sandpiper Cdn LLC is the Patent Owner. In an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, the "petitioner" is the party initiating the challenge, akin to a plaintiff in district court litigation.

Furthermore, IPR2026-00190 has a status of "Not Instituted - Procedural" as of May 15, 2026. When an IPR is not instituted, the proceeding does not advance to the merits phase, and thus, extensive counsel appearances or detailed records of legal representation for the petitioner are typically not publicly available or would be minimal.

Therefore, even if Unified Patents were the petitioner for this specific IPR as per the prompt's designation of them as the plaintiff, the non-institution of the case means that specific details regarding their counsel of record are not readily accessible.

In IPR2026-00190, the defendant is Sandpiper Cdn LLC, the owner of U.S. Patent 9,456,053. The Inter Partes Review initiated by Unified Patents was "Not Instituted - Procedural." While specific counsel appearances for this particular IPR are not directly detailed in the search results, Sandpiper CDN, LLC has been represented by Covington & Burling LLP in related patent litigation matters.

Based on public records from a Federal Circuit case, IN RE: COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, No. 2026-104, where Sandpiper CDN, LLC was the appellee, the following attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP represented Sandpiper CDN, LLC:

• Richard L. Rainey (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Note: Mr. Rainey is a partner at Covington & Burling and has extensive experience in appellate litigation, particularly before the Federal Circuit, often involving patent matters.
• Abby Wright (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Note: Ms. Wright is a partner at Covington & Burling, focusing on intellectual property and appellate litigation.
• Christine Houle (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Note: Ms. Houle is an associate at Covington & Burling, involved in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• Ali Mojibi (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Mojibi is a partner at Covington & Burling, with experience in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings.

While these attorneys are confirmed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in other patent-related proceedings, the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status of IPR2026-00190 means that extensive filings from the patent owner's counsel, beyond potentially a preliminary response, would not have occurred. Therefore, their specific "of record" appearance in this IPR is inferred based on their representation of Sandpiper CDN, LLC in related patent defense.

Another firm, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., was noted for filing a complaint on behalf of Sandpiper CDN, LLC in May 2024 against Alphabet (Google) in the Central District of California (2:24-cv-03951), indicating their involvement in Sandpiper's offensive patent litigation. However, Covington & Burling has been identified in a defensive posture for Sandpiper CDN, LLC.