Untitled case

The IPR case, IPR2025-01426, is an Inter Partes Review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning US Patent No. 9,591,117. The case is currently marked with a status of "Procedural Termination."

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,591,117, generally relates to systems and methods for delivering content. Its technical scope involves enabling efficient and targeted distribution of information or media.

Specific details regarding the identities of the Petitioner (the party challenging the patent) and the Patent Owner, as well as the precise reason for the "Procedural Termination" of IPR2025-01426, are not readily available through public web searches of court dockets or legal news sites. Without direct access to the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) docket entries for this specific case, the exact circumstances leading to its termination remain undisclosed.

The initial search results provide general information about PTAB IPR procedures and recent changes in 2025 and 2026, but do not directly detail IPR2025-01426. There's a list of IPR cases in result from "Unified Patents Portal" but IPR2025-01426 is not listed there. This suggests that the IPR might have been filed and terminated very early, perhaps before being fully indexed or publicly detailed in aggregated lists.

The term "Procedural Termination" implies the case did not proceed to a full merits review. This could be due to a variety of reasons such as settlement, withdrawal of the petition, failure to meet statutory requirements, or a discretionary denial by the PTAB Director.

I need to perform a more targeted search for IPR2025-01426 to find its specific docket, parties, and the reason for the procedural termination. I also need to search for any district court litigation involving US9591117 to see if this IPR was a parallel proceeding.The search results for IPR2025-01426 are still quite general. I haven't found a direct docket or specific details about this particular IPR's termination reason. I did find a list of IPRs with "Procedural Termination" status, and examples of reasons for procedural termination (e.g., failure to identify real party in interest, settlement, discretionary denial).

It's important to note that many of the search results are from 2025 and 2026, discussing new PTAB rules and precedential decisions, indicating an active and evolving PTAB landscape. This is consistent with the IPR case number IPR2025-01426.

I also searched for US9591117 in district court litigation. So far, no specific district court cases directly linked to this patent have appeared in the top results. The general search for "US9591117 patent litigation district court cases" gave me general information about patent litigation but no specific case for this patent.

Given the information available:

• The case is IPR2025-01426, status "Procedural Termination," patent US9591117.
• I have general knowledge about IPR procedures and common reasons for procedural termination (e.g., settlement, discretionary denial, RPI issues).
• I have not found specific docket entries or a detailed reason for the termination of IPR2025-01426 itself.
• I have not found any direct district court litigation for US9591117.

It's possible that the "Procedural Termination" happened very early in the IPR process, or the details are not widely publicized in the snippets returned by general searches. Without a specific docket entry or PTAB decision for IPR2025-01426, it's hard to pinpoint the exact sequence of events for this specific case.

I will try one more specific search for the IPR docket and then summarize based on the available information, noting the lack of specific details if they are still absent.

Let's try searching specifically for the IPR on the USPTO website.Despite multiple targeted searches, I am still unable to find specific docket entries, parties, or the precise reason for the "Procedural Termination" of IPR2025-01426. The search results provide general information about PTAB procedures, recent changes, and examples of other IPRs with similar statuses but nothing for this particular case number. This suggests that the information for this specific IPR is not readily available through public search engines or aggregated legal news sites.

The prompt asked for "key legal developments and outcome for this patent infringement litigation," but the provided case is an IPR. While IPRs are related to patent validity, they are distinct from district court patent infringement litigation. I have also not found any district court cases directly tied to the patent US9591117.

Therefore, I must state that the detailed information for this specific IPR, including its parties, filing date, and the precise reason for "Procedural Termination," is not publicly available via my search. I cannot provide a chronological list of legal developments for an IPR without these fundamental details.

I can, however, provide general information about what "Procedural Termination" typically means in an IPR, drawing from the general PTAB information I found in my searches.

Given the constraints, I will structure the answer to reflect what is known (case number, patent, status) and explicitly state what could not be found, while explaining the likely implications of a "Procedural Termination" in an IPR.

Refined Plan:

1. State the known information (case, patent, status).
2. Explain that specific details for this IPR were not found.
3. Discuss general reasons for "Procedural Termination" in IPRs.
4. Mention the lack of identified parallel district court litigation for US9591117.

This approach adheres to the operating rules by not fabricating information and citing what was found, while also clearly indicating limitations.

Final check on the prompt: "List the key legal developments and outcome for this patent infringement litigation." The ambiguity of "patent infringement litigation" for an IPR case number means I should address both possibilities: direct IPR developments and any related infringement litigation. Since no related infringement litigation for the specific patent US9591117 was found, I will explicitly state that. For the IPR, without specific docket, parties, or termination reason, I cannot provide a detailed chronology, but I can explain what a "Procedural Termination" generally entails.

Given the prompt's request for "chronological order," if I cannot find specific dates and events for IPR2025-01426, I must clearly state that.

My last searches for "USPTO PTAB IPR2025-01426" and "IPR2025-01426 termination reason" did not yield specific docket information or the reason for termination. The results were general articles about PTAB procedures, changes in IPR rules in 2025-2026, and examples of other IPR cases. Without the specific docket, I cannot identify the petitioner, patent owner, filing date, or the exact order that led to the procedural termination. I also haven't found any district court litigation directly involving US9591117.

Therefore, I must conclude that the detailed key legal developments for IPR2025-01426 are not publicly discoverable through these search methods. I will state what is known and the typical implications of such a status.

The information from the searches primarily consists of general articles about PTAB procedures, recent changes in IPR rules (e.g., in March, July, October 2025, and early 2026), and examples of other IPR cases. There is no specific docket information for IPR2025-01426, nor details regarding its parties, filing date, or the precise reason for its "Procedural Termination." Similarly, no specific district court litigation directly involving U.S. Patent No. 9,591,117 was found. Therefore, a chronological list of specific legal developments for this particular IPR cannot be provided based on the available information.

However, I can offer a general explanation of what "Procedural Termination" in an IPR typically entails and discuss the context of IPRs in 2025.

Known Information:

• Case Number: IPR2025-01426
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Status: Procedural Termination
• Patent at Issue: US9591117

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01426:

Due to the lack of specific docket information available through public search, the detailed legal developments for IPR2025-01426, including the identities of the Petitioner and Patent Owner, the exact filing date, and the precise reasons for its procedural termination, cannot be provided.

However, a "Procedural Termination" in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) generally indicates that the proceeding concluded before the PTAB reached a final decision on the merits of the patentability challenge. Common reasons for a procedural termination include:

• Settlement: The Petitioner and Patent Owner reach a settlement agreement, leading to a joint request to terminate the IPR. The PTAB may grant such a request unless it has already decided the merits of the proceeding.
• Withdrawal of Petition: The Petitioner may voluntarily withdraw the petition, often due to strategic reasons or a settlement.
• Discretionary Denial: The PTAB Director may discretionarily deny institution of the IPR, even if the petition meets the statutory threshold for instituting a review. This became a more prominent aspect of PTAB practice with new interim processes introduced in March 2025, which bifurcated institution decisions into discretionary and merits considerations. Factors for discretionary denial can include the proximity of a parallel district court trial date, the parties' investment in parallel litigation, and whether a stay in district court is likely.
• Failure to Identify Real Party-in-Interest (RPI) or Privy: If the Petitioner fails to identify all real parties in interest as required by statute, the PTAB may dismiss the petition and terminate the proceedings. The USPTO in October 2025 designated a precedential decision clarifying RPI analysis, underscoring the importance of this requirement.
• Failure to Meet Other Statutory or Regulatory Requirements: The petition might be deemed incomplete or otherwise fail to meet the procedural requirements for an IPR.

Without specific documents from the IPR2025-01426 docket, it is impossible to definitively state which of these reasons led to the "Procedural Termination" for US9591117.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Effect on Litigation:

No specific district court litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,591,117 was identified through public search that would be considered "parallel" to IPR2025-01426. If such litigation existed, an IPR filing (and its subsequent outcome) could significantly influence the district court case, potentially leading to a stay of the litigation pending the IPR's resolution. However, without evidence of such litigation, the effect of IPR2025-01426 on any theoretical parallel infringement litigation is unknown.

The PTAB's procedures and discretionary institution practices saw notable changes in 2025 and 2026. For example, in October 2025, new rules were proposed regarding stipulations not to pursue invalidity challenges in other forums and circumstances for not instituting IPRs when other proceedings are likely to determine patentability first. These evolving rules could impact IPR strategies and outcomes, including decisions leading to procedural terminations.The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01426, concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,591,117, has a status of "Procedural Termination" at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Specific details regarding the Petitioner, Patent Owner, filing date, and the precise reasons for this termination are not publicly available through general search methods. Additionally, no specific parallel district court patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,591,117 was identified.

While the exact developments for IPR2025-01426 remain undisclosed, "Procedural Termination" in an IPR typically signifies that the proceeding concluded before a final decision on the merits of the patentability challenge. Common reasons for such a termination include:

• Settlement: The parties may have reached a settlement agreement, prompting a joint request to terminate the IPR. The PTAB typically grants such requests unless it has already decided the merits of the case.
• Withdrawal of Petition: The Petitioner might have voluntarily withdrawn their challenge.
• Discretionary Denial: The PTAB Director may have exercised discretion to deny the institution of the IPR. This aspect of PTAB practice saw significant procedural changes in 2025, with new interim processes introduced in March 2025 that bifurcated institution decisions into discretionary and merits considerations. Factors for discretionary denial often include the proximity of a trial date in any parallel district court litigation, the parties' investment in such litigation, and the likelihood of a stay.
• Failure to Identify Real Party-in-Interest (RPI) or Privy: A petition can be dismissed and proceedings terminated if the Petitioner fails to correctly identify all real parties in interest, a requirement reinforced by a precedential decision in October 2025.
• Other Statutory or Regulatory Deficiencies: The petition might not have met other procedural or statutory requirements for an IPR.

Without access to the specific docket entries for IPR2025-01426, it is not possible to confirm which of these scenarios led to its "Procedural Termination." The landscape for IPRs was actively evolving in 2025, with the USPTO introducing new rules and guidance aimed at managing workload and enhancing consistency in institution decisions, which could have influenced the outcome of this IPR.

Counsel of Record for Petitioner Apple Inc. in IPR2025-01426

In IPR2025-01426, Petitioner Apple Inc. was represented by attorneys from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. The case, along with several related IPRs (IPR2025-01427, IPR2025-01428, IPR2025-01429, and IPR2025-01430), stemmed from a patent infringement lawsuit, MessageLoud, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 6:25-cv-00185-RP, in the Western District of Texas. All these IPRs were procedurally terminated following a joint motion to dismiss after the parties resolved their underlying dispute in the district court.

The following attorney has been identified as counsel for Apple Inc. in a related IPR (IPR2025-01430) and is presumed to be part of the counsel team for IPR2025-01426 given the related nature of the proceedings and joint dismissal:

• Joshua L. Goldberg
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Finnegan has multiple offices, but Washington D.C. is a primary office for IPR practice).
  • Relevant Experience Note: Joshua Goldberg is a partner at Finnegan who focuses on patent litigation, including before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in district courts. He frequently represents technology companies in complex patent disputes.

Additionally, a case manager from Finnegan was involved:

• Lisa C. Hines
  • Role: Case Manager
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Washington, D.C., given the firm's structure.
  • Relevant Experience Note: As a case manager, Lisa Hines provides essential support for the legal team, managing filings and administrative aspects of patent litigation.

Counsel of Record for Patent Owner MessageLoud, Inc.

In IPR2025-01426, the Patent Owner is MessageLoud, Inc.. The case, along with several related IPRs, was procedurally terminated due to a joint motion to dismiss following a settlement in a parallel district court patent infringement case, MessageLoud, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 6:25-cv-00185-RP (W.D. Tex.).

The counsel of record representing MessageLoud, Inc. in this IPR are:

• Sergey Kolmykov

  • Role: Counsel for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC
  • Office Location: While specific office locations are not detailed in the provided snippets, patent litigation firms often have offices in key legal markets.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: As a named partner in a firm specializing in intellectual property, Sergey Kolmykov is involved in patent litigation. The firm Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC regularly represents patent owners in disputes.

• Gaston Kroub

  • Role: Counsel for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC
  • Office Location: As a named partner in the firm, the office location is likely consistent with the firm's primary base.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: As a named partner, Gaston Kroub is actively engaged in patent litigation, representing patent owners in intellectual property disputes.

This information was identified from service contacts listed on a "Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fees" filing in the related IPR2025-01428, where both attorneys were listed as counsel of record for MessageLoud, Inc., and Patent Owner consented to service by email at their respective firm email addresses.