Untitled case

An Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2024-00530, was filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,877,345. The patent owner is Sitnet LLC, identified as a third-party funded patent asserter, commonly known as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). Unified Patents is an international membership organization dedicated to improving patent quality and deterring unsubstantiated patent assertions by NPEs through various activities, including filing IPRs.

U.S. Patent No. 9,877,345 is generally directed to a process for forming a situational network in response to an event. This patent, along with others from the same family, has been asserted by Sitnet LLC against Meta Platforms, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.). The accused products and services in the underlying district court litigation include Meta's Facebook Crisis Response feature and the Facebook Ad Platform/Meta's Marketing API. The procedural posture involves parallel proceedings, with [Meta Platforms Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Meta%20Platforms%20Inc.) challenging Sitnet's patents in IPRs at the PTAB while facing infringement allegations in federal district court.

The IPR, IPR2024-00530, reached a Final Written Decision by the PTAB. While the specific outcome for IPR2024-00530 is not detailed in the provided search results beyond "Final Written Decision" and "High-Tech" classification, related news indicates that other IPRs filed by Meta against Sitnet's patents were often ruled in favor of the petitioner, invalidating claims. The notability of this case stems from Unified Patents' consistent strategy of challenging patents asserted by NPEs like Sitnet LLC, which is backed by litigation funding. The parallel district court litigation against a major operating company like Meta Platforms, Inc., concerning widely used social media features and advertising technology, highlights the ongoing efforts by operating companies and deterrence organizations to address patent quality and curb what they consider to be frivolous patent assertions.

It appears there might be a discrepancy or limited public availability regarding the specific details for IPR2024-00530 concerning US Patent 9877345. Despite extensive searches for docket information, parties, and the Final Written Decision, specific entries for this exact IPR and patent combination could not be definitively located through publicly available search tools, including the USPTO's P-TACTS system, Unified Patents' portals, and intellectual property news outlets.

Therefore, a detailed chronological breakdown of key legal developments for IPR2024-00530 with respect to US Patent 9877345 cannot be provided at this time.

It is important to note that Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) differ significantly from traditional patent infringement litigation in district courts. Key aspects of typical district court litigation, such as complaints, answers, counterclaims, pre-trial motions to dismiss or transfer, discovery milestones, claim construction (Markman) hearings, trials, jury verdicts, and post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, fees), are not generally part of the IPR process.

An IPR focuses specifically on challenging the patentability of claims in an issued patent based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. The typical stages of an IPR include:

• Filing of Petition: A petitioner files a petition arguing that one or more claims of a patent are unpatentable.
• Preliminary Response: The patent owner may file a preliminary response.
• Institution Decision: The PTAB decides whether to institute the IPR. If instituted, the Board sets a schedule for the proceeding.
• Discovery: Limited discovery is permitted.
• Patent Owner Response & Petitioner Reply: The patent owner responds to the challenges, and the petitioner replies.
• Oral Hearing: An optional oral hearing may be held before a panel of Administrative Patent Judges.
• Final Written Decision: The PTAB issues a Final Written Decision on the patentability of the challenged claims. This decision is typically issued within one year of institution, though extensions can occur.
• Appeal: Either party may appeal the Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Without specific docket entries for IPR2024-00530 and US Patent 9877345, it is not possible to provide dates for filing, institution, or the precise outcome of the "Final Written Decision" mentioned in the case metadata. While Unified Patents is listed as the petitioner, the patent owner and the details of the decision remain unconfirmed through public searches.

Due to conflicting information between the provided case metadata and publicly available records, the counsel of record specifically representing "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as the petitioner in IPR2024-00530 concerning US Patent 9877345 cannot be definitively identified.

Public records for IPR2024-00530 indicate that Meta Platforms, Inc. is the petitioner and SITNET, LLC is the patent owner, with the petition filed on February 27, 2024. This contradicts the prompt's authoritative metadata identifying "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as the plaintiff (petitioner) and US patent 9877345 as the patent at issue for IPR2024-00530.

However, based on the authoritative metadata that "Unified Patents PTAB Data" is the plaintiff, it is known that Unified Patents maintains an in-house legal team that handles post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents acts as a deterrence entity and employs its own counsel for these proceedings, rather than operating as a law firm representing external clients.

The following individuals are known to be part of Unified Patents' in-house legal team that prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB:

• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents (primarily Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: Prior to joining Unified, Jordan practiced intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings for eleven years, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and Federal Circuit in various technology fields.
• Michelle Callaghan - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents (primarily Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: Before Unified, Michelle practiced at Erise IP, defending clients in district court patent litigation and challenging patents before the PTAB.
• David Seastrunk - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents (primarily Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: David previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he was involved in post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and International Trade Commission investigations.
• Jonathan Stroud - General Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents (primarily Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: As General Counsel, he oversees the legal operations of Unified Patents, which includes PTAB strategies.
• Jenn Bisk - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents (primarily Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: Her role as Senior Patent Counsel indicates involvement in the organization's core activities, including PTAB challenges.
• Patrick King - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents (primarily Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: As Senior Patent Counsel, he contributes to Unified Patents' post-grant review strategies.
• Andrea Shoffstall - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents (primarily Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: Her position as Senior Patent Counsel involves preparing and litigating PTAB proceedings.

It is important to reiterate that while these individuals are key legal personnel for Unified Patents and regularly handle IPRs, their specific appearance as counsel of record for IPR2024-00530, given the discrepancy in party information, cannot be confirmed from the available public records.

I'll research the counsel of record. Note upfront: in this IPR the "defendant" role maps to the patent owner/respondent (the party defending the challenged claims), since the petitioner is the plaintiff-side party already covered. Let me verify who that is and who represents them.

Public records confirm the real caption is Meta Platforms, Inc. v. SitNet, LLC, IPR2024-00530 — I'll flag the metadata conflict and then find counsel for both the PTAB patent owner and the district-court defendant.

Strong results. Now let me pin down whether additional PTAB counsel appeared for SitNet later in the proceeding, and check the Federal Circuit/appeal counsel and the district-court docket details.

Counsel of record — defendant side

Threshold note on party roles (and a metadata conflict worth flagging)

Before naming attorneys, two things must be reconciled, and this is a continuation of the conflict already flagged in the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section:

1. The case metadata is wrong on the petitioner. Every primary source — the Board's own papers, the institution decision, and the parties' filings — captions this proceeding Meta Platforms, Inc. v. SitNet, LLC, IPR2024-00530, filed February 27, 2024, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,877,345. "Unified Patents PTAB Data" is the data source from which this case record was scraped (Unified Patents' PTAB database), not a party. This directly contradicts the prompt's "Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents PTAB Data," and I treat the docket as authoritative here.
2. "Defendant" maps to two different entities depending on which case you mean. In the IPR itself, the defendant-side party is the patent owner / respondent, SitNet, LLC (the petitioner, Meta, occupies the plaintiff-side chair). In the parallel infringement action, SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-06389 (S.D.N.Y.), Meta is the defendant and SitNet is the plaintiff. I set out both below so the section is usable either way.

---

1. IPR2024-00530 — counsel of record for the patent owner (respondent) SitNet, LLC

This is the direct "defendant-side" representation in the IPR.

• Sources: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice (Paper 4) and Patent Owner's Power of Attorney (Paper 5).
• Caveat: On the public docket I reviewed, only Hecht Partners appears as PO counsel of record. The only "Updated Mandatory Notices" filing in this IPR is the Petitioner's (Paper 19, Feb. 25, 2025); I found no PO update adding a second firm. I could not confirm a full counsel-of-record listing from PACER/P-TACTS directly, so treat "no additional PO counsel" as unconfirmed-but-consistent-with-the-record rather than certain. SitNet's technical expert in this IPR (and IPR2024-00529) was Dr. Aviel D. Rubin.

2. S.D.N.Y. infringement action — counsel of record for defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.

The underlying case is the "patent infringement case" in which Meta is the named defendant.

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (primary/lead counsel):

Fenwick & West LLP (limited-purpose appearance, now withdrawn):

• Jessica M. Kaempf — Fenwick & West LLP, 401 Union St., 5th Floor, Seattle, WA. Appeared in a limited-purpose discovery role; her public letter to the Court (filed Jan. 6, 2025, S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 127) states she "was retained for a limited purpose to assist during discovery, which has been completed," and requested removal from the docket, noting "Davis Polk will continue to represent Meta in this action." So Fenwick is no longer counsel of record.

Source: CourtListener parties page, SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:23-cv-06389; Dkt. 127; Dkt. 78.

3. Cross-reference for the mirrored roles (so the two sections tie out)

• IPR petitioner (plaintiff-side) Meta Platforms, Inc. — Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC: Directors Jonathan Tuminaro, Michael Specht, Steve Pappas, Jennifer Chagnon, Timothy Tang, David Haars, plus Associate Xiaowei Jin. Per Sterne Kessler's own announcement covering IPR2024-00529/-00530/-00531/-00612 (all-final-written-decision wins, 56 claims); UniCourt's PTAB party record also lists "Tuminaro, Jonathan et al" as petitioner counsel. This is the correct replacement for the "Unified Patents in-house team" listed in the earlier section, which does not apply to this docket.
• S.D.N.Y. plaintiff SitNet, LLC — Hecht Partners LLP (David L. Hecht, New York; Tremayne Norris, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Los Angeles); Barclay Damon LLP (Douglas J. Nash, John D. Cook, Denis J. Sullivan — Syracuse; Naresh K. Kannan — Albany); DiCello Levitt LLC (Greg G. Gutzler, New York). Confirmed by the parties' joint status report signature block (S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 142) and Dkt. 31.

4. What I could not confirm / sealing caveats

• Appellate counsel. SitNet appealed the Final Written Decision (Fed. Cir. No. 26-1158); the appeal was dismissed April 27, 2026 on the parties' stipulation (Fed. Cir. nonprecedential order). I did not retrieve the Federal Circuit appearance forms, so appellant/appellee appellate counsel are not confirmed here.
• Sealed material. The S.D.N.Y. docket includes sealing activity (e.g., Dkt. 90, order on motion to seal), and at least one IPR exhibit (Dr. Rubin's expert report, EX2005) is marked "CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." I found no indication that any attorney's appearance or designation is under seal — all names above come from public filings, the CourtListener docket, or firm/Law360-type announcements.
• Docket-number ambiguity. The S.D.N.Y. case appears as 1:23-cv-06389-AS in earlier filings (Judge Arun Subramanian) but as -JAV in a later joint status report; I did not resolve whether this reflects reassignment. Flagging rather than guessing.
• I did not independently verify the Davis Polk attorney roster against PACER's live docket (paywalled); it is sourced from CourtListener's party page and reproduced signature blocks in public docket PDFs.

Bottom line: For IPR2024-00530 itself, the defendant-side (patent owner) representation is Hecht Partners LLP — David L. Hecht (lead) and James Zak (back-up). For the underlying infringement case, the defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. is represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, led by Ashok Ramani (Menlo Park), with Fenwick & West having made only a limited discovery appearance that has since been withdrawn.