Adobe Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the PTAB proceeding and the underlying patent.

I have strong initial results. Let me dig deeper into the accused products in the W.D. Tex. case and the IPR petition grounds.

Let me find the specific accused Adobe products and more details on Pedersen's assertion campaign.

Case Overview: Adobe Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, IPR2023-00986

Parties and technology. This is a PTAB inter partes review, not a standalone district court suit—Adobe Inc. (petitioner/defendant) is the operating company: a major global software vendor whose cloud and marketing-technology platforms (e.g., its Experience Cloud, Campaign, and email/messaging offerings) were in Pedersen's crosshairs. Peter Henrik Pedersen (patent owner/plaintiff), an individual inventor residing in Vaerlose, Denmark, is a classic solo patent-assertion entity (P.A.E.) pattern: he is "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions" per Unified Patents, and he asserted his single patent—U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, the "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," filed as App. No. 09/904,270 and issued November 15, 2005—against a broad sweep of companies, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Salesforce, Zoho, Intuit, Wix.com, Zendesk, Ziff Davis, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Aurea Software, Mailgun, and Adobe. The patent is directed to "the automatic filtering of electronic messages via preferences provided by users in messenger and recipient profiles": a central electronic message management system with recipient and messenger profile databases, where recipients specify "delivery parameters for where, when and how specific types of messages from each messenger are to be delivered," and an individual message generator that composes/delivers messages (email, fax, voice, digital) accordingly (Federal Circuit's description in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026), nonprecedential). Adobe's IPR challenged claims 1–11 and 14–18 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,741,992 (McFadden), alone or in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,633,630 (Owens), supported by a declaration from MIT EECS Ph.D. Dr. Philip Greenspun (IPR2023-00986, Papers 1–2, Ex. 1002/1004/1005).

Procedural posture and venue. The underlying infringement suit was Pedersen v. Adobe, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., filed June 8, 2022), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland—at the time the nation's busiest patent venue and a magnet for exactly this kind of serial assertion. Adobe answered that threat on two fronts: it defended in Waco (represented locally by Mark Siegmund and Gregory Love) and, on June 1, 2023, filed this IPR petition through David A. Caine and Michael J. Sebba of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. Pedersen was represented by William P. Ramey III and Jacob B. Henry of Ramey LLP, a prominent NPE-side firm. The IPR never reached an institution decision: on September 27, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate (with a confidential Settlement and License Agreement submitted under seal as Ex. 2001), and the Board terminated the proceeding as settled on October 11, 2023, refunding Adobe's $22,500 post-institution fee (IPR2023-00986, Papers; PTACTS; Board Notice of Refund, Oct. 13, 2023). The settlement included dismissal with prejudice of the W.D. Tex. case—so Adobe licensed/resolved before the Board ever ruled on the merits of its petition.

Why it matters. The case is notable for three interlocking reasons. First, it is a textbook example of the modern NPE playbook—a Denmark-based individual asserting a 2005-era messaging patent against a dozen-plus software and SaaS companies in Judge Albright's Waco court—and of the defensive IPR counter-move that follows. Second, the pre-institution settlement illustrates the division of labor in the anti-assertion ecosystem: Adobe exited early via license, while Unified Patents, LLC ran the parallel invalidity campaign in IPR2023-00029 (filed October 14, 2022), which challenged claims 1 and 14–17; the Board issued a final written decision on May 10, 2024 holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura), and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 24-2090. The practical result: the '920 patent that Pedersen used to extract a settlement from Adobe was subsequently invalidated for everyone else. Third, the episode shows the settlement-vs-institution asymmetry in IPR practice—had Adobe's case proceeded, it would have faced the same prior art that ultimately doomed the patent. One caveat: my sources do not identify the specific Adobe product(s) accused in the complaint (the petition exhibits reference the W.D. Tex. docket and claim-construction orders but not a named Adobe product), so the exact accused service should be verified from the complaint at Dkt. 1 in 6:22-cv-00583.

Key Legal Developments — Adobe Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen (IPR2023-00986) and the Underlying District Court Litigation

Preliminary note on the docket structure

The case in the metadata — Adobe Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, IPR2023-00986 (PTAB) — is the inter partes review Adobe filed against U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (the "'920 patent," "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System"). It is not itself an infringement suit; the underlying patent infringement litigation was Peter Pedersen v. Adobe, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.), which the IPR petition itself identifies as the related lawsuit. The two proceedings are treated below in chronological order, with the parallel PTAB litigation on the same patent.

---

I. The underlying infringement action: Pedersen v. Adobe, 6:22-cv-00583 (W.D. Tex.)

Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-06-08 — Pedersen filed his Complaint for patent infringement (Dkt. 1), asserting the '920 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a jury demand, before Judge Alan D. Albright (Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland) in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. Filed with AO 120 notice (Dkt. 2), summons request (Dkt. 3), and certificate of interested parties (Dkt. 4). Counsel: William P. Ramey III, Ramey LLP. (Source: WD Tex. docket, Adobe IPR Ex. 1009, at ptacts.uspto.gov / dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv00583/1177161.)
• 2022-06-10 / 06-15 — Adobe was served through its registered agent (Corporation Service Company, Austin); summons returned executed (Dkt. 6); answer due 2022-07-01.
• 2022-07-12 — Adobe appeared through Mark D. Siegmund and Gregory Phillip Love (Dkts. 7–8) and filed an Agreed Extension of Time to Answer (Dkt. 9), resetting the answer deadline to 2022-08-15. (The specific answer/counterclaim docket entry after 08-15-2022 was not in the docket excerpts I could retrieve; the publicly captured docket runs only through 2022-07-12. Adobe's answer and any counterclaims are not independently confirmed in my sources — flagging as not well-sourced.)

Pre-trial motion practice and claim construction

• The case progressed into Markman briefing. Adobe's later IPR petition cites, as exhibits, Ex. 1007 (Plaintiff's Response to Opening Claim Construction Brief, W.D. Tex.) and Ex. 1008 (Claim Construction Order, W.D. Tex.), confirming the Adobe case reached claim-construction briefing and that a W.D. Tex. claim construction order issued before the petition was filed (2023-06-01). (Source: IPR2023-00986 exhibit list, ipverse.greyb.com; PTAB petition papers.)
• The same patent was subject to a parallel claim construction in a related case, Pedersen v. Mailgun Technologies, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01153-ADA (W.D. Tex.), where the court entered a Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 23, 2022-09-12) and a claim construction order (Dkt. 33, 2022-10-19); Adobe's expert, Dr. Philip Greenspun, expressly relied on that W.D. Tex. claim construction order. (Source: Greenspun Decl., Ex. 1002, IPR2023-00986, at docketalarm.com; Joint Claim Construction Statement, 6:21-cv-01153-ADA, at ptacts.uspto.gov.) I did not retrieve the substantive terms of the Adobe-case Markman order (Ex. 1008) itself — flagging as not well-sourced.

Discovery and trial

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or post-trial motion occurred. The case settled before trial and before any merits adjudication. No substantive discovery milestones or summary-judgment/stay/transfer rulings are reflected in the sources I retrieved; the publicly captured docket ends at the July 2022 extension, and the case was resolved in September 2023.

Settlement and dismissal

• By 2023-09-25, the parties had executed a written Settlement and License Agreement, and the district court action was dismissed: the joint IPR termination motion states that "Pedersen's claims against Adobe in the following related lawsuit have been dismissed with prejudice: Peter Pedersen v. Adobe, Inc., 6-22-cv-00583 (W.D. Tex. 2022)." (Source: Joint Motion to Terminate, IPR2023-00986, filed 2023-09-27, at ptacts.uspto.gov.) Terms are confidential (filed as Ex. 2001, "Board and Parties Only," under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)).

---

II. The PTAB proceeding in the metadata: Adobe's IPR2023-00986

• 2023-06-01 — Adobe filed its IPR petition challenging claims 1–11 and 14–18 of the '920 patent on obviousness grounds (McFadden (U.S. 6,741,992) alone; McFadden in view of Owens (U.S. 6,633,630)), supported by the Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun (Ex. 1002). Lead counsel: David A. Caine; backup: Michael J. Sebba (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer). (Sources: Petition and Ex. 1002, IPR2023-00986; patexia.com; ipverse.greyb.com.)
• 2023-06-20 — Patent owner's Mandatory Notices (Ramey LLP, including Jacob B. Henry).
• 2023-07-11 — Board issued notice according the filing date.
• 2023-09-25 — Parties notified the Board by email of the confidential settlement and requested authorization to file a joint motion to terminate.
• 2023-09-27 — Board authorized the filing; the parties filed the Joint Motion to Terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a), together with the confidential Settlement and License Agreement (Ex. 2001) and a request to keep it confidential. No preliminary response had been filed; no merits decision had issued. (Source: Joint Motion to Terminate, at ptacts.uspto.gov.)
• 2023-10-11 — Board issued its Termination Decision (pre-institution settlement), terminating IPR2023-00986 as to both parties; case status: Terminated-Settled. (Sources: ipverse.greyb.com; patexia.com; PTAB termination decision, PAPER, 2023-10-11.)
• 2023-10-12 / 10-13 — Adobe filed a request for refund of the post-institution fee; the Board approved the refund (notice 2023-10-13).

Outcome for Adobe's IPR: terminated without institution and without any merits or claim-validity decision; no estoppel from this proceeding. Adobe's dispute with Pedersen over the '920 patent was fully resolved by the confidential settlement/license and the with-prejudice dismissal of the W.D. Tex. case.

---

III. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the same patent and their effect

The '920 patent was the subject of multiple related IPRs and a large campaign of W.D. Tex. suits (against Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Zoho, Ziff Davis, Intuit, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Upland, Wix, Mailgun, etc.):

• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen (the key parallel proceeding):
  • 2022-10-14 — Unified filed its IPR petition (Haynes and Boone; later in-house Unified counsel). (Source: unifiedpatents.com, 2022-10-17.)
  • 2023-05-15 — PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims (claims 1 and 14–17). (Source: unifiedpatents.com, 2023-05-15.) — This institution, roughly seven weeks before Adobe filed its own petition, was strategic context for Adobe's IPR.
  • 2024-05-10 — PTAB Final Written Decision holding claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious (Funk in view of Law or Kamakura). (Sources: unifiedpatents.com, 2024-05-13; Fed. Cir. opinion below.)
  • 2026-03-26 — Federal Circuit affirmed (No. 24-2090, nonprecedential; Lourie and Hughes, JJ., and Chief District Judge Kleeh, author). (Source: cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2090.OPINION.3-26-2026_2666843.pdf; unifiedpatents.com, 2026-03-26.)
• IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corporation v. Pedersen (same '920 patent): pending as of late August 2023 per Oracle's updated mandatory notice, which also lists the Adobe IPR (then with preliminary response due 2023-10-11) and the instituted Unified IPR. I did not retrieve Oracle's IPR outcome — flagging as not well-sourced.
• Effect on the Adobe litigation: the Unified IPR's institution (2023-05-15) and, later, the 2024 FWD invalidating the core claims created substantial pressure on Pedersen's campaign. Adobe, however, settled independently in September 2023 — before the Unified FWD — obtaining a license and the with-prejudice dismissal of the W.D. Tex. suit in exchange for terminating its own IPR pre-institution. Because Adobe's IPR never reached a merits decision, Adobe faced no adverse estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). The subsequent 2024 PTAB invalidation and 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance mooted any further enforcement of claims 1 and 14–17 against any defendant.

---

IV. Bottom line

• District court action (Pedersen v. Adobe, 6:22-cv-00583, W.D. Tex.): filed 2022-06-08; reached claim-construction briefing; settled and dismissed with prejudice in September 2023 (per the joint IPR termination filing) — no trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.
• Adobe's IPR2023-00986: petition filed 2023-06-01; terminated pre-institution on 2023-10-11 based on the parties' joint motion reflecting a confidential Settlement and License Agreement.
• Parallel PTAB: Unified Patents' IPR2023-00029 was instituted 2023-05-15, resulted in a Final Written Decision of unpatentability on 2024-05-10 (claims 1, 14–17), affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-03-26 — the '920 patent's asserted claims were ultimately invalidated, though the Adobe dispute had already settled before that outcome.

Sourcing caveats: the W.D. Tex. docket I retrieved is only partially captured (through 2022-07-12), so Adobe's answer, any counterclaims, motion-to-dismiss/transfer/stay papers, and the text of the Adobe-case Markman order (IPR Ex. 1008) are not independently verified here; the existence of the claim construction briefing/order is confirmed only via the IPR exhibit list and the related Mailgun proceeding.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff/Petitioner-Opponent Peter Henrik Pedersen

The "plaintiff" here is Peter Henrik Pedersen, an individual inventor in Værløse, Denmark. He was the plaintiff in the underlying infringement suit (Pedersen v. Adobe, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG, W.D. Tex.) and the patent owner/respondent in the PTAB IPR (IPR2023-00986) that is the docketed case in your metadata. Counsel of record on both fronts came from Ramey LLP (formerly Ramey & Schwaller, LLP), Houston, Texas (5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006).

1. William P. Ramey III — Lead Plaintiff's Counsel (W.D. Tex.); Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner (IPR)

• Role: Lead/signing counsel for Pedersen in the district court action; back-up counsel for patent owner in the IPR.
• Firm/location: Managing Partner, Ramey LLP, Houston, TX.
• Evidence: Ramey signed the Complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 6/8/2022), the AO 120 notice (Dkt. 2), Certificate of Interested Parties (Dkt. 4), and all substantive plaintiff filings through at least Dkt. 27 (opposition to Adobe's § 1404(a) transfer motion, 12/13/2022) in 6:22-cv-00583 (W.D. Tex. live docket, reproduced as Adobe IPR Ex. 1009 via PTACTS; Justia docket 6:2022cv00583). The Summons issued 6/8/2022 directs service of answers on "William P. Ramey III, Ramey LLP" (Adobe IPR Ex. 1006). In IPR2023-00986, the Patent Owner's Power of Attorney (filed 6/20/2023) designates him as back-up counsel, with Jacob B. Henry as lead (DocketAlarm copy of Paper 4).
• Experience note: A prominent plaintiff-side/NPE-side patent litigator; ran Pedersen's multi-defendant campaign on the '920 patent (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/Verizon, Oracle, Salesforce, Zoho, Mailgun, Wix, Zendesk, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Adobe, etc.). RPX/Patent Watch (Jan. 28, 2024) reported on his firm's monetization practice and a D. Colo. show-cause order referencing the firm being "spread too thin" in another matter.

2. Jacob B. Henry — Lead Counsel for Patent Owner (IPR)

• Role: Lead counsel for patent owner/respondent in IPR2023-00986 (per the June 20, 2023 Patent Owner's Power of Attorney, which designates "Lead Counsel: Jacob B. Henry").
• Firm/location: Counsel (firm site) / Of Counsel (resume) at Ramey LLP, Houston, TX; USPTO Reg. No. 61,093.
• Experience note: Electrical engineering background (B.S., UTSA 2005), St. Mary's JD 1994, former U.S. Army JAG (Major, Reserve); previously of counsel at Blank Rome (2015–2019, patent prosecution) and partner at Novak Druce + Quigg (2007–2015), with inter partes/ex parte reexamination and PTAB work; also serves as patent owner counsel in other Ramey LLP IPRs (e.g., IPR2023-00120/-00733 with Amazon as petitioner).

3. Associated Ramey LLP attorneys on Pedersen's team (not confirmed as counsel of record in this IPR/docket)

• Donald Trey Mahoney (Ramey LLP, Houston) — identified in Adobe's IPR petition service list ("Patent Owner's litigation counsel," email tmahoney@rameyfirm.com) but not named in the Patent Owner's POA or confirmed on the W.D. Tex. docket as counsel of record for this case.
• Kyril Talanov (Ramey LLP, Houston) — likewise on the courtesy-copy list (ktalanov@rameyfirm.com) and confirmed as plaintiff's counsel in the parallel Pedersen v. Mailgun Technologies, No. 6:21-cv-01153 (PatSnap/PACER-derived data), but not confirmed as counsel of record in IPR2023-00986 or the Adobe W.D. Tex. case from the available record.

Notes and caveats

• No local counsel designation: Ramey LLP is a Texas firm admitted in the W.D. Tex., so no separate local counsel appears for Pedersen; by contrast, Adobe's out-of-state counsel (e.g., Michael A. Berta, Ryan J. Casamiquela, Nicholas H. Lee, Neda Dadpey) sought pro hac vice admission (Dkt. 12–15), underscoring the asymmetry.
• No in-house counsel: Pedersen is an individual inventor; no in-house counsel exists for him.
• Sealed filings: The only sealed item is the parties' confidential Settlement and License Agreement (Ex. 2001, filed with the Joint Motion to Terminate on 9/27/2023); it does not affect counsel-of-record identity. The proceeding terminated as settled on 10/11/2023 before institution, and the W.D. Tex. case was dismissed with prejudice.
• Uncertainty flagged: A Justia docket snippet for 6:22-cv-00583 shows "Represented By: Donald H. …" truncated alongside Ramey and Adobe's counsel; I could not verify the full name or role from available sources, so I do not attribute it to Pedersen's team. The formal, verifiable counsel of record for Pedersen in the IPR are Henry (lead) and Ramey (back-up); in the district court action, Ramey was the signing/lead attorney on the record.

Based on the case metadata and my research, here is the counsel-of-record picture for the defendant(s) in the underlying patent infringement case.

Clarification of "defendant" posture

This matter is a PTAB IPR (Adobe Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, IPR2023-00986) that Adobe filed defensively. The actual patent infringement case is Peter Pedersen v. Adobe, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), where Adobe Inc. is the sole defendant. Adobe's counsel of record in that case, per the W.D. Tex. docket (as reflected in Adobe's own IPR exhibit, the certified docket sheet), is set out below. I have not seen a separate defense appearance for any other defendant—the docket lists only Adobe as defendant.

Defendant Adobe Inc. — counsel of record (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00583)

1. Mark D. Siegmund — Local Counsel (Waco)

• Firm: Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, PLLC, Waco, TX (8416 Old McGregor Rd.) at time of appearance; later moved to Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, 7901 Fish Pond Rd., Suite 200, Waco, TX 76710 (he filed a Notice of Change of Address on the docket on 3/2/2023, Dkt. 30).
• Dkt. entries: Notice of Attorney Appearance for Adobe (Dkt. 7, 7/12/2022); filed the agreed answer extension (Dkt. 9), the Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 11), and the pro hac vice motions for the out-of-state Arnold & Porter attorneys (Dkts. 16–18).
• Experience: Former law clerk to Judge Alan D. Albright (W.D. Tex., 2019–2020); Baylor Law (top of class); Marine Corps veteran; active in W.D. Tex. patent docket including Textron Innovations v. DJI (co-counsel on the $279M jury verdict), DynaEnergetics v. Schlumberger, and Webroot/OpenText v. CrowdStrike. He is a go-to Waco local counsel for patent defendants.

2. Gregory Phillip Love — Local Counsel (Waco)

• Firm: Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, PLLC, Waco, TX (now member at Cherry Johnson Siegmund James LLC, Waco).
• Dkt. entries: Notice of Attorney Appearance for Adobe (Dkt. 8, 7/12/2022).
• Experience: Waco IP litigator and name partner in the firm that dominates the local-counsel role in Judge Albright's patent docket; regularly admitted pro hac vice in W.D. Tex. patent cases (e.g., WSOU Investments v. Google, where Siegmund moved for his admission).

3. Ryan J. Casamiquela — Pro Hac Vice / Lead trial counsel (Arnold & Porter)

• Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, CA (Three Embarcadero Center).
• Dkt. entries: PHV letter (Dkt. 13, 8/16/2022); PHV motion granted (Dkt. 16/19, 8/22/2022).
• Experience: Longtime Adobe litigation counsel—appeared for Adobe Systems as early as 2014 in Adobe Systems v. Wowza Media Systems (N.D. Cal.); currently leads Adobe defense in AlmondNet v. Adobe (W.D. Tex./N.D. Cal., 2025–26) and Esignature Software v. Adobe (N.D. Cal.). ~23 years' experience; Super Lawyers–rated.

4. Neda Dadpey — Pro Hac Vice (Arnold & Porter)

• Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY.
• Dkt. entries: PHV letter (Dkt. 15, 8/16/2022); PHV motion granted (Dkt. 17/20, 8/22/2022).
• Experience: Part of the same Arnold & Porter Adobe-defense team in Esignature Software v. Adobe (N.D. Cal., pro hac vice, New York office).

5. Nicholas H. Lee — Pro Hac Vice (Arnold & Porter)

• Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (office not confirmed from my sources—likely San Francisco, given the team pattern).
• Dkt. entries: PHV letter (Dkt. 14, 8/16/2022); PHV motion granted (Dkt. 18/21, 8/22/2022).
• Experience: Same Arnold & Porter Adobe-defense team; appears in Esignature Software v. Adobe (N.D. Cal.).

6. "Michael A. ___" — Pro Hac Vice (name only partially verified)

• Dkt. entry: PHV letter to Adobe for "attorney Michael A. ___" (Dkt. 12, 8/16/2022). The docket text is truncated in my source, so I could not verify the full surname. Flag: Given the parallel Esignature Software v. Adobe team list (which shows "Berta, Pro Hac Vice, ... Casamiquela ... Dadpey ... Nicholas H. ___" all at Arnold & Porter), this is likely Michael A. Berta of Arnold & Porter, but I could not independently confirm the full name from the W.D. Tex. docket in the available sources. Do not treat as confirmed without a PACER check of Dkt. 12.

7. Michelle Ma — In-house (Adobe Inc.)

• Role: Managing Counsel, Litigation, Adobe Inc.; signed Adobe's IPR Power of Attorney (5/31/23) designating IPR counsel. Not a W.D. Tex. filer of record, but the in-house attorney supervising the matter.

Related counsel in the IPR (IPR2023-00986) — Adobe as petitioner

• David A. Caine — Lead Counsel: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA (5 Palo Alto Square, Suite 500). Reg. No. 52,683; signed the Petition and Power of Attorney (Paper 2).
• Michael J. Sebba — Back-Up Counsel: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, CA (777 S. Figueroa St., 44th Fl.). Reg. No. 75,595.
• Patent owner's IPR counsel: William P. Ramey III and Jacob B. Henry (Ramey LLP, Houston) — also Pedersen's district-court counsel of record (Ramey signed the W.D. Tex. complaint, Dkt. 1), with Donald Trey Mahoney and Kyril Talanov copied on IPR service.

Caveats

• The W.D. Tex. scheduling order that would formally designate "lead counsel" was not in my sources; the designation of Casamiquela as lead vs. the Waco attorneys as local counsel is an inference from the PHV structure and his role in parallel Adobe cases.
• Docket entry 12's "Michael A." attorney is partially truncated in the PTACTS/ECF excerpt I retrieved; full name and firm office should be confirmed on PACER (Dkt. 12, 16) before relying on it.
• The case was dismissed with prejudice per the settlement (joint motion filed 9/27/2023; IPR terminated 10/11/2023), so all appearances were later terminated by the dismissal.