Unified Patents, LLC v. Onesta IP, LLC
Not Instituted - Procedural- Docket:
- IPR2026-00011
This PTAB case was filed by Unified Patents, but the review was not initiated on its merits for procedural reasons.
Defendant
1 case as defendant.
Onesta IP, LLC is a patent assertion entity that does not appear to have any products or business operations. Public records indicate it was formed as a Delaware LLC in August 2024. There is no public information regarding its employee count or revenue. Legal filings provide an address in Wayne, Pennsylvania, but little else is known about its management or ownership structure, other than a disclosure that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its interest.
As a non-practicing entity (NPE), Onesta IP's business is centered on licensing and litigating a patent portfolio. In November 2024, it acquired a portfolio of roughly 100 U.S. patents from semiconductor company Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) and its subsidiary ATI Technologies. The patents generally relate to semiconductor technology, including graphics processing, processor and memory operation, neural networks, and video streaming.
Onesta IP acts as a plaintiff in patent litigation. The provided case data shows it has filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue known for patent cases. In April 2025, it sued Qualcomm and NVIDIA, asserting infringement of patents from the portfolio acquired from AMD. The lawsuits allege that the companies' Snapdragon and other processor chips, which are used in a wide variety of electronic devices, infringe on its patents related to GPU chiplets, memory management, and CPU power management. Onesta is also a defendant in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding initiated by Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by NPEs.
A notable aspect of Onesta IP's strategy emerged in late 2025 when it sued automaker BMW in a Munich, Germany court, asserting infringement of two U.S. patents alongside a European patent. This represented a novel attempt to enforce U.S. patents in a European court. BMW responded by seeking and obtaining an anti-suit injunction from the Western District of Texas to halt the German proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately dismissed an appeal by Onesta, and Onesta terminated the German cases.
This PTAB case was filed by Unified Patents, but the review was not initiated on its merits for procedural reasons.