Plaintiff
21 cases as plaintiff.
Peter Henrik Pedersen is not a company but an individual — a Danish-born inventor and the sole named owner of U.S. Patent 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued 2005, priority 2000). Public sources do not disclose a headquarters, employees, or revenue for him; he is a private individual with no ticker or parent company. Unified Patents reports he is "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions," an IP-consulting firm, though that link is not independently confirmed.
Products / operations. Pedersen has no operating business and sells no products or services. He is a classic non-practicing entity (NPE) — Unified Patents' own portal classifies him as "NPE (Individual)," and RPX describes his activity as a "sole litigation campaign" over a single patent. The '920 patent covers a system that manages distribution of electronic messages based on profiles maintained by both senders and recipients (delivery rules for where, when, and how messages reach a recipient). Pedersen has accused email-marketing platforms and webmail products of infringement.
Litigation posture. The case data shows 21 plaintiff appearances versus 4 defendant appearances — the profile of an assertive patent holder, not an operating company defending itself. The campaign began in November 2021 in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division, with some cases later transferred to Austin), a venue frequently used by NPE plaintiffs. Defendants include Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/Verizon, Oracle, Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, SAP America, Zendesk, Wix, Ziff Davis/J2 Global, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, and others. The four defendant-side appearances are countermeasures: inter partes reviews filed by Adobe, Oracle, and Unified Patents at the PTAB, plus SAP's declaratory-judgment suit.
Notable context. In Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen (IPR2023-00029), the PTAB held all challenged claims of the '920 patent unpatentable (May 2024); the Federal Circuit affirmed in Pedersen v. Unified Patents (Mar. 26, 2026), extinguishing enforceability of those claims. The patent's validity was central to the entire campaign, and the affirmance largely neutralized it.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Peter Henrik Pedersen files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Blackbaud, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was active.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Zendesk, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was open or active according to Unified Patents data.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Constant Contact, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was active.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Monday.com, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was active.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Madwire, LLC concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was pending, with answer deadlines extended as of mid-2022.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against SAP America, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the case was closed on March 6, 2023.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Wix.com, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was active.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Yahoo Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. It was terminated after motion practice on venue/pleading; a jury was demanded by both sides.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Google LLC in the Western District of Texas concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was terminated.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Mailgun Technologies, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was active per the Docket Navigator exhibit.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. J2 Global, Inc. et al. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Zoho Corp. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Salesforce.com, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Oracle Corporation concerning US Patent 6,965,920. The case was transferred from Waco to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas on August 24, 2023; claims survived transfer, there was no merits ruling, and the case remained open.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Adobe Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Aurea Software, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Intuit, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Upland Software, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Infringement action listed as Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, Inc. concerning US Patent 6,965,920; current status was not confirmed in the narrative.
Peter Henrik Pedersen appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00029. The Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026, holding claims 1 and 14-17 of US Patent 6,965,920 unpatentable as obvious.