Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Hart InterCivic Inc.

Election Systems & Software, LLC (ES&S) initiated a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition against Hart InterCivic Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of US Patent 12125319. Both parties are major operating companies and fierce competitors in the vital US election technology market. ES&S, based in Omaha, Nebraska, manufactures and sells a wide range of voting machine equipment and services, including vote tabulators, electronic voting machines, and election management systems, holding a significant market share in the industry. Similarly, Hart InterCivic, headquartered in Austin, Texas, provides comprehensive election technologies and services, such as election cycle management software (e.g., Verity Voting systems), electronic poll books, and ballot origination systems, serving numerous government jurisdictions nationwide. The competitive landscape between these two entities has historically led to disputes, including past procurement protests and antitrust litigation, underscoring the strategic importance of intellectual property in their sector.

The patent at issue, US Patent 12125319, titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE ELECTRONIC BALLOT VOTING", pertains to secure electronic voting systems. It describes methods and apparatus for providing a secure and verifiable electronic voting experience, which is a critical area for both companies and for the integrity of public elections. As this case is a PGR, there is no directly "accused product" in the traditional infringement sense; instead, ES&S sought to invalidate Hart InterCivic's patent claims.

The procedural posture involves a Post-Grant Review (PGR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), under case number PGR2025-00066. The PTAB is an administrative tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that provides an alternative forum for challenging the validity of patents. PGRs are particularly relevant for newer patents (those issuing from applications filed on or after March 16, 2013) because they allow petitioners to challenge patentability on a broad array of grounds, including novelty, obviousness, and written description, using a lower institution standard than inter partes review (IPR). In this instance, the PTAB decided not to institute the PGR on the merits, meaning the Board found that ES&S did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of US Patent 12125319 was unpatentable. This "Not Instituted" outcome is notable as it represents a successful defense by Hart InterCivic, allowing their patent to maintain its presumption of validity against this specific challenge. The case is significant due to the involvement of two leading election technology providers, where patent disputes can impact the development and deployment of critical voting infrastructure, an area of continuous public scrutiny regarding security and accuracy.

The Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Hart InterCivic Inc. (PGR2025-00066), involved a challenge to US Patent 12125319. The petition was filed by Election Systems & Software, LLC (ES&S) on July 17, 2025, against Hart InterCivic Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing of PGR Petition (2025-07-17): Election Systems & Software, LLC filed a Post-Grant Review petition (PGR2025-00066) with the PTAB, challenging US Patent 12125319 owned by Hart InterCivic Inc.
• Institution Decision (2026-01-09): The PTAB issued a Notice of Decision on Institution on January 9, 2026. The petition was not instituted on the merits. This means the Board found that ES&S did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. This outcome represents a successful defense by Hart InterCivic, allowing their patent to maintain its presumption of validity against this specific challenge. Notably, in October 2025, USPTO Director Squires announced that the Director would personally determine institution decisions for IPR and PGR proceedings, expanding Director-level involvement to institution decisions based on the merits, which came into effect on October 20, 2025. It is unclear from the search results whether the institution decision for PGR2025-00066 was made under this new Director review process or by a three-member panel, as petitions referred to the PTAB prior to October 20, 2025, were to remain with a three-member panel.
• Final Disposition: The case's status is "Not Instituted - Merits," indicating its final disposition at the PTAB. There is no indication of any ongoing appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the PTAB's decision not to institute the PGR.
• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: The records indicate that PGR2025-00066 is the only known litigation involving US Patent 12125319. No parallel district court litigation was identified in the provided information.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["PGR2025-00066 Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Hart InterCivic Inc. counsel", "Election Systems & Software, LLC patent litigation counsel", "Hart InterCivic Inc. patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Election Systems & Software, LLC, in the PTAB PGR case PGR2025-00066. I need to find information about the attorneys, their roles, firms, and locations, as well as any relevant experience. I will primarily use web search, targeting PTAB dockets, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Since the case is a PGR at the PTAB, PACER might not be the primary source for counsel information, but the PTAB-PRPS system (Patent Review Processing System) would be. However, I will rely on publicly available search results.The counsel of record for Election Systems & Software, LLC in the Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2025-00066 is not explicitly listed in the readily available web search results. While some past PTAB cases involving Election Systems & Software, LLC against Hart InterCivic Inc. (specifically PGR2020-00031) mention attorneys such as Robert M. Evans, Jr. of Lewis Rice LLC, and Richard D. Egan, these references pertain to a different PGR case with a distinct case number and patent.

As PTAB filings can often contain attorney information, a direct review of the official PTAB docket for PGR2025-00066 would be necessary to definitively identify the lead counsel, their firms, and roles. Without access to the specific docket entries for PGR2025-00066, a complete and authoritative list of counsel cannot be provided.

In the Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2025-00066, Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Hart InterCivic Inc., challenging US Patent 12125319, Hart InterCivic Inc. was represented by counsel from Fish IP Law LLP.

The following attorney represented Hart InterCivic Inc.:

• Harper Batts - Attorney for Patent Owner (Hart InterCivic Inc.).
  • Firm: Fish IP Law LLP, Irvine, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Harper Batts is a registered patent attorney. Previous PTAB documents indicate representation in other PTAB proceedings.

While the search results for this specific PGR (PGR2025-00066) primarily identify Harper Batts, it's worth noting that in other legal contexts, Hart InterCivic Inc. has been represented by other firms and attorneys. For instance, in an amicus curiae brief, Peter D. Kennedy of Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, P.C. represented Hart InterCivic, Inc. Hart InterCivic also has in-house leadership, though specific in-house counsel for patent litigation are not identified in the provided search results.