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.

I'll research the petitioner/plaintiff's counsel in PGR2025-00066.

Petitioner/Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — PGR2025-00066

Bottom line: I could not verify the names of ES&S's counsel of record from available public sources, and I will not guess. Below is what the record does and does not show, plus the specific sources that would resolve it.

1. Threshold clarification on the question's framing

The task asks for counsel "representing the plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case." Two corrections, flagged per operating rules:

• This is not a patent infringement case. PGR2025-00066 is an administrative post-grant review before the PTAB. Election Systems & Software, LLC is the Petitioner (not plaintiff); Hart InterCivic Inc. is the Patent Owner (not defendant). There is no complaint, no PACER docket, and no local counsel in the district-court sense. PACER and court-opinion sources are therefore inapplicable to this question.
• Caption/patent-title inconsistency (flagging a contradiction in the prior sections). The "Case overview" section states the '319 patent is titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE ELECTRONIC BALLOT VOTING." The petition-level analysis of PGR2025-00066 describes the '319 patent as directed to "Optical Character Recognition of Voter Selections for Cast Vote Records." These cannot both be right; the petition analysis is more specific and is probably the accurate characterization of the challenged subject matter, but I could not confirm the face-of-patent title from an official USPTO source. This should be corrected in the earlier section.

2. Why the petitioner's counsel is not in the searchable record

• Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) and (b)(3), a petitioner must identify lead and back-up counsel as part of the petition itself. For PGR2025-00066, that designation would appear in the Mandatory Notices section of the petition (Paper 2, filed July 17, 2025).
• Automated case-summary sources for this proceeding (e.g., the Ex Parte petition analysis at ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00066/doc/summary/2, and the Arctic Invent institution-decision summary at cases.arcticinvent.com/us/patent/us/institution-decision-deny/pgr2025-00066/) reproduce the grounds, claims 1–40, and the denial-of-institution outcome, but neither reproduces the § 42.8 counsel block. Searches targeting those terms returned no petition text for this case number.
• I was unable to retrieve the PTACTS petition document itself (the ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/<ID>/download-documents URL requires the petition ID, which did not surface in search).

3. What is confirmed on the other side (cross-reference only)

The only attorney verified in connection with this proceeding is Harper Batts (Fish IP Law LLP, Irvine, CA), counsel for Patent Owner Hart InterCivic — already documented in the "Defendant representatives" section and not repeated here. Notably, that identification likewise appears to come from general PTAB/firm records rather than a retrieved § 42.8 notice in this case, so it should be treated as probable rather than docket-confirmed.

4. Related proceeding, and a caution against inference

ES&S previously petitioned against a related Hart patent in PGR2020-00031, Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Hart InterCivic, Inc., Patent 10,445,966 B1, which reached a Final Written Decision on September 1, 2021 holding all challenged claims unpatentable (panel: APJs Boudreau, Wieker, Repko). That decision is public, but the retrieved text of it does not list petitioner's counsel, so I cannot responsibly carry counsel over from 2020 to this 2025 filing. Firms are frequently changed between campaigns, and no source ties any 2020 counsel to PGR2025-00066.

Similarly, ES&S's outside counsel in Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Dominion Voting Systems (D. Del. 1:17-cv-01172-CJB) and in Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Election Systems & Software (IPR2019-00527/-00531) appear in third-party expert disclosures, but none of those names can be attributed to this PGR and I am not listing them as counsel here.

5. Practical significance

Because the Board denied institution on the merits (Notice of Decision dated January 9, 2026, per the prior sections; corroborated by the Arctic Invent summary), there will be no patent owner response, no scheduling order, and no further counsel appearances absent a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) or a Director Review request under § 42.75. Any such filing would name ES&S's counsel and would be the most likely additional public source. As noted in the earlier section, it is also unresolved whether this decision issued from a three-member panel or under the Director-level institution process announced in October 2025 — the papers would resolve both points.

6. How to close the gap (recommended verification)

1. PTAB Endpoint / PTACTS: pull the PGR2025-00066 docket and open Paper 2 (Petition, filed 2025-07-17), Mandatory Notices § 42.8(b)(3) — this is the authoritative lead/back-up counsel designation, with firm, address, and Reg. Nos.
2. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for the '319 patent's prosecution file (power of attorney filings) as a secondary check.
3. PTAB "Trials@uspto.gov" correspondence and the Notice of Decision's certificate of service, which lists petitioner's counsel e-mail addresses.
4. If a request for rehearing was filed, check the Board's Representative Orders / Rehearing Decisions page for PGR2025-00066.

No attorney has been invented for ES&S in this answer. The record I could access simply does not establish who its counsel of record is, and I'd rather report that gap than populate the section with plausible-but-unsourced names.

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.