Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC

I'll research this case before drafting. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the parties, the related district court litigation, and the PTAB proceedings.

Now let me check whether the '274 patent was asserted in district court and gather more on Ideahub's enforcement campaign and the prior related appeals.

Framing caveat (important)

The prompt describes this as patent infringement litigation with an accused product and a district-court venue. That is not what Court of Appeals No. 2024‑1684 is. The docket and the Rule 36 judgment show a single-issue appeal from an administrative validity proceeding: Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc., PGR2022‑00044, which the PTAB decided on February 5, 2024 by holding all claims of U.S. Patent 11,122,274 unpatentable. Unified is the petitioner (a defensive aggregator), not an accused infringer, and there is no defendant, no accused product, and no district court in this case. The judgment (Fed. Cir., Apr. 10, 2026, Doc. 55) simply states: "PER CURIAM (HUGHES and STOLL, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, Chief District Judge) … AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36," appeal from "the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. PGR202200044." I flag this because several third‑party summaries (e.g., PatSnap) mislabel the parties as "Plaintiff/Defendant" and the outcome as "cancellation"; the substance is an affirmance of an unpatentability holding, not an infringement ruling.

Parties and technologies

Ideahub Inc. is a South Korean patent monetization firm (an NPE/PAE in Unified's characterization), founded in 2016 and led by CEO Kyeong‑su "Keith" Im, a former TiVo/Rovi licensing executive. It acquires and asserts portfolios from sources including ETRI, SK Planet, Pantech, Yonsei and KAIST, JVC, and GE Embedded Electronics, and runs assertions through subsidiaries such as Helios Streaming LLC (MPEG‑DASH streaming patents asserted against Showtime, Vudu, Crackle, Starz, Warner Bros., HBO, and in Europe against Rakuten and DAZN), ImberaTek LLC (semiconductor packaging, against Samsung and Apple), FairLight Innovations LLC, and Pantek/Pantech (LTE/5G SEPs against Lenovo, TCL, Tinno, OnePlus, HMD before EDTX Judge Gilstrap and the ITC). Unified Patents, LLC is a member‑funded defensive patent consortium that files IPRs, PGRs, and ex parte reexaminations to deter NPE assertions; the '274 challenge was filed under its "SEP Video Codec Zone" and Unified states it was only its second-ever PGR (Unified, June 13, 2022). Counsel on appeal: Mintz (Michael Newman, who argued; Peter Cuomo, Amy LoBue, James Wodarski) for Ideahub; Haynes and Boone (Michael Qian, who argued, with Debra Janece McComas, David L. McCombs, Jonathan R. Bowser, Angela M. Oliver) plus Unified in-house (Roshan Mansinghani, Jessica L. A. Marks) for Unified; at the PTAB, Haynes and Boone for Unified and Sughrue Mion (Kiblawi, Mandir, Rabena, Rachuba) for Ideahub.

The patent and what was actually at stake

The sole patent at issue is U.S. 11,122,274 B2 ("Video Encoding and Decoding Method") — a video‑coding patent claiming a decoder that determines a neighboring block's intra‑prediction mode and then builds the current block's candidate intra‑prediction modes from two different sets of mathematical expressions depending on whether the neighboring mode has directionality, then selects and applies the current mode. That is essentially the HEVC/H.265 most‑probable‑mode derivation (candIntraPredModeA/B, candModeList, mpm_idx), and Unified has stated the patent "has been designated essential to the Access Advance patent pool" (HEVC Advance lists IDEAHUB Inc. as a licensor; Ideahub also appears as a licensor in Access Advance's VVC and VDP pools). There is therefore no accused product in this case; the real-world "accused" technology is any HEVC‑compliant codec implementation, and the challenged subject matter encompassed both the specification's disclosure and the HEVC standard itself. The '274 shares a specification with U.S. 9,641,849, which was invalidated in IPR2020‑00702 and affirmed sub nom. Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022‑1160 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2023). Notably, Unified conceded in the PGR that "the '274 patent was not the subject of any parallel district court litigation" (its § 314(a)/Fintiv argument), so there is no infringement suit over this patent to report. Sibling Ideahub video patents have been attacked separately: U.S. 10,904,539 (ex parte reexam filed Jan. 31, 2025), U.S. 10,212,422 (VVC, ex parte reexam filed Aug. 28, 2026), U.S. 8,645,562 (streaming, invalidated Feb. 7, 2022), and EP 3402195 (revoked at the EPO, confirmed on appeal Nov. 6, 2025).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters

Unified filed the PGR on June 9, 2022 — necessarily within nine months of the patent's 2021 issuance and, critically, as a post‑grant vehicle because the effective filing date is post‑AIA (the petition argued the claims get no earlier than a May 8, 2019 effective date, which both opened the PGR window and made the June 2013 HEVC standard available prior art). The Board instituted on February 6, 2023, heard argument November 6, 2023 (APJs White, Cherry, Ullagaddi), and issued its final written decision February 5, 2024, holding claims 1–13 unpatentable for lack of written description, having first held Ideahub collaterally estopped from relitigating the written‑description issue decided in IPR2020‑00702. Ideahub appealed; the appeal was docketed April 12, 2024, argued in early April 2026, and affirmed under Rule 36 on April 10, 2026 (no written opinion, so no reasoning on the merits is on the public record). The "venue" point is thus inverted: the forum of first instance was the PTAB, reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act/§ 141 route rather than as a district court case, and the absence of any district court action is itself the reason Unified could avoid Fintiv discretionary denial. The dispute's legal significance lies in the collateral‑estoppel holding — whether the Board may apply issue preclusion from an earlier IPR's motion‑to‑amend written‑description ruling without formally construing the disputed phrases ("determining an intra mode for a neighboring block" vs. "associated with a neighboring block"), which was the entire thrust of Ideahub's argument at the Federal Circuit (see the oral‑argument transcript, CourtListener audio ID 104163). Finnegan's At the PTAB blog (June 18, 2024) flagged the decision as a notable application of collateral estoppel to PTAB unpatentability findings between related patents sharing a specification. Because the affirmance was under Rule 36, it has no precedential effect; its practical significance is that a pool‑declared HEVC SEP was finally cancelled, tightening the very small set of patents (the '274 was one of only two PGRs Unified had ever filed) that Unified was willing to take through post‑grant review in the codec SEP licensing wars involving Access Advance, Avanci Video, and Sisvel.

Sourcing note: docket facts (filing dates, panel, judgment text, counsel) come from the Federal Circuit's posted judgment and the Justia/CourtListener docket for 24‑1684; the PGR record and holdings come from Finnegan's At the PTAB analysis, Unified's own case postings, and the PTAB hearing transcript posted via Docket Alarm; pool‑membership facts come from Access Advance's licensor lists and Unified's notices. I could not independently verify the '274 patent's exact issue date, whether the Board reached the HEVC anticipation/obviousness ground in addition to written description, or the arguing attorney's name as rendered in the AI transcript (which says "Michael Chen" while the judgment lists Michael Qian) — those points should be confirmed against the FWD (PGR2022‑00044, Paper 27) and the official PACER docket.

I'll research this case across the Federal Circuit, PTAB, and any related district court proceedings.

This is an appeal from a PTAB PGR rather than a district court case — let me verify whether any district court litigation on the '274 patent exists, and pin down the full chronology.

Now let me check for any parallel district court litigation by Ideahub, the related '849 patent appeal (22-1160), and the Federal Circuit docket for 24-1684.

Threshold correction: this is not an infringement litigation

There is no district court infringement case in this matter, and none appears in the record. Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024‑1684 (Fed. Cir.) is an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board post‑grant review decision — PGR2022‑00044, Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc., on U.S. Patent No. 11,122,274. Unified Patents is not an accused infringer; it is a defensive patent‑challenging entity that filed the PGR as part of its "SEP Video Codec Zone" program against a patent designated essential to the Access Advance (f/k/a HEVC Advance) pool (Unified Patents, 2024‑02‑05).

Unified's petition itself argued that Fintiv discretionary denial was inapplicable because "the '274 patent was not the subject of any parallel district court litigation" (petition analysis, PGR2022‑00044). So there are no complaints, answers, counterclaims, motions to dismiss/transfer/stay, Markman rulings, discovery orders, trials, verdicts, JMOL/new‑trial motions, or fee awards to report on. Below I map the requested items onto the actual record, flagging what does not exist, and then give the true chronology — including the PTAB analogues of pre‑trial and trial events.

---

A. Items you asked about that do not exist in this case

Factual caveat: I could not independently verify whether some district court case ever asserted the '274 patent in a non‑public or unindexed filing. Everything in the public record points the other way.

---

B. Chronological developments (actual record)

1. Patent family and prior, preclusive litigation

• 2010 / 2017 / 2019 — priority chain. The '274 patent (Video Encoding Apparatus, Video Decoding Apparatus, and Video Decoding Method for Performing Intra‑Prediction Based on Directionality of Neighboring Block) issued from application 16/407,086, filed 2019‑05‑08, claiming priority to 15/260,240 and, ultimately, to pre‑AI 12/977,928 (filed 2010). The '274 patent shares the same specification as U.S. Patent No. 9,641,849. Effective filing date was itself a contested issue: because limitation [1.1] was allegedly unsupported by the 2010 priority application, Unified argued the '274 patent was not entitled to a pre‑2013 priority date, which both made it PGR‑eligible and made the HEVC standard (ITU‑T H.265, published 2013) available as prior art (Ex. 1011 case analysis).
• 2020‑03‑12 — IPR2020‑00702 filed by Unified against the '849 patent. Final Written Decision (Paper 52) held all challenged claims unpatentable and denied patent owner's contingent motion to amend, holding that proposed substitute claim 19 (reciting "determining an intra mode for a neighboring block") lacked written description support. This is the judgment that later precluded Ideahub.
• 2020‑07‑23 — IPR2020‑01338 (Unified v. Ideahub); 2020‑09‑26 — IPR2020‑01688 and ‑01689 (VUDU v. Ideahub). All reached final written decisions — a broader, coordinated validity attack on Ideahub's codec portfolio (IP Verse, Ideahub PTAB history).
• 2023‑02‑10 — Federal Circuit affirms the '702 IPR in Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022‑1160, 2023 WL 1878575 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2023), as noted in Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Dkt. entry). This affirmance, issued during the pendency of the PGR, hardened the collateral estoppel posture.

2. PGR2022‑00044: institution phase (functionally, "pleadings")

• 2022‑06‑09 — Unified files the PGR petition challenging claims 1–13 on two grounds: (1) § 112(a) lack of written description (with collateral estoppel); (2) anticipation/obviousness over the HEVC standard (Ex. 1006) in view of Sze (Ex. 1007). Supporting declaration of Dr. Immanuel Freedman. Petition argued no § 325(d) or § 314(a) discretion to deny. Real parties in interest: Unified; patent owner identified Ideahub Inc. and Access Advance LLC (f/k/a HEVC Advance LLC) (docket).
• Preliminary response phase: Ideahub filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6) with the declaration of Dr. Clifford Reader (Ex. 2001); Unified filed an authorized Reply (Paper 8); Ideahub filed a Sur‑reply (Paper 9).
• 2023‑02‑06 — Institution Decision (Paper 10). Board instituted PGR under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and — critically for the appeal — held the collateral estoppel arguments "in abeyance," while observing that the written‑description issue for limitation 1.1 was "substantially identical" to the '702 IPR issue and that Ideahub's claim‑scope-difference argument had been found unpersuasive. The institution decision also adopted a provisional reading that limitation 1.1 requires the intra mode used to decode the neighboring block, a reading the Board later declined to reaffirm (Federal Circuit oral argument transcript, PatSnap/CourtListener).

3. PGR trial phase (functionally, "discovery and motions")

• 2023‑05‑01 — Patent Owner Response (Paper 14). Ideahub argued that element 1.1 must be construed and that "associated with" is broader than "for," encompassing "identifying, in relation to a neighboring block, a value of an intra mode," and that the specification (Equation 2) provides written description support.
• 2023‑07‑11 / 2023‑07‑31 — deposition of Dr. Clifford Reader, noticed by Petitioner; conducted remotely. This is the principal "discovery" event of strategic significance: Petitioner later argued Dr. Reader's testimony deserved little weight on the "singular intra mode" issue.
• Mid‑2023 — Petitioner's Reply (Paper 19) and Patent Owner's Sur‑reply (Paper 21). In reply, Unified retreated from the "mode used to decode the neighboring block" requirement — a shift Ideahub used on appeal to argue the Board never settled the construction.
• 2023‑11‑06 — Oral hearing before APJs Stacey G. White, Kevin W. Cherry, and Monica S. Ullagaddi (transcript, Paper 26). Ideahub pressed for a Phillips-based construction of "associated with"; Unified argued "for" and "associated with" are the same in context and that a singular‑mode written‑description failure carries over independent of that dispute.

4. Final Written Decision — the closest thing to a trial outcome

• 2024‑02‑05 — Final Written Decision (Paper 27). The Board held all challenged claims 1–13 unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a), on the strength of collateral estoppel from IPR2020‑00702. The Board found no indication that "associated with" means something different from "for," that "determining" in both claims means determining a single mode/value, and that Ideahub failed to show the two limitations differed in scope; therefore the '702 IPR presented an identical issue, and — because the specifications are identical — the '274 claims lack written description support (Finnegan, "Collateral Estoppel in PGR," 2024‑06‑18; Mondaq, 2024‑06‑21). Ideahub did not contest collateral‑estoppel factors 2–4. Because the collateral estoppel/written description ground disposed of all claims, the HEVC anticipation/obviousness ground did not drive the outcome.
• Post‑decision (notably, no motion to amend). Ideahub filed no contingent motion to amend in the PGR — relevant because 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3) now bars claims not patentably distinct from the cancelled claims.

5. Appeal to the Federal Circuit

• 2024‑04‑08 — Notice of appeal received; 2024‑04‑12 — appeal docketed as No. 2024‑1684 (origin: PTO) (Justia docket; CourtListener docket).
• Issues on appeal (from the argument transcript):
  • Whether the Board may apply collateral estoppel without first performing a Phillips claim construction of "associated with" vs. "for," and whether it improperly shifted the burden to the patent owner to prove non‑identity.
  • Whether it disregarded the presumption that different claim terms carry different scope.
  • Whether the Board's explanation satisfied the reasoned‑decision requirement (Ideahub relied on ParkerVision).
  • Unified's alternative grounds: (i) independent written‑description failure as to a singular neighboring intra mode; (ii) forfeiture of Ideahub's new reply‑brief theory. Panel (Hughes, Stoll, Seeborg, C.J., by designation) probed whether the Board's discussion in the appendix at A22–A24 amounted to a construction.
• Oral argument: heard in 2026 (the court posted the audio; transcript at CourtListener audio 104163; CAFC page). I could not pin the exact argument date from the sources retrieved — treat the specific date as unverified.
• 2026‑04‑10 — Judgment: AFFIRMED, per curiam, under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential, no opinion). Panel: Hughes and Stoll, Circuit Judges, and Seeborg, Chief District Judge (N.D. Cal.), sitting by designation (judgment PDF; Justia).
• Post‑judgment: No petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and no certiorari petition, appears in the public record as of 2026‑09‑13 (the metadata lists the appeal as terminated 2026‑04‑10). Rule 36 dispositions carry no written reasoning, so there is no citable Federal Circuit analysis of the collateral‑estoppel/claim‑construction question.

6. Counsel

• Ideahub (appellant): Michael Newman (argued), Peter Cuomo, Amy LoBue, James M. Wodarski — Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC. Below, Ideahub was represented by Sughrue Mion (Fadi N. Kiblawi, Kevin Kunzendorf, William H. Mandir, John F. Rabena, L. Roman Rachuba).
• Unified (appellee): Michael Qian (argued), Debra Janece McComas, David L. McCombs — Haynes and Boone LLP; Jonathan R. Bowser, Angela M. Oliver (Washington, DC); with in‑house Roshan Mansinghani and Jessica Leann Andersen Marks. Below, Petitioner's lead counsel was Raghav Bajaj (Haynes and Boone, Reg. No. 66,630).

---

C. Parallel proceedings and their effect

1. IPR2020‑00702 ('849 patent) — decisive. Its FWD (all claims unpatentable; proposed claim 19 unsupported by written description) plus the Federal Circuit's 2023‑02‑10 affirmance supplied the collateral estoppel that dispositive resolved PGR2022‑00044 without the Board ever construing the terms.
2. No IPR/PGR on the '274 patent other than PGR2022‑00044. No stay, no parallel district case, no Fintiv issue.
3. Collateral family activity. Ideahub's pending continuation 17/407,865 received a Notice of Allowance on 2023‑11‑28 — days before the FWD window and now subject to § 42.73(d)(3) estoppel risk. Unified's campaign continued against other Ideahub Access Advance SEPs: ex parte reexamination of U.S. 10,904,539 filed 2025‑01‑31 and of U.S. 10,212,422 filed 2026‑08‑28 (Unified, Video Codec tag). In Europe, EP 3402195 (formerly ETRI, now Ideahub) was revoked (announced 2023‑11‑22), with the EPO Board of Appeals confirming revocation on 2025‑11‑06.
4. Enforcement context (not on the '274 patent). Ideahub affiliate Helios Streaming has asserted DASH patents in the UPC and Munich against Rakuten/DAZN — the closest thing to parallel infringement activity involving the Ideahub side, but unrelated to the '274 patent (IPR Mofcom/IP Fray summary, 2026‑01).

---

D. Bottom line

Outcome: The '274 patent's claims 1–13 stand cancelled. A collateral‑estoppel-driven written‑description holding became final when the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed on 2026‑04‑10 in a Rule 36 judgment. The legal significance lies in the appellate question Ideahub raised — whether estoppel may be applied, and the "different terms, different scope" presumption overcome, without an express Phillips construction — but because the disposition is a one‑page, nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, the Federal Circuit created no binding law on that issue, and the panel's reasoning is not on the public record. If you need the same question as reasoned precedent, the place to look is the Board's Paper 27 in PGR2022‑00044 and the Finnegan analysis of it; Ideahub's contrary authority was ParkerVision, as argued at the hearing.

I'll research the counsel of record for Ideahub Inc. in this Federal Circuit appeal.

I have the key sources. Let me now research the individual Mintz attorneys representing IdeaHub and confirm their details.

Preliminary clarification on the case

Before naming counsel, one correction to the framing: this docket (Fed. Cir. 2024‑1684) is not a patent-infringement lawsuit. It is Ideahub Inc.'s appeal from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in PGR2022‑00044, Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc. (U.S. Patent No. 11,122,274), which was affirmed by a per curiam Rule 36 judgment on April 10, 2026. The PTAB record itself noted there was no parallel district-court litigation on the '274 patent, so there is no district-court docket with plaintiff's counsel. The "plaintiff"/appellant is Ideahub Inc.; the appellee is Unified Patents, LLC.

Source: Fed. Cir. Rule 36 Judgment, Case 24‑1684, Doc. 55 (Apr. 10, 2026), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1684.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.4-10-2026_2674421.pdf; Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024‑1684 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2026), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1684/24-1684-2026-04-10.html.

Counsel of record for Appellant Ideahub Inc. (Federal Circuit, 2024‑1684)

The Federal Circuit's judgment identifies the appellant's representation as: "MICHAEL NEWMAN, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellant. Also represented by PETER CUOMO, AMY LOBUE, JAMES M. WODARSKI." All four are at Mintz (Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.), One Financial Center, Boston, MA. Note: the Rule 36 judgment does not formally designate "lead" vs. "of counsel" among them; the role characterizations below are inferences from who argued and from firm titles.

Sources: Rule 36 Judgment, Doc. 55 (supra); Mintz attorney bios, https://www.mintz.com/our-people/michael-c-newman (see also National Law Review profile), https://www.mintz.com/our-people/peter-j-cuomo, https://www.mintz.com/our-people/amy-lobue; Martindale/Best Lawyers entries for Newman, Cuomo; Mintz press materials (Nanoco $150M settlement; Glycosyn ITC team). PatSnap's docket-derived summary independently lists Newman, Cuomo, LoBue and Wodarski as "Plaintiff counsel" and Mintz as "Plaintiff law firm."

Related representation (context, not the Federal Circuit docket)

• Underlying PTAB proceeding (PGR2022‑00044) — Ideahub (Patent Owner) was represented by Sughrue Mion, PLLC: lead counsel Fadi Kiblawi, with William H. Mandir, Kevin Kunzendorf, John Rabena, and Lawrence Rachuba (Washington, D.C., and Tokyo). Updated mandatory notices dated Nov. 18, 2022. Source: PTAB PGR2022‑00044 Updated Mandatory Notices; hearing transcript (Jan. 26, 2024).
• Prior Federal Circuit appeal, No. 2022‑1160 (IPR2020‑00702, '849 patent) — Ideahub was represented by Kayvan B. Noroozi, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles. Source: Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022‑1160 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2023).
• Appellee Unified Patents — Haynes and Boone, LLP (Michael Qian argued; Debra Janece McComas, David L. McCombs, Jonathan R. Bowser, Angela M. Oliver) plus Unified in-house counsel Roshan Mansinghani and Jessica Leann Andersen Marks.

Caveats

• The public Rule 36 judgment lists the four Mintz attorneys en bloc; it does not assign "lead," "of counsel," or "local counsel" titles. I did not locate a docket entry (e.g., a separate appearance form) that formally designates lead counsel on the Federal Circuit docket.
• No filings in this matter appear to be sealed; the counsel identification comes from the face of the judgment.
• I could not confirm whether Mintz also served as Ideahub's counsel at the PTAB stage — the PTAB record indicates Sughrue Mion handled that phase, with Mintz taking over on appeal. Any inference that Mintz represented Ideahub below is unverified.

I'll research the counsel of record for Unified Patents, LLC in this Federal Circuit appeal.

I have the core record. Let me verify the individual attorneys' roles, offices, and the Federal Circuit docket appearances.

Let me pull the Federal Circuit docket parties list for this specific appeal and verify the remaining attorneys.

Important framing note before the counsel list

The case metadata labels this a "patent infringement case," but no district court infringement suit is at issue here. IdeaHub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-1684 (Fed. Cir.), is a Federal Circuit appeal from a PTAB post-grant review — Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc., PGR2022-00044, concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,122,274. Unified Patents is therefore the Appellee/Petitioner, not a "defendant" in the infringement sense. The counsel below are Unified's appellate counsel of record in the appeal.

The authoritative source is the Rule 36 Judgment's caption (Case: 24-1684, Document 55, filed 04/10/2026): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1684.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.4-10-2026_2674421.pdf

---

Counsel of record for Unified Patents, LLC (Appellee) — Fed. Cir. No. 2024-1684

Michael Qian — argued for appellee (appellate/oral-advocate role)

• Haynes and Boone, LLP — Dallas, TX (also Washington, DC office)
• Partner in the firm's Appellate, Litigation, and U.S. Supreme Court practices; joined Haynes Boone Aug. 2025. Former Counselor to the U.S. Attorney General; Bristow Fellow in the Solicitor General's Office; clerked for Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and then-Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Admitted to the Federal Circuit and most regional circuits. Source: https://www.haynesboone.com/people/qian-michael

Debra Janece McComas — outside counsel of record (Haynes Boone)

• Haynes and Boone, LLP — 2801 N. Harwood St., Suite 2300, Dallas, TX 75201
• Long-time Unified Patents appellate/PTAB counsel; frequently appears in Federal Circuit PTAB appeals (e.g., Corephotonics v. Apple, 84 F.4th 990 (Fed. Cir. 2023); DivX v. Unified Patents; Cisco v. Ramot). Listed as "lead" counsel in Unified's CourtListener party entries in parallel appeals.

David L. McCombs — outside counsel of record (Haynes Boone)

• Haynes and Boone, LLP — Dallas, TX
• Senior Unified Patents PTAB/appellate counsel; Haynes Boone IP practice. Also back-up counsel in the underlying PGR2022-00044.

Jonathan R. Bowser — outside counsel of record (Haynes Boone)

• Haynes and Boone, LLP — 888 16th St. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC
• Unified Patents PTAB/appellate counsel; also listed on Unified's in-house/practice announcements for parallel Ideahub challenges (e.g., the '539 ex parte reexam).

Angela M. Oliver — outside counsel of record (Haynes Boone)

• Haynes and Boone, LLP — Washington, DC
• Frequent Unified Patents Federal Circuit advocate (argued DivX v. Unified Patents, 2023-1699; Cisco v. Ramot).

Roshan Mansinghani — in-house counsel (Unified Patents, LLC)

• Unified Patents, LLC — Washington, DC / Chevy Chase, MD (4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600)
• Unified Patents in-house counsel; listed as counsel across Unified's PTAB and Federal Circuit matters.

Jessica Leann Andersen Marks — in-house counsel (Unified Patents, LLC)

• Unified Patents, LLC — Washington, DC / Chevy Chase, MD (4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600)
• Unified Patents in-house counsel; appears alongside Mansinghani in Unified's IPR/PGR and appellate filings.

(All seven names above appear together in the Rule 36 Judgment caption. Office addresses are corroborated by CourtListener party/service entries in Unified's parallel Federal Circuit appeals, e.g., No. 24-1890 and No. 23-2110.)

---

Counsel at the PTAB phase (PGR2022-00044) — for context

Unified's representation changed between the PTAB trial and the Federal Circuit appeal. In the underlying PGR:

• Raghav Bajaj — Haynes and Boone, Dallas, TX — lead counsel for Petitioner (argued the Board hearing). Source: Petitioner's Notice of Deposition, PGR2022-00044 (July 11, 2023) signed "/Raghav Bajaj/ … Lead Counsel for Petitioner."
• David McCombs — Haynes and Boone — back-up counsel.
• Roshan Mansinghani and Michelle Aspen — Unified Patents in-house. Source: Unified Patents case announcement, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/tag/Ideahub

---

Caveats / sourcing notes

• The Federal Circuit still-image docket (Justia, retrieved p.1) shows only Filing 1 (appeal docketed Apr. 12, 2024); I could not retrieve the text of the individual Rule 26.1/Entry of Appearance filings. The counsel list above is drawn from the judgment caption and verified party entries, which is the standard place counsel of record is confirmed. Nothing here is sealed as to these names.
• Oral-argument transcript discrepancy: the auto-generated CourtListener transcript of the April 8, 2026 argument renders appellee's advocate as "Michael Chen," but the Federal Circuit's own Rule 36 Judgment names MICHAEL QIAN as the attorney who "argued for appellee." The same transcript also contains obvious transcription artifacts (it addresses a judge as "Mr. Chairman"), so the "Chen" rendering appears to be an auto-transcription error for "Qian." I flag it rather than repeat it as fact.
• Unified Patents, LLC itself is listed as a "law firm" representing Unified Patents in some aggregators (PatSnap, CourtListener). That simply reflects the in-house attorneys (Mansinghani, Marks) appearing under the client's name; they are company employees, not an outside firm.
• I did not find evidence of local counsel (there is no district court component) or of any separate retained counsel for the PGR-appeal distinct from Haynes Boone beyond the individuals above.
• Titles (e.g., "General Counsel," "Chief IP Counsel") for the Unified in-house lawyers are not confirmed in the retrieved sources, so I have used the generic "in-house counsel" designation rather than invent titles.

Bottom line: Unified Patents' appellate team in No. 2024-1684 was Haynes and Boone, LLP (Qian, McComas, McCombs, Bowser, Oliver) plus Unified Patents in-house counsel (Mansinghani and Marks), with Michael Qian presenting oral argument at the April 8, 2026 argument that preceded the April 10, 2026 Rule 36 affirmance.