Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Adobe Inc.

Case Overview: Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Adobe Inc. (6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG)

Parties and the patent. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen is an individual inventor and patent owner — a classic inventor-litigant/NPE pattern, described by Unified Patents as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions" (an affiliation that is characterization, not judicially confirmed). He was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP (Houston), a prolific patent-plaintiff firm. Defendant Adobe Inc. is the global software company (Photoshop, Acrobat, Experience Cloud). The sole asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued November 15, 2005, to Pedersen. Technically, the '920 patent claims a system and method for the "central specification and management of how electronic messages received from a plurality of messengers or sources are distributed to individual recipients" — recipient users supply "messenger specific profiles" setting delivery parameters for where, when, and how specific types of messages from each messenger are delivered (see claim 1, col. 11 ll. 26–31, as quoted in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026), nonprecedential). In short: user-defined, messenger-specific email/message filtering and routing.

Accused technology and procedural posture. The complaint (filed June 8, 2022, Dkt. 1) attaches an infringement chart (Ex. A) targeting Adobe's electronic-messaging/email-marketing capabilities; the publicly available docket summaries I reviewed do not name the specific Adobe products, so I will not speculate beyond noting that Adobe's marketing/email-delivery platforms (e.g., Adobe Campaign-class services) are the presumed targets given the patent's subject matter. The case was filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland) — case no. 6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG, 35 U.S.C. § 271, jury demanded. Adobe was served June 10, 2022, through its Austin registered agent (Dkt. 6), appeared through Mark D. Siegmund and Gregory Phillip Love (Dkts. 7–8), and moved to dismiss on August 15, 2022 (Dkt. 10; grounds not confirmed from my sources). Venue in Albright's Waco court matters because, from ~2019–2022, that docket was the epicenter of U.S. patent litigation — its fast-track scheduling and plaintiff-friendly practices drew a wave of NPE/inventor filings, of which this case is one of dozens by Pedersen alone. The case ultimately settled: per the parties' Joint Motion to Terminate in the parallel IPR (IPR2023-00986), Pedersen and Adobe executed a confidential Settlement and License Agreement, and "Pedersen's claims against Adobe in [6:22-cv-00583] have been dismissed with prejudice" (PTAB Joint Motion, filed Sept. 27, 2023). The district court docket thus reflects a settled, terminated case rather than the "Filed" status in the case metadata.

Why it matters — IPR linkage and assertion campaign. The case is notable for its interlocking IPR history and its place in a broad assertion campaign. Pedersen sued a long list of companies over the '920 patent — Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix, Zoho, Ziff Davis, Intuit, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Aurea Software, and Mailgun Technologies (Unified Patents tracking). Two IPRs targeted the patent: (1) Unified Patents' IPR2023-00029 (petition filed Oct. 14, 2022), which was instituted and resolved by a PTAB final written decision on May 10, 2024 holding claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious — affirmed by the Federal Circuit on March 26, 2026 (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 24-2090, substantial-evidence affirmance); and (2) Adobe's own IPR2023-00986 (filed June 1, 2023, challenging claims 1–11 and 14–18), which the PTAB dismissed without institution on October 11, 2023, before the parties settled and jointly terminated the proceeding (Adobe later sought a refund of its $22,500 post-institution fee). The case thus illustrates the typical NPE playbook — a single low-quality messaging patent asserted against the entire email-marketing industry in Albright's Waco court — and the industry response, with Unified Patents' validity challenge ultimately invalidating the asserted patent on appeal even as Adobe privately licensed and exited the dispute.

Based on the docket records and parallel PTAB filings I was able to retrieve, here is the chronological account of key legal developments and the outcome in Pedersen v. Adobe Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.). I have flagged where the record is incomplete because the full district-court docket beyond September 2022 was not available in my search results.

Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-06-08 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). Pedersen filed suit in the Waco Division, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 against Adobe Inc., with an infringement chart (Ex. A) and the patent attached, plus jury demand. Filed by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP, Houston). Same-day entries: AO 120 notice to the USPTO (Dkt. 2), summons request (Dkt. 3), Certificate of Interested Parties (Dkt. 4), summons issued (Dkt. 5). The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland.
• 2022-06-10 — Service (Dkt. 6, filed 06-15). Adobe was served through its Austin registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC (211 E. 7th St., Austin), with answer due 07-01-2022.
• 2022-07-12 — Appearances and extension (Dkts. 7–9). Mark D. Siegmund and Gregory Phillip Love appeared for Adobe; the parties agreed to extend Adobe's answer deadline to 2022-08-15.
• No answer or counterclaims located. Adobe's first responsive filing was a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (below), and my sources do not show Adobe ever filing an answer or counterclaims — consistent with a case that resolved before the pleadings closed. (Dkt. entries 11–18 and 20–21 exist but their contents were not retrievable in my searches; Dkt. 19, granted 2022-08-22, admitted an Adobe attorney pro hac vice — last name only partially visible as "Ryan J. ___" — which I will not expand on without the actual order.)

Substantive pre-trial motions

• 2022-08-15 — Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10). Adobe moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), supported by a Declaration of N. Lee and exhibits A–E; referred to Magistrate Judge Gilliland.
• 2022-09-06 — Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 23). Adobe moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer to the Northern District of California, supported by declarations of V. Tavisala and R. Casamiquela and 16 exhibits (A–P) — the standard Adobe "home-court" venue play.
• 2022-08-24 / 09-19 / 09-26 — Briefing. Pedersen took an unopposed extension to respond (Dkt. 22, 08-24); filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 25, 09-19); Adobe replied (Dkt. 26, 09-26).
• No ruling on the MTD or transfer motion is documented in my sources. The docket report I retrieved (an Adobe exhibit in IPR2023-00986) ends at Dkt. 26 (09-26-2022). I therefore cannot confirm whether Judge Albright granted, denied, or simply never reached either motion before the case settled — do not treat any outcome as established.

Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman proceedings are documented. Given the settlement timeline (below), the case almost certainly never reached claim construction. The only substantive construction of the '920 patent's terms came from the PTAB's final written decision in the parallel Unified Patents IPR (see below), not from this district case.

Discovery

• No discovery milestones are documented in my retrievable record. There is no scheduling order, no discovery disputes, and no expert disclosures in the docket text I obtained. The case appears to have been litigated at the pleading/venue stage only (June–September 2022) before shifting into the IPR channel, so any substantial discovery was likely stayed or never begun.

Trial / verdict / post-trial motions

• None. The case settled and was dismissed with prejudice before trial; there was no verdict, no JMOL, and no fee motion. (See final disposition below.)

Final disposition — settlement and dismissal

• 2023-09-27 — Joint Motion to Terminate in IPR2023-00986 (confirms settlement and district-court dismissal). In their joint motion to terminate Adobe's IPR, the parties represented that Pedersen and Adobe had executed a confidential Settlement and License Agreement and that "Pedersen's claims against Adobe in [6:22-cv-00583] have been dismissed with prejudice." This is the authoritative confirmation of the case's outcome. The specific district-court dismissal order (date and docket number) was not retrieved in my searches, but the dismissal with prejudice is affirmatively represented in the parties' PTAB filing.
• Bottom line on status. The case is closed/terminated by settlement, contrary to the "Filed" status reflected in the case metadata. The docket was still showing "Active" as of 2022-09-09 (per Unified Patents' exhibit list), but the IPR joint motion establishes the later dismissal with prejudice.

Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

• IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen) — Petition filed 2022-10-14. This is the campaign-level validity challenge. The PTAB instituted review and, on 2024-05-10, issued a final written decision holding claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-26 in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (nonprecedential, substantial-evidence review). Result: the asserted patent has been invalidated at the PTAB and on appeal — after this case had already settled.
• IPR2023-00986 (Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen) — Petition filed 2023-06-01, challenging claims 1–11 and 14–18. The PTAB declined to institute (dismissal without institution on 2023-10-11), following the parties' 2023-09-27 joint motion to terminate filed after settlement; Adobe later sought a refund of its $22,500 post-institution fee.
• Effect on the litigation. The pendency of Unified Patents' IPR (filed ~4 months after suit, with institution risk looming) and Adobe's own IPR (filed June 2023) were the pressure points that produced the settlement. Adobe obtained a license and exit from the Waco case in late September 2023 — roughly seven months before the PTAB invalidated the patent — while Unified Patents' IPR went on to kill the patent for everyone else, affirmed by the Federal Circuit in March 2026.

Summary of outcome

Key caveats (not well sourced): (1) the outcome of Adobe's MTD and transfer motion is unconfirmed — the docket report I obtained ends at Dkt. 26; (2) no answer/counterclaims, scheduling order, Markman ruling, or discovery events were found; and (3) the exact date and docket number of the district court's dismissal order were not retrieved — the dismissal with prejudice is established through the parties' representation in the IPR joint motion of 2023-09-27, not from a PACER order I was able to view.

Based on the available docket record, the plaintiff's counsel of record in Pedersen v. Adobe Inc. (6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG, W.D. Tex.) is as follows.

Counsel of record for plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen

William P. Ramey III — Lead counsel

• Firm: Ramey LLP (formerly Ramey & Schwaller, LLP); office at 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006 (713-426-3923; wramey@rameyfirm.com)
• Role: Lead counsel / attorney of record; Ramey LLP's Managing Partner
• Evidence in this case: Ramey is the signatory on every plaintiff-side filing shown in the docket — the Complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 6/8/2022), AO 120 Notice (Dkt. 2), Request for Issuance of Summons (Dkt. 3), Certificate of Interested Parties (Dkt. 4), and the executed summons return (Dkt. 6). The summons issued June 8, 2022 expressly designates "William P. Ramey III, Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006" as plaintiff's attorney on whom service of pleadings was to be made (Adobe IPR Exhibit 1006). Justia's docket listing likewise reflects only "William P. Ramey, III" on the plaintiff side.
• Experience: Prolific, high-volume patent-plaintiff litigator in Judge Albright's W.D. Tex. (Waco) docket; he ran the entire Pedersen '920 campaign (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix, Zoho, Intuit, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, SAP, Mailgun, etc.) and similar NPE/inventor campaigns. He was publicly sanctioned/scolded in related litigation — e.g., a D. Colo. magistrate judge ordered him to show cause why he should not be referred to the conduct committee for neglect in an AiPi-related case (RPX, Jan. 2024) — and his firm's relationship with litigation-funding/support vendor AiPi was exposed in a declaration he filed in CTD Networks v. Microsoft (W.D. Tex.).

Related Ramey LLP attorneys (associated, but not confirmed of record in this case)

Three other Ramey LLP attorneys were part of Pedersen's '920 representation team and are worth flagging — though I found no direct docket evidence that they filed notices of appearance in 6:22-cv-00583 (public docket copies are truncated after Dkt. 9, and the later motion-to-dismiss/settlement entries are not fully available):

• Jacob B. Henry — Ramey LLP, Houston. Served as Pedersen's lead counsel before the PTAB in IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents) and IPR2023-00867 (Oracle), with Ramey as back-up counsel (Patent Owner Powers of Attorney). His role was IPR-focused; no appearance of record confirmed in the district court case.
• Donald Trey Mahoney — Ramey LLP, Houston. Listed in Adobe's IPR2023-00986 petition filings as "Patent Owner's litigation counsel" for courtesy service (tmahoney@rameyfirm.com). Whether he entered an appearance in the district court case is not confirmed from public sources.
• Kyril (Vladimir) Talanov — Ramey LLP, Houston. Also listed for courtesy service in Adobe's IPR2023-00986 (ktalanov@rameyfirm.com); he was counsel of record for Pedersen in the parallel Mailgun case (6:21-cv-01153) per PatSnap litigation data. No appearance of record confirmed in this case.

Caveats

• No local counsel / pro hac vice identified: W.D. Tex. Waco practice generally requires Texas-bar counsel; Ramey is Texas-licensed and Houston-based, so no separate local counsel was needed. I found no pro hac vice motions by plaintiff's side.
• Docket is incomplete in public mirrors: The docket excerpts available (via Adobe's IPR Exhibit 1009 and Justia) stop around July 2022 (Dkt. 9). Adobe's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10, 8/15/2022), plaintiff's response, and the 2023 settlement/dismissal entries were not fully retrievable, so I cannot rule out that additional Ramey LLP associates filed appearances later. Verify the full PACER attorney list before relying on this for service or conflicts purposes.
• Case disposition: As noted in the prior sections, the case was resolved by confidential settlement — the parties' joint motion in IPR2023-00986 (Sept. 2023) states Pedersen's claims against Adobe were "dismissed with prejudice," so any counsel inquiry for active representation purposes is moot.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Adobe Inc. in Pedersen v. Adobe Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00583-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.)

Based on the PACER-derived docket for the case (entries confirmed via the Western District of Texas docket as republished by Justia and the USPTO PTAB's IPR2023-00986 exhibit file), Adobe was represented by a two-tier team: Arnold & Porter LLP (national lead, appearing pro hac vice) and Texas local counsel (the Waco/Austin-based firm Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC). No Adobe in-house counsel appears of record on the public docket entries reviewed.

Texas local counsel

1. Mark D. Siegmund — Local counsel (Texas bar; first to appear for Adobe)

• Dkt. 7 — Notice of Attorney Appearance, filed July 12, 2022 ("Attorney Mark D. Siegmund added to party Adobe, Inc.").
• Firm/office: At the time of the case, a member of Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC (Austin/Waco). Effective March 1, 2023, Siegmund (with Craig Cherry and Justin Allen) moved to Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, 400 Austin Ave., 9th Floor, Waco, TX 76701 (see Notice of Change of Firm and Address filed in Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung, No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA, and Webroot v. AO Kaspersky Lab, No. 6:22-cv-00243-ADA). He filed the pro hac vice motions for Adobe's out-of-state counsel (Dkts. 16–18).
• Experience: Waco-based patent litigator who routinely serves as Texas local counsel in W.D. Tex. patent cases (e.g., appearances for defendants/plaintiffs in numerous Albright-court matters, including Malikie Innovations v. MARA Holdings and Acoustic Array Technologies v. Apple, 7:26-cv-00231).

2. Gregory Phillip Love — Local counsel (Texas bar; first to appear for Adobe)

• Dkt. 8 — Notice of Attorney Appearance, filed July 12, 2022 ("Attorney Gregory Phillip Love added to party Adobe, Inc.").
• Firm/office: At the time, a member of Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC (the "Love" in the firm name; Henderson/Waco, TX). He later practiced at Love Law Firm PC, Henderson, TX (as reflected in the Feb. 2023 decision in Esignature Software, LLC v. Adobe Inc., which lists "Gregory Phillip Love, Love Law Firm PC, Henderson, TX, for Defendant"), and is currently listed as a member at Cherry Johnson Siegmund James LLC, 400 Austin Ave., Ste. 903, Waco (Martindale-Hubbell profile).
• Experience: Baylor Law '99; two decades of trial experience in Texas state and federal courts and the ITC, including patent infringement defense; Super Lawyers honoree and ABOTA associate member.

National lead counsel (pro hac vice — Arnold & Porter LLP)

Pro hac vice letters issued August 16, 2022 (Dkts. 12–14), motions filed by Siegmund (Dkts. 16–18), and granted by orders dated August 22, 2022 (Dkts. 19–21) for:

3. Michael A. Berta — Lead/pro hac vice counsel

• Dkt. 12/16 — admitted pro hac vice for Adobe.
• Firm/office: Arnold & Porter LLP, San Francisco (Three Embarcadero Center; later 101 California St.).
• Experience: IP litigation partner (Georgetown Law) with decades of patent and trade-secret trial experience in federal court and before the ITC across software, storage, networking, semiconductor, pharma, and consumer electronics; BTI "Client Service All-Star" (2024); joined Arnold & Porter in 2011 as part of its San Francisco IP trial team.

4. Ryan J. Casamiquela — Pro hac vice counsel

• Dkt. 13/17 — admitted pro hac vice for Adobe.
• Firm/office: Arnold & Porter LLP (San Francisco/Los Angeles).
• Experience: IP litigator; also represented Adobe as defendant's counsel in the parallel Esignature Software, LLC v. Adobe Inc. patent case (C.D. Cal./N.D. Cal., UniCourt attorney listing), confirming a recurring Arnold & Porter–Adobe defense relationship.

5. Nicholas H. Lee — Pro hac vice counsel

• Dkt. 14/18 — admitted pro hac vice for Adobe.
• Firm/office: Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles.
• Experience: IP litigator for Adobe; listed as "Nicholas H. Lee, Pro Hac Vice, Arnold & Porter Kay Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, CA ... for Defendant" in Esignature Software, LLC v. Adobe Inc. (decision Feb. 21, 2023, vLex), where the same Arnold & Porter + Texas local counsel structure was used.

6. Neda Dadpey — Pro hac vice counsel

• Dkt. 14 (PHV letter)/Dkt. 18 (motion), granted at Dkt. 20 — admitted pro hac vice for Adobe.
• Firm/office: Arnold & Porter LLP — affiliation inferred from the firm team pattern in this case and Adobe's other contemporaneous matters; I did not obtain a directly confirming profile within the search budget, so her specific office should be verified against Arnold & Porter's roster before citation.
• Experience: Part of the Arnold & Porter team defending Adobe in this matter; no public case-level detail captured here.

Notes and caveats

• No separate "lead counsel" designation appears in the public docket entries; the Arnold & Porter attorneys (Berta, Casamiquela, Lee, Dadpey) functioned as lead national counsel, with Siegmund and Love as Texas local counsel — a structure Adobe also used in the nearly contemporaneous Esignature Software v. Adobe case.
• No Adobe in-house counsel appears of record on the public docket entries reviewed (Dkts. 1–21); the substantive filings after appearances (e.g., the Aug. 15, 2022 motion to dismiss, Dkt. 10) would bear the full signature block and can confirm the exact lead/locally designated roles — I did not retrieve that filing's text.
• Firm-name caveat: Siegmund and Love's firm at filing was Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC; by the time of settlement (2023) Siegmund had moved to Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, so any later-filed documents reflect that change.