Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Blackbaud, Inc.

Case Overview: Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Blackbaud, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00921 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and asserted patent. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen is an individual inventor and patent holder whom Unified Patents classifies as an "NPE (Individual)" and believes to be associated with AiPi Solutions (Unified Patents, "AiPi affiliate Pedersen message distribution patent confirmed invalid by Fed. Circuit," Mar. 26, 2026). He is represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP (Houston). Defendant Blackbaud, Inc. is the Charleston, South Carolina-based cloud-software provider serving nonprofits, foundations, and educational institutions. The case asserts U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, titled "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System" (issued Nov. 15, 2005, from an application filed July 12, 2001, claiming priority to a July 12, 2000 provisional). Technically, the '920 patent claims a system and method for the central specification and management of how electronic messages from a plurality of messengers/senders are distributed to individual recipients, using recipient-profile data—including messenger-specific profiles with delivery parameters specifying "where, when and how" messages from particular senders are delivered—and an individual message generator that assembles each recipient's message (see Federal Circuit's summary in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026)). Consistent with Pedersen's other suits over this patent (e.g., against Zoho, where the court described the allegations as targeting "email-marketing software"), the accused technology is Blackbaud's email-marketing/message-distribution platform; the specific Blackbaud product name is not confirmed in the sources reviewed, so that detail should be verified from the complaint (Compl., Dkt. 1, Ex. A/B).

Procedural posture and venue. The case was filed September 8, 2022 in the Western District of Texas (Waco division) and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, with a jury demand and a 35 U.S.C. § 271 cause of action (Justia docket; UniCourt). Blackbaud was served September 14, 2022; after an agreed extension, its answer was due November 21, 2022 (Dkts. 6–7). Venue mattered because Judge Albright's WDTX docket was, at the time, the country's busiest and most patentee-friendly forum—Pedersen filed a wave of '920-patent cases there. (Notably, some of his other WDTX cases, such as Pedersen v. Zoho, were later transferred out of the Waco division on January 23, 2023; I found no source confirming whether the Blackbaud case was likewise transferred or stayed.) The case is intertwined with PTAB review: Unified Patents filed IPR2023-00029 on October 14, 2022, challenging claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent; the PTAB issued a final written decision on May 10, 2024 holding those claims unpatentable as obvious over Funk (U.S. Pat. 5,937,162) in view of Law (U.S. Pat. 7,058,586) or Kamakura (U.S. Pat. 6,047,310), and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090, nonprecedential). Oracle separately filed IPR2023-00867 against the same patent, which terminated via settlement on October 11, 2023 (IPverse/GreyB). I found no source confirming the Blackbaud district court's ultimate disposition (e.g., stay, dismissal, or judgment) following the IPR outcome; as of the most recent docket data reviewed (2022) the case was listed as open/pending.

Why the case is notable. This is a representative matter in one of the larger serial-assertion campaigns over a single email-messaging patent: the '920 patent was asserted against Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Salesforce, Intuit, Zoho, Ziff Davis, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Aurea Software, Wix.com, Upland Software, and Blackbaud, among others (Unified Patents; docketalarm mandatory-notice filing in IPR2023-00867). The case illustrates the classic WDTX-Albright NPE playbook—broad complaints against software vendors over profile-based message routing—and the countermeasure of IPR-driven invalidation by Unified Patents, culminating in a PTAB final written decision and a Federal Circuit affirmance that eviscerated the patent's asserted claims in 2026. That outcome, plus Oracle's settlement-terminated IPR, makes the Blackbaud litigation part of the broader market story of the '920 patent's rise and fall, and it is relevant precedent for how IPR findings of unpatentability ripple into parallel district court litigation.

Pedersen v. Blackbaud, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00921-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Patent in suit: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System"), owned by Peter Henrik Pedersen (a/k/a the "AiPi" message-distribution campaign). Judge: Alan D. Albright (Waco Division). Counsel: Plaintiff — William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP); Defendant — Neil J. McNabnay (per UniCourt; firm affiliation not independently confirmed). (Sources: UniCourt case page; Justia docket; Ramey LLP press release.)

---

I. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2022-09-08 — Complaint filed. Pedersen sued Blackbaud for infringement of the '920 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271, demanding a jury trial (Dkt. 1, with Exhibit A/B and civil cover sheet). This was one of a wave of coordinated W.D. Tex. filings by Pedersen against Blackbaud, Constant Contact (6:22-cv-00922), Monday.com (6:22-cv-00923), Wix.com (6:22-cv-00925), and Zendesk (6:22-cv-00927), all asserting the same patent. (Sources: Justia docket 6:2022cv00921; Ramey LLP release; DocketAlarm list-of-cases exhibit in IPR2023-00029.)
• 2022-09-08 — AO 120 patent form filed (Dkt. 2); summons issued (Dkt. 5); case assigned to Judge Albright.
• 2022-09-14 — Service on Blackbaud; answer due 10/05/2022 (Dkt. 6, returned executed 09/15/2022).
• 2022-09-23 — Agreed extension (Dkt. 7); Blackbaud's answer deadline reset to 2022-11-21.
• Answer/counterclaims: The answer itself is not captured in the publicly indexed docket excerpts I could retrieve. Note that in the related Monday.com case the answer came ~Dec. 19, 2022; Blackbaud's answer was due 11/21/2022, but I could not independently verify its filing date or whether Blackbaud asserted declaratory-judgment or other counterclaims. This is a gap in the public record as retrieved.

---

II. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• 2022-10-14 — Unified Patents files IPR petition (IPR2023-00029) challenging claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent on obviousness grounds — the predicate for the stay that followed (see Part VI). (Source: DocketAlarm, petition exhibit dated 10-14-2022.)
• Stay pending IPR: By early 2024, the Blackbaud case had been stayed or was being stayed. The W.D. Tex. order granting Monday.com's stay (signed 2024-03-13 in 6:22-cv-00923-ADA-DTG) expressly notes the related Blackbaud case: "Plaintiff's joint request for a stay in other related cases. See Pedersen v. Blackbaud, Inc., 6:22-cv-00921-ADA, ECF No. 20." That ECF No. 20 is characterized as a joint request for a stay pending IPR2023-00029, and the Court observed the Blackbaud case was at an early stage (no scheduling order, no Markman date, no trial date). (Source: Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay, Pedersen v. Monday.com, No. 6:22-cv-00923-ADA-DTG, ECF No. 29/42 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2024), reproduced as Ex. 1029 in IPR2025-01334 via DocketAlarm.) The exact date and docket number of Blackbaud's own stay order are not in the retrieved sources.
• No motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment specific to the Blackbaud case surfaced in the retrievable docket excerpts.

---

III. Claim Construction (Markman)

• No Markman order in the Blackbaud case is reflected in the retrieved record; the case was stayed before claim construction, consistent with the Monday.com stay order's observation that the related cases had no Markman hearing scheduled.
• For context, a claim construction order did issue in a different Pedersen case on the same patent — Pedersen v. [J2 Global]/Technologies, Inc., No. W-21-CV-01153-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — which the Adobe IPR expert declaration (IPR2023-00986, Ex. 1002, dated 2023-06-01) expressly reviewed. That order is not part of the Blackbaud docket.

---

IV. Discovery Milestones

• The retrievable record shows the case never reached substantial merits discovery: the stay was entered while the case was "in its early stages with no scheduling order" (Monday.com stay order, Mar. 13, 2024). Pedersen was also criticized in the related cases for not diligently pursuing the litigation, supporting the stay. No discovery disputes, depositions, or expert reports in the Blackbaud case were found in public sources.

---

V. Trial, Verdict & Post-Trial Motions

• No trial occurred and no verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion exists in the retrieved record. The case was stayed pending the PTAB's invalidity decision, which proved dispositive.

---

VI. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (decisive)

Multiple IPRs targeted the '920 patent; the litigation stayed on the lead one:

• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen (petition filed ~2022-10-14; institution in 2023). Challenged claims 1 and 14–17 as obvious over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura (per the Federal Circuit opinion). 2024-05-10 — Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable. (Sources: Unified Patents blog, May 13, 2024; Monday.com stay order predicting FWD by May 15, 2024.)
• IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corporation v. Pedersen (mandatory notices dated 2023-06-02 and updated 2023-08-29) — related IPR on the same '920 patent; Oracle's updated notice expressly lists Pedersen v. Blackbaud, Inc., 6:22-cv-00921 (WDTX, filed Sept. 8, 2022) as "Pending." (Source: DocketAlarm PTAB documents.)
• IPR2023-00986 — Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen (petition with Greenspun declaration dated 2023-06-01) — additional IPR on the same patent.
• Appeal — Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir.): Pedersen appealed the IPR2023-00029 FWD. 2026-03-26 — Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the Board's obviousness finding (including that prior art Funk disclosed messenger-specific, recipient-specified delivery parameters, limitation 1.4) was supported by substantial evidence. (Sources: Unified Patents blog, Mar. 26, 2026; Vitallaw case summary of the opinion; iipla.org.)

---

VII. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• The case remains open/active on the docket per the most recent case-status sources (UniCourt/Unified Patents portal), i.e., it has not been formally closed by judgment or dismissal in the retrievable record.
• In practical effect, the litigation is dispositive-stayed: the Blackbaud case was stayed pending IPR2023-00029 (joint request, ECF No. 20), the PTAB canceled the only asserted claims on 2024-05-10, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-26. With claims 1 and 14–17 of the only patent-in-suit held unpatentable, Pedersen has no surviving infringement case against Blackbaud; the expected terminal step is dismissal or entry of judgment on the stay's lift, but no dismissal order, consent judgment, or stipulation of dismissal in the Blackbaud case was found in the sources retrieved.

---

Candid Assessment of Source Gaps

Well-sourced: filing date, service, extension, Judge Albright assignment, counsel names, the joint stay request (ECF No. 20 as cited in the Monday.com order), the PTAB FWD date (2024-05-10), the Fed. Cir. affirmance (2026-03-26, No. 24-2090), and the related IPR numbers. Not verified: Blackbaud's answer date and any counterclaims; the Blackbaud stay order's own date/ECF number; whether Blackbaud filed its own IPR (the IPRs found are by Unified, Oracle, and Adobe); and the absence/presence of a final dismissal judgment. These items would require PACER (case 6:22-cv-00921) to confirm.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen

Based on the available docket sources (Justia docket for 6:22-cv-00921, UniCourt case snapshot, and PACER-derived entries), the plaintiff's counsel of record in Pedersen v. Blackbaud, Inc., W.D. Tex., No. 6:22-cv-00921 (Judge Alan D. Albright, filed 2022-09-08) is:

William P. Ramey III — Lead / Attorney of Record

• Role: Lead counsel and the attorney of record who signed and filed the operative pleadings on behalf of Pedersen (Complaint, Dkt. 1; AO 120 patent form, Dkt. 2; Request for Summons, Dkt. 3; Certificate of Interested Parties, Dkt. 4; and the Return of Service, Dkt. 6 — all docketed to "(Ramey, William)").
• Firm: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006.
• Experience/notable cases: Managing partner of Ramey LLP and one of the most prolific plaintiff-side patent NPE litigators in the W.D. Tex. Ramey himself describes the firm as "one of the more prolific NPE firms" (Bloomberg Law, Feb. 2024). He is barred in Texas and Utah, before the USPTO, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court. Notable matters include the Traxcell v. Verizon fee litigation, Koji IP v. Renesas (sanctions order in N.D. Cal.), VDPP v. Volkswagen (personal fee liability ordered by Judge Rosenthal), and most relevantly MCOM IP LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00261 (W.D. Tex.), where Judge Albright in December 2025 imposed sanctions requiring Ramey to obtain advance court permission before filing new patent suits in the W.D. Tex. — a factor that could bear on future filings in this case's venue.

Additional caveats

• No other plaintiff-side attorneys were verified as appearing of record in the district court case. The UniCourt and Justia docket summaries list only William P. Ramey III for the plaintiff (defense counsel of record is Neil J. McNabnay). I found no notice of appearance by co-counsel in this specific action. Note that the public docket snapshots I could access are dated September–November 2022, so I could not independently verify any later appearances without a current PACER pull.
• Do not conflate PTAB counsel with district court counsel. In the parallel inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (e.g., IPR2023-00029 by Unified Patents; IPR2023-00986 by Adobe), the patent owner was represented by Joseph Zito and Erik Lund of Whitestone Law (Tysons, VA) and, in other IPRs, by Jacob B. Henry (lead) and William P. Ramey III (backup) of Ramey LLP under USPTO Customer No. 63,467. Those are PTAB designations and are not themselves proof of district court appearances in this case.
• Sealed filings: I found no indication that plaintiff's counsel designations are sealed; the appearances are reflected on the public docket. However, if you need the definitive, current attorney list, a live PACER query of 6:22-cv-00921 (or the court's electronic filing "attorneys" report) is recommended, since the case remains active and the free docket mirrors are stale.

Based on the available public docket sources, here is what is verified regarding defendant Blackbaud, Inc.'s counsel of record in Pedersen v. Blackbaud, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00921-ADA (W.D. Tex.):

Defendant Counsel of Record

Neil J. McNabnay — Attorney of Record (functioning as lead defense counsel)

• Role: Sole defense attorney of record shown on the public docket. He signed and filed Blackbaud's Dkt. 7, Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (filed Sept. 23, 2022), which is the only Blackbaud-initiated filing captured in the publicly indexed docket excerpts (Justia docket; UniCourt case page for 6:22-cv-00921, last updated Nov. 7, 2022). No formal "lead counsel" designation appears on the public docket excerpts, but he is the only defendant-side attorney listed.
• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. — Principal/Member — Dallas, Texas office (1717 Main Street, Suite 5000, Dallas, TX 75201). Licensed in Texas since 1997; J.D. University of Michigan Law School (1997), B.S. University of Michigan. (Sources: MoreLaw attorney profile; Best Lawyers profile; Fish & Richardson firm bio; Super Lawyers profile.)
• Patent litigation experience: Longtime IP litigator at one of the nation's premier patent defense firms; recognized in Best Lawyers in America for Litigation–Intellectual Property and Litigation–Patent since 2015, and a Super Lawyers Rising Stars honoree (2005, 2007–2012). Notable representations include DDR Holdings v. Expedia (post-reexamination settlements for Travelocity/Expedia/Hotels.com), the Clear With Computers multi-defendant campaign (E.D. Tex., dismissals/settlements for ~30 defendants including Apple, Boeing, eBay, Halliburton), MHL Tek v. Subaru/Fuji (E.D. Tex. & Fed. Cir. — dismissal for lack of standing affirmed by the Federal Circuit), Gemini IP v. Citrix (summary judgment for Citrix), and the Constellation IP website-presentation cases (E.D. Tex.). He has a track record as Blackbaud's go-to patent counsel, having also appeared for Blackbaud in OHVA, Inc. v. Blackbaud, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00309 (E.D. Tex. 2019) and Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Blackbaud, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. 2020).

Important caveats (source gaps)

• No other defense attorneys were verified. The public docket snapshots I could retrieve (Justia, UniCourt — both frozen around Nov. 2022) list only McNabnay for Blackbaud. Fish & Richardson typically staffs patent cases with multiple attorneys, but I found no notice of appearance, answer, or later filings by any additional Fish & Richardson attorneys (e.g., no co-counsel such as Lance E. Wyatt, who appears with McNabnay in other matters, is confirmed here). A current PACER query of 6:22-cv-00921 would be required to confirm whether additional counsel appeared after the November 2022 snapshot.
• Answer/counterclaims not verified. Blackbaud's answer was due Nov. 21, 2022 (per the agreed extension, Dkt. 7), but its filing and any counterclaims are not captured in the publicly indexed record. Consequently, I cannot confirm whether any additional attorneys signed the answer.
• Local counsel: Not separately identified — and likely unnecessary, since McNabnay is Texas-barred and Dallas-based within the W.D. Tex.; no pro hac vice motion would be needed.
• In-house counsel: No Blackbaud in-house attorney appears of record in the retrieved docket excerpts. (Blackbaud's general counsel/legal department may be involved internally, but no in-house appearance of record was found.)
• Later filings (e.g., the joint stay request, ECF No. 20, cited in the March 13, 2024 Monday.com stay order): The Monday.com order references Blackbaud ECF No. 20 as a "joint request for a stay," but the retrieving source does not disclose which attorney signed it on Blackbaud's behalf; McNabnay is the reasonable inference given he is the only verified defense counsel of record.

Bottom line: The verified defense counsel of record is Neil J. McNabnay (Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas). No other defense attorneys, local counsel, or in-house counsel appearances could be confirmed from public sources; verifying the complete current attorney list would require a live PACER look-up of 6:22-cv-00921, which remains formally open/active despite the dispositive IPR outcome.