Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Madwire, LLC

Case Overview: Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Madwire, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00590 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and their roles. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen is an individual inventor and the named owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("the '920 patent"); the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies him as a non-practicing entity ("NPE – Individual"), and Unified Patents describes him as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions" (npe.law.stanford.edu/case/257313; unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/3/26). He was represented by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP), with Joseph J. Zito later appearing (Patexia docket, Doc. 12, Oct. 9, 2023). Defendant Madwire, LLC is a Fort Collins, Colorado-based, founder-operated technology and marketing company (co-founded by JB and Joe Kellogg in 2009) whose flagship product is the Marketing 360 platform—a combined CRM, email-marketing, website, advertising, and reputation-management suite for small and mid-sized businesses, with an Austin, Texas office (madwire.com/about; LeadIQ/Tracxn company profiles).

Accused product and patent. The complaint accuses Madwire's Marketing360 email marketing platform of infringing the '920 patent, titled "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System" (issued Nov. 15, 2005; priority July 12, 2000; Compl. ¶15, Ex. A). Technically, the patent claims a centralized electronic message management system in which both "messengers" (senders) and recipients maintain profiles; a recipient specifies "delivery parameters" for where, when, and how messages from specific messengers are delivered, and an "individual message generator" uses that profile data to generate and route each recipient's individual message (claim 1; Fed. Cir. opinion in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090, Mar. 26, 2026). The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges direct infringement as well as inducement and contributory infringement based on Madwire's user-facing instructions and support materials (Compl. ¶18; see Ex Parte complaint analysis, ai-lab.exparte.com).

Procedural posture and venue. Filed June 8, 2022, in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, the case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (Unicourt; DocketAlarm). Madwire was served June 10, 2022, twice stipulated to extend its response deadline, and answered on August 16, 2022 (Docs. 6–10, with a Rule 7 disclosure at Doc. 11). Venue rests on Madwire's "regular and established place of business" in the district—specifically its Austin office—satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (Compl. venue allegations). The Waco forum under Judge Albright was, during this period, the nation's most patentee-friendly "rocket docket," making it the focal point of large-scale NPE campaigns. Per the case metadata the matter is still "Pending," and public docket aggregators show little activity after the 2022 answer; I could not verify from available sources whether the case was formally stayed pending IPR or administratively closed, so the post-answer disposition should be confirmed against PACER.

Why the case is notable. This is one of roughly 20 W.D. Tex. suits Pedersen filed in 2021–2022 asserting the same '920 patent against major email-marketing/CRM and cloud vendors—Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, Zoho, Zendesk, Wix, Constant Contact, Blackbaud, Monday.com, Mailgun, J2 Global, Upland, and others (DocketAlarm "List of Cases," Ex. 1012 in IPR2023-00029). It is a textbook serial-NPE pattern: a single 2005-era messaging patent deployed against an entire industry segment. The campaign's center of gravity shifted to the PTAB when Unified Patents petitioned for IPR (IPR2023-00029, filed Oct. 14, 2022); the Board instituted on May 15, 2023, and in a May 10, 2024 final written decision found claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura. The Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026, in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090 (nonprecedential), rejecting Pedersen's argument that Funk lacked messenger-specific, user-specified delivery parameters. A separate Oracle-filed IPR (IPR2023-00867) also targeted the patent. That appellate affirmance effectively invalidated the core asserted claims and gutted the district-court campaign, including the Madwire suit—making this case emblematic of how Unified Patents' IPR activity and Federal Circuit review can neutralize broad, multi-defendant NPE litigation.

Based on the available search results, here is the chronological development of Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Madwire, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00590 (W.D. Tex. – Waco, Judge Alan D. Albright), with sourcing noted. Important caveat: my sources cover the docket through late 2023 (documents 1–12); the specific closing order/entry after that point is not confirmed from PACER in the available results, and I flag below where facts are inferred rather than directly sourced.

Chronology of key developments

Filing & initial pleadings

• 2022-06-08 – Complaint filed (Doc. 1) by Peter Henrik Pedersen (counsel: William P. Ramey III, Ramey & Schwaller), asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued 2005-11-15, priority 2000-07-12) against Madwire's Marketing360 email marketing platform. The complaint asserted at least independent claim 1 and alleged venue based on Madwire's Austin, Texas office. (UniCourt; Ex Parte complaint analysis; docket entries 1–5.)
• 2022-06-09 – Summons issued (Doc. 5).
• 2022-06-10 / 06-15 – Madwire served; answer due 2022-07-01 (Doc. 6).
• 2022-06-27 – John M. Jackson entered appearance for Madwire (Doc. 7); parties filed joint notices agreeing to extend Madwire's response deadline (Docs. 8–9), resetting the answer date first to 2022-08-01 and then to 2022-08-16 (docket text entries).
• 2022-08-16 – Madwire filed its Answer (Doc. 10) and Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (Doc. 11). The available docket descriptions show a six-page answer; no counterclaims are apparent from the summaries, but I cannot fully verify counterclaim content without the document itself. (Patexia docket listing; UniCourt.)

Pre-trial motions of substance

• No motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay appear in the available docket record. Through Doc. 12 (2023-10-09), the only substantive filing is Madwire's answer. I found no sourced motion by Madwire to transfer (e.g., under § 1404) or to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and no motion to stay pending the parallel IPR in the accessible records.
• The absence of substantive motion practice is consistent with the pattern in Pedersen's other '920 patent cases in W.D. Tex. (e.g., Pedersen v. Google, 6:21-cv-01152; Pedersen v. Salesforce, 6:22-cv-00409), which largely sat dormant while PTAB proceedings ran. But this is context, not direct evidence about this docket.

Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman proceedings are documented in any available source. The case appears to have never reached claim construction — consistent with the PTAB invalidation timeline below (institution 2023-05-15; final written decision 2024-05-10). Any claim-construction order would have been entered after Doc. 12 (2023-10-09), and I found none.

Discovery milestones

• No discovery orders or milestones are documented in the available records. The docket through 2023-10-09 shows only appearances, deadline extensions, the answer, and standing-order notices — no scheduling order, discovery disputes, or expert designations were surfaced in my searches. I cannot responsibly describe specific discovery events without a source.

Trial / verdict / post-trial motions

• No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, fees) occurred on the available record. The case never reached trial.

Parallel PTAB proceedings (decisive for this litigation)

• IPR2023-00029 – Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen (PTAB):
  • Petition filed 2022-10-14 (Patexia); Unified Patents' petition (Ex. 1012) identified the Madwire case as a pending co-pending litigation involving the '920 patent.
  • 2023-05-15 – Institution decision (claims 1 and 14–17 challenged; instituted).
  • 2024-05-10 – Final written decision holding all challenged claims (1, 14–17) unpatentable as obvious (Funk in view of Law or Kamakura; panel: White, Wormmeester, Hume; White authoring). (Unified Patents press release 2024-05-13; Patexia.)
  • 2026-03-26 – Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2024-2090) affirmed, nonprecedential (Lourie, Hughes; C.J. Kleeh), finding the Board's obviousness decision supported by substantial evidence. (Fed Circuit Blog 2026-03-26; Vitallaw/Fed. Cir. opinion.)
• IPR2023-00867 – Oracle Corp. v. Pedersen – A second IPR on the same '920 patent, filed 2023; Oracle's mandatory notices list the Madwire case as related co-pending litigation. The outcome of this proceeding was not available in my search results (it may have been denied, terminated, or joined); do not treat it as dispositive without verification.

Final disposition / present posture

• Case status: "Closed" per Ex Parte's case summary for 6:22-cv-00590, and the UniCourt record was last updated 2022-08-07 with "Pending" status. The closing event (stipulated dismissal, administrative closure, or judgment on the pleadings) and its date are not confirmed in any source I retrieved. The most probable driver of closure is the PTAB's 2024-05-10 invalidation of all asserted claims, followed by the Federal Circuit's 2026-03-26 affirmance — at which point the asserted patent claims were dead and the infringement claim had no remaining basis. This inference should be verified against PACER (or UniCourt/Ex Parte's paid docket view) for the post-Doc. 12 docket entries (Docs. 13+).
• Last confirmed docket event: 2023-10-09, Notice of appearance by Joseph J. Zito for plaintiff Pedersen (Doc. 12) — a signal that Pedersen was bringing in new counsel for the PTAB/estoppel fight, but no substantive motion accompanied it in the record I could access.

Bottom line

This was a low-activity W.D. Tex. infringement case filed in June 2022, answered in August 2022, and then effectively superseded by the Unified Patents IPR2023-00029 on the same patent. The PTAB's 2024-05-10 final written decision invalidated claims 1 and 14–17, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-26 — eliminating the patent's asserted claims. The litigation is now closed (per Ex Parte's status field), with no trial, Markman ruling, or merits judgment ever entered; the likely formal disposition was a dismissal or closure following the IPR outcome, though the precise closing docket entry should be confirmed on PACER.

Sourcing note: Dates and docket numbers above come from UniCourt, Patexia, Ex Parte (ai-lab.exparte.com), Unified Patents' published insights, the Federal Circuit's 2026-03-26 opinion in Pedersen v. Unified Patents (2024-2090), and PTAB filings. I did not find a directly sourced PACER entry for the final closing order; that is the one material gap in the record.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen

Based on docket entries surfaced from PACER-based aggregators (Unicourt, Patexia) and firm/PTAB records, two attorneys have appeared for the plaintiff in Pedersen v. Madwire, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00590 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright):

1. William P. Ramey III — Lead / filing counsel

• Role: Lead counsel of record; signed the Complaint and all initial pleadings (Dkt. 1–6, filed 6/8/2022–6/15/2022), including the Complaint, AO 120 form, summons request, and Certificate of Interested Parties.
• Firm/Office: Ramey LLP (successor to Ramey & Schwaller, LLP), 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006. He is the firm's managing partner.
• Experience note: A high-volume patent plaintiff litigator in the W.D. Tex. — reportedly responsible for a large share of patent suits filed in that venue since 2021. He also represented Pedersen as patent owner before the PTAB in Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen, IPR2023-00986 (Power of Attorney naming Ramey LLP). Notably, his litigation conduct has drawn repeated sanctions: Judge Albright ordered sanctions and a $72,500 fee award against Ramey and his client in MCom IP LLC v. Cisco Systems, No. 6:22-cv-00261 (redacted order filed 12/18/2025), including a requirement to obtain court permission before filing new W.D. Tex. patent suits; he also faced a ~$900,000 fee exposure in Silent Communications LLC v. BlackBerry and personal sanctions (over $60,000) for unauthorized practice in California (Law360, March 2025).

2. Joseph J. Zito — Later-appearing counsel

• Role: Counsel of record for plaintiff via Notice of Attorney Appearance (Dkt. 12), filed October 9, 2023 ("Notice of Attorney Appearance by Joseph J. Zito on behalf of Peter Pedersen. Attorney Joseph J. Zito added to party Peter Pedersen(pty:pla)").
• Firm/Office: Not confirmed from the sources retrieved in this search. The docket entry text (as reproduced by Patexia) does not state a firm, and the search limit was reached before I could verify his firm affiliation, office location, or bar admissions. I will flag this explicitly: do not attribute a firm to Zito without checking the PACER docket entry (Dkt. 12) or the court's attorney roster.
• Experience note: He entered the case roughly 16 months after filing, suggesting a substitution or supplementation of plaintiff's counsel; no notable past cases or experience details were verified in this pass.

Additional notes / caveats

• No separate local counsel identified: The docket entries surfaced (through late 2023) show only Ramey and Zito for the plaintiff; no separate "local counsel" appearance was found. Judge Albright's standing orders govern pro hac vice appearances, so any out-of-district counsel would typically appear pro hac vice — none other was identified in the sources reviewed.
• Defense side (for context only): Madwire is represented by John M. Jackson, who filed his appearance 6/27/2022 (Dkt. 7) and the Answer on 8/16/2022 (Dkt. 10).
• Case posture: The case remains pending; there were answer-deadline extensions into August 2022, and related PTAB activity involving the '920 patent (e.g., IPR2023-00986, Adobe v. Pedersen) indicates parallel validity challenges.
• Source reliability caveat: Attorney identities are grounded in docket text reproduced by Unicourt and Patexia (Dkt. 1, 12) and the PTAB power-of-attorney exhibit (DocketAlarm, IPR2023-00986). Firm details for Ramey are from rameyfirm.com, Super Lawyers, and Avvo. Zito's firm, office, and experience could not be verified within the search budget; if this matters for the filing, confirm against the PACER docket (Dkt. 12) or the W.D. Tex. attorney admission records.

Based on the PACER/docket-derived sources available (UniCourt, Patexia, and the Ex Parte case monitor), the defense-side attorney of record in Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Madwire, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00590 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright) is:

Defense Counsel

John M. Jackson

• Role: Attorney of record for defendant Madwire, LLC; filed the notice of appearance (Doc. 7, entered 06/27/2022) and has been the signing attorney on all substantive defense filings.
• Filings attributable to him:
  • Doc. 7 – Notice of Attorney Appearance (06/27/2022)
  • Doc. 8 – Joint notice re: extension of defendant's response deadline (06/27/2022)
  • Doc. 9 – Unopposed notice re: further extension (07/29/2022)
  • Doc. 10 – Madwire's Answer to the Complaint (08/16/2022)
  • Doc. 11 – Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (08/16/2022)
• Firm / office: Not confirmed by the sources retrieved. The docket records identify him only as "John M. Jackson" (e-filer login "Jackson, John"). Neither UniCourt, Patexia, nor the case-monitor pages disclose his firm or office location. Madwire, LLC is headquartered in Fort Collins, Colorado, which suggests a Colorado-based firm is plausible, but I have not verified his firm affiliation from any reliable source and will not speculate.
• Patent litigation experience: No biographical or case-history information for this specific John M. Jackson was found in the retrieved materials. His patent-litigation experience therefore cannot be characterized from the available sources.

Plaintiff-side context (for completeness, not defense)

The plaintiff's counsel of record is William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP), who filed the complaint, with Joseph J. Zito later entering an appearance for Pedersen (Doc. 12, 10/09/2023). No other defense attorneys appear in the docket entries reviewed.

Important caveats

• No local counsel / no additional defense attorneys identified: The docket entries through at least late 2023 show only John M. Jackson appearing for Madwire. If additional defense counsel (e.g., Texas local counsel) entered an appearance in later filings, they were not captured in the sources I retrieved.
• Docket completeness: The most recent docket entry I located is from October 2023 (plaintiff-side appearance). I could not access the live PACER docket directly, so any entries after that date are not reflected here. If the case has since been dismissed, transferred, or stayed (some case monitors list the status as "Closed"), the entry of new or substitute defense counsel cannot be ruled out based on the information available.