Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Microsoft Corporation

Case Overview: Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:21-cv-01154 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties, patent, and accused technology. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen is an individual inventor and the named owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, titled "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System." Unified Patents describes Pedersen as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions," and the '920 patent has been asserted in a broad campaign against roughly fifteen companies—including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Intuit, Salesforce, Zoho, Zendesk, Wix.com, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, and Aurea Software—a pattern consistent with inventor-owned NPE-style enforcement rather than a practicing-entity dispute. Defendant Microsoft Corporation is an operating company; the '920 patent generally claims a system and method for the "central specification and management" of how electronic messages received from a plurality of messengers are distributed to recipients, with recipient profile data specifying "delivery parameters for where, when and how specific types of messages from each messenger are to be delivered," plus messenger profile, message input, and individual-message-generation components (Fed. Cir. slip op., Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 24-2090, Mar. 26, 2026). Consistent with that subject matter, the accusations appear to target Microsoft's email/messaging platforms—the IPR record even used Microsoft's own Outlook 2000 and Exchange Server 5.5 manuals as prior art (IPR2023-00029, Exs. 1023, 1029–1031). Caveat: I could not retrieve the amended complaint's text (Dkt. 14) from public sources, so the specific accused Microsoft products are not confirmed from the docket itself.

Procedural posture and venue. The case was filed November 9, 2021, in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (Justia docket). Microsoft was served November 11, 2021, and the case proceeded quickly: Pedersen (represented by William Ramey of Ramey LLP) filed an amended complaint on January 31, 2022 (Dkt. 14, with Exhibits A–C); Microsoft—appearing through Melissa Richards Smith, Theresa Nguyen, and pro hac vice counsel Christina McCullough—moved to dismiss the indirect- and willful-infringement claims and to strike requests for enhanced damages and injunctive relief (Dkts. 8 and 15, Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, 2022). Rather than litigating those motions, Pedersen filed a STIPULATION of Dismissal on April 5, 2022 (Dkt. 18), with the case closed and reported to the PTO the next day (Dkt. 19)—a disposition roughly five months after filing. Venue mattered: during this period, Judge Albright's Waco courtroom was the nation's dominant patent forum, running a patentee-friendly "rocket docket" with fast scheduling orders (the court's updated standing orders were entered March 10, 2022), which is why serial plaintiffs like Pedersen concentrated filings there. Whether the dismissal was with prejudice or reflected a settlement is not stated in the public docket summaries I reviewed.

Why the case is notable. This suit is the Microsoft front of a serial assertion campaign over a single early-2000s messaging patent, and it illustrates the lifecycle of such campaigns: a fast Albright docket case resolved by stipulation in months, followed by a coordinated validity challenge. Unified Patents petitioned for IPR2023-00029 on October 14, 2022; the PTAB instituted on all challenged claims (May 15, 2023) and issued a final written decision (May 10, 2024) holding claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura. On March 26, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090), finding substantial evidence for obviousness. The notable irony: among the prior art that ultimately invalidated the patent Microsoft had been sued over were Microsoft's own published Outlook 2000 and Exchange Server 5.5 manuals, underscoring how a broad, low-quality messaging patent could be asserted against the very companies whose products documented the prior art. The case is thus a useful data point on inventor-led assertion in W.D. Tex., the strategic use of stipulations and motions to dismiss to pressure plaintiffs, and the growing role of Unified Patents' IPR challenges in extinguishing such campaigns.

Sources: Justia docket (6:2021cv01154); Unified Patents Portal docket (6:21-cv-01154); RPX Empower litigation page; Unified Patents insights posts (Oct. 17, 2022; May 15, 2023; May 10, 2024; Mar. 26, 2026); Federal Circuit nonprecedential opinion in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 24-2090 (Mar. 26, 2026); Studicata summary of Pedersen v. Zoho Corp. (W.D. Tex. 2023).

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches to track its procedural history and outcome.

I have solid initial data. Let me dig deeper into the dismissal details, any final judgment, and the parallel IPR proceedings.

Let me verify the final disposition details and check for any dismissal order or judgment, plus confirm details about the stipulation.

Based on my research across court docket aggregators (Unified Patents Portal, RPX Empower, Justia, Patexia), USPTO/PTAB records, and the Federal Circuit, here is the chronological account of Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:21-cv-01154 (W.D. Tex. – Waco, Judge Alan D. Albright).

---

Case Overview

• Patent at issue: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("the '920 patent"), directed to a central electronic message management system that filters/distributes messages from multiple senders ("messengers") to recipients based on recipient-defined, messenger-specific delivery parameters.
• Case posture: Filed 2021-11-09; voluntarily dismissed by stipulation on 2022-04-05 — a short-lived case that ended before any substantive ruling, claim construction, or trial. The metadata status ("Filed") is stale; the docket reflects closure in April 2022.

---

Chronology of Key Developments

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2021-11-09 — Complaint filed (Doc. 1). Peter Henrik Pedersen (represented by William Ramey, Ramey LLP) sued Microsoft for infringement of the '920 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271, demanding a jury. Case assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. (Justia docket; Unified Patents Portal docket text.)
• 2021-11-09 — Summons issued (Doc. 4); 2021-11-12 — return of service (Doc. 5): Microsoft served 2021-11-11, answer due 2021-12-02.
• 2021-12-02 — Unopposed extension (Doc. 6): Microsoft's answer deadline reset to 2022-01-16.
• 2022-01-18 — Microsoft appearances and Rule 7 disclosure (Docs. 7–9): Melissa Richards Smith and Theresa H. Nguyen entered appearances; Microsoft filed its corporate disclosure statement.
• 2022-01-19 to 01-20 — Pro hac vice admissions (Docs. 11–13): Christina J. McCullough admitted PHV (order granting, signed by Judge Albright); Reese Nguyen also appeared PHV.

Important: No answer or counterclaims were ever filed. Microsoft responded with Rule 12 motions only, and the case was dismissed before any answer deadline matured again.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• 2022-01-18 — First Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8): Microsoft moved to dismiss Pedersen's indirect and willful infringement claims and to strike requests for enhanced damages and injunctive relief.
• 2022-01-31 — Amended Complaint (Doc. 14): Pedersen amended, apparently dropping willfulness (the sequel motion no longer mentions willfulness).
• 2022-02-14 — Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15): Microsoft again moved to dismiss indirect infringement claims and strike enhanced-damages/injunctive-relief requests.
• 2022-02-28 (Doc. 16) and 2022-03-17 (Doc. 17): Two unopposed extensions for Pedersen to respond to the MTD.

No ruling ever issued on either motion to dismiss — the case was dismissed before the motions were fully briefed. There were no motions to transfer, no stay motions pending IPR, and no summary judgment motions (all would have been premature in a case that lasted ~5 months).

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• None. The case was dismissed before any Markman briefing, patent scheduling order deadlines, or claim construction hearing. No Markman order exists.

4. Discovery Milestones

• None of strategic significance. No discovery requests, depositions, expert reports, or discovery disputes appear on the docket. The case terminated before the parties even completed the initial stages contemplated by Judge Albright's patent standing orders (which were re-issued 2022-03-10).

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• None. No trial occurred; no verdict; no JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion. The case never approached trial.

6. Final Disposition

• 2022-04-05 — Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 18): Pedersen filed a STIPULATION of Dismissal, ending the case. The docket text indicates a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)-style stipulation (effective upon filing; no court order required). The publicly available docket text does not state whether dismissal was with or without prejudice, and no settlement terms were made public (a confidential resolution is the most plausible explanation, but that is inference, not sourced fact).
• 2022-04-06 — AO 120 Report (Doc. 19): The court transmitted the patent/trademark form to the USPTO, the customary final ministerial act on case closure.
• No appeal was taken from the district court dismissal.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen, IPR2023-00029

Though it post-dated the Microsoft dismissal, the IPR is central to the '920 patent's fate and Pedersen's broader litigation campaign (he asserted the '920 patent against Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Zoho, Salesforce, Intuit, Zendesk, Wix, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Aurea, and others):

• 2022-10-14 — Petition filed: Unified Patents petitioned for IPR of the '920 patent, challenging claims 1 and 14–17 as obvious (grounds: Funk (U.S. 5,937,162) in view of Law (U.S. 7,058,586) or Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310), with expert declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh). (GreyB/ipVerse; USPTO exhibit records.)
• 2023-05-15 — Institution: PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims. (Unified Patents insight; GreyB.)
• 2024-05-10 — Final Written Decision (Paper 29): PTAB (APJs Stacey G. White, author; Michelle N. Wormmeester; Larry J. Hume) held claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious. (GreyB; Unified Patents.)
• 2024-07-12 — Notice of Appeal: Pedersen appealed to the Federal Circuit, No. 2024-2090.
• 2026-03-26 — Federal Circuit affirms (nonprecedential): Panel of Lourie and Hughes, Circuit Judges, and Chief District Judge Kleeh held the Board's obviousness finding was supported by substantial evidence, specifically finding Funk disclosed messenger-specific, user-specified delivery parameters. (Fed. Cir. opinion PDF; Vital Law; Patterson Sheridan weekly summary.)

---

Practical Takeaway

• The Microsoft case itself was a minor, early casualty of a large NPE campaign: filed November 2021, never reached an answer, survived only two Rule 12 motions and one amendment, and was voluntarily dismissed by stipulation in April 2022 — likely a license/settlement given the lack of any adverse ruling. The dismissal preceded, and therefore was not caused by, the later PTAB proceeding.
• The '920 patent's ultimate fate was decided in the PTAB/Federal Circuit: All asserted claims (1, 14–17) were invalidated as obvious, with the Federal Circuit affirming on 2026-03-26 — effectively killing the remaining wave of Pedersen's district court assertions of this patent.

Caveats: The with/without-prejudice character of the 2022-04-05 stipulation and any settlement terms are not publicly documented in the sources I could access; those specific facts would require a PACER look at Doc. 18. Microsoft's substantive counsel beyond the local appearances (Smith, Nguyen, McCullough) is not fully identified from the public docket text.

Press coverage of Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp.

Based on extensive searching across mainstream outlets (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, The Verge, Ars Technica, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, Law360) and trade press, I found no dedicated press coverage of Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp., 6:21-cv-01154 (W.D. Tex.). The case — filed November 9, 2021, before Judge Alan D. Albright and voluntarily dismissed by stipulation on April 5, 2022 (Doc. 18), per Justia and the Unified Patents docket portal — was a short-lived, five-month suit that ended before the court ruled on Microsoft's two motions to dismiss indirect/willful infringement claims and strike enhanced damages and injunctive relief (Docs. 8, 15). No outlet reported damages sought or settlement terms, and the public stipulation of dismissal discloses no monetary details.

What press exists covers the broader assertion campaign around U.S. Patent 6,965,920, which Microsoft was part of. Unified Patents reported on 2022-10-17 that it had petitioned for IPR against the '920 patent, noting it "has been asserted against several companies including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Zoho Corp., Salesforce, Oracle, Adobe, Intuit, Wix.com, Zendesk, and others." After the PTAB's final written decision on 2024-05-10 held all challenged claims (1 and 14-17) unpatentable as obvious, Unified Patents posted that the "AiPi entity Pedersen message distribution patent [was] found invalid," describing Pedersen as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions." On 2026-03-26, after the Federal Circuit affirmed in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 24-2090, Unified Patents again framed the outcome as neutralizing the patent Pedersen had "asserted against several including… Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix.com, and others."

Beyond Unified's advocacy-oriented coverage, the only journalistic treatment found is a VitalLaw IP Law Daily news brief (2026-03-26) summarizing the Federal Circuit affirmance on substantial-evidence grounds (Funk in view of Law or Kamakura), but it does not mention the Microsoft case. AI-generated litigation summaries from PatSnap and RPX track the docket but are not journalism.

Where reporting goes beyond the court record: Unified Patents' characterizations that Pedersen is an "AiPi affiliate/entity" — a funding/association point corroborated by attorney William Ramey's declaration in a related CTD Networks case (filed in the D. Colo. record, accessible via CourtListener), which describes AiPi Solutions financing the Pedersen cases — and its "patent threat neutralised" framing are advocacy/analyst takes, not findings of the court or the Federal Circuit. No outlet reported executive statements, industry reaction, or market impact tied to the Microsoft suit specifically; the case's significance in coverage is purely as one data point in a multi-defendant NPE-style campaign that ultimately collapsed when Unified Patents' IPR invalidated the asserted claims.

Sources

• Pedersen v. Microsoft Corporation > Documents
• PETER HENRIK PEDERSEN, Appellant v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC, Appellee
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Obviousness of email sorting system affirmed
• IPR2023-00986, No. 1002 Exhibit - Ex 1002 Declaration of Dr Philip Greenspun (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2023) - Exhibits:
• RAMEY LLP FILES NEW SUIT ON BEHALF OF PETER PEDERSEN
• Cases
• US-6182118-B1 - System and Method for Distributing Electronic Messages in Accordance with Rules - - Title: System and Method of Analyzing Web Content
• Jan O. Pedersen — 20 Patents at Microsoft
• Profile responsive electronic message management system - Pedersen, Peter Henrik - Title:
• Pedersen v. Mailgun Technologies – US6965920B2 Patent Dismissed | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen

Based on the docket for Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:21-cv-01154 (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 9, 2021, Judge Alan D. Albright), the plaintiff was represented by a single attorney of record throughout the case:

William P. Ramey III

• Role: Lead counsel (and sole filer of record for plaintiff); no separate local counsel was needed because Ramey is admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar (State Bar of Texas, admitted 2000; also admitted to the Federal Circuit). No in-house counsel appeared for plaintiff (the plaintiff is an individual inventor in Denmark).
• Firm/Office: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800 (or Ste. 750 in older listings), Houston, TX 77006. Ramey is the firm's founder/managing partner (formerly Ramey & Schwaller, LLP; later Ramey LLP).
• Experience note: A prolific (and sanction-prone) W.D. Tex. patent plaintiff's lawyer — Bloomberg Law reports he filed 600+ patent suits in the W.D. Tex. since 2021 and was sanctioned in December 2025 by Judge Albright in MCom IP LLC v. Cisco Systems, No. 6:22-cv-00261, which required him to seek court permission before filing new patent suits. He also represented Pedersen as backup/PTAB counsel in the parallel IPRs on the same '920 patent (IPR2023-00029, IPR2023-00867, IPR2023-00986), which ended with the Federal Circuit affirming invalidation of U.S. Patent 6,965,920 on March 26, 2026.

Grounding / Docket record

• Doc. 1 — Original Complaint filed by "Ramey, William" (entered 11/09/2021) — per Justia docket and the Unified Patents portal.
• Doc. 6, 14, 16, 17 — All plaintiff-side extensions and the Amended Complaint (Doc. 14, filed 1/31/2022) were filed by "(Ramey, William)".
• Doc. 18 — STIPULATION of Dismissal by Peter Pedersen, filed by "(Ramey, William)" (entered 04/05/2022), terminating the case. Doc. 19 forwarded the AO 120 notice to the PTO.
• Every pro hac vice motion and notice of appearance in the docket was filed by Microsoft's counsel only (Melissa Richards Smith, Theresa H. Nguyen, Christina J. McCullough, Reese Nguyen) — no pro hac vice motion was filed on the plaintiff's side.
• RPX Empower and Unified Patents' case pages list the same docket history; the PTAB mandatory notices in the related IPRs identify "Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp., 6:21-cv-01154 (WDTX) — Dismissed 04/05/2022."

Notes / caveats

• No other plaintiff-side counsel appeared in this district court action. Do not conflate the later PTAB/Federal Circuit counsel (Whitestone Law's Kendal Sheets and Joseph Zito in IPR2023-00029; Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig's Robert Greenspoon on the Federal Circuit appeal, No. 2024-2090) with counsel of record in this W.D. Tex. case — they appeared in separate USPTO/CAFC proceedings.
• The case never reached merits rulings: Microsoft moved to dismiss indirect/willful infringement claims (Docs. 8, 15), but the plaintiff stipulated to dismissal of the entire case on April 5, 2022, before the motions were resolved.
• Nothing was sealed with respect to plaintiff's counsel; the docket is publicly available, and the attorney-identity facts above are well sourced from the public docket (Justia, Patexia, Unified Patents portal) and firm/PTAB filings.

Based on the docket record for Pedersen v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:21-cv-01154 (W.D. Tex. (Waco), Judge Alan D. Albright), the following attorneys appeared as counsel of record for defendant Microsoft Corporation. The case was short-lived: Microsoft first appeared on January 18, 2022, and the case was dismissed by stipulation on April 5, 2022 (Dkt. 18), with the AO 120 notice to the PTO on April 6, 2022 (Dkt. 19). No filings are sealed that would obscure counsel of record.

Microsoft's Counsel of Record

1. Melissa Richards Smith — Local/Texas counsel

• Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, TX 75670
• Role: Texas counsel of record; filed Notice of Attorney Appearance for Microsoft (Dkt. 7, 1/18/2022) and signed Microsoft's Rule 7 disclosure (Dkt. 9) and both motions to dismiss (Dkt. 8, 1/18/2022; Dkt. 15, 2/14/2022). She also moved for Christina McCullough's pro hac vice admission (Dkt. 11).
• Experience: A veteran Texas IP litigator (licensed 1997; partner at Gillam & Smith since 2004) and one of the most frequently retained local counsel in Eastern/Western District of Texas patent cases — repeatedly engaged by Microsoft, Samsung, and LG as Marshall/Waco local counsel (e.g., Patent Armory Inc. v. Microsoft, 6:23-cv-00542-ADA, notice of appearance; Samsung/LG engagements per 2024 press coverage). Peer-rated for patent trial work.

2. Theresa H. Nguyen — Outside counsel (Microsoft's national counsel)

• Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900, Seattle, WA 98101
• Role: Filed Notice of Attorney Appearance for Microsoft (Dkt. 10, 1/19/2022).
• Experience: Perkins Coie attorney representing Microsoft in patent litigation; previously appeared as Microsoft's counsel in In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation, 4:18-cv-01885-HSG (N.D. Cal.), handling Daubert and sealing motions (Perkins Coie signature block confirms her affiliation and Microsoft representation).

3. Christina J. McCullough — Outside counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA (email domain percourt filings in the Philips case)
• Role: Pro hac vice admission granted by Judge Albright (Dkt. 13, 1/20/2022), on motion filed by Melissa Richards Smith (Dkt. 11, 1/19/2022).
• Experience: Perkins Coie litigator for Microsoft; also listed on Microsoft-related filings in the N.D. Cal. Philips MDL-type litigation (signature block: CMcCullough@perkinscoie.com, Perkins Coie, Seattle).

4. Reese Nguyen — Outside counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA (inferred from the same Perkins Coie signature block in the Philips case: RNguyen@perkinscoie.com)
• Role: The Clerk issued a Pro Hac Vice letter for Reese Nguyen on 1/19/2022 (Dkt. 12). Note: the publicly available docket excerpt does not show a separately docketed PHV motion or an order granting admission for Reese Nguyen before the case settled — only the Clerk's letter. The case was dismissed (Dkt. 18) roughly 2½ months later, so if the PHV order was entered, it may be a later docket entry not captured in the public excerpts I retrieved.
• Experience: Perkins Coie attorney in Microsoft's patent litigation group (per the Philips case signature block).

Sourcing notes / caveats

• Sources: Unified Patents docket text of 6:21-cv-01154; Justia Dockets (retrieved 3/17/2022); Patexia case documents page; CourtListener filings in In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation (4:18-cv-01885) confirming Perkins Coie affiliations of Theresa Nguyen, Christina McCullough, and Reese Nguyen; CourtListener/Martindale profiles confirming Melissa Smith's Gillam & Smith, Marshall, TX address.
• Not in-house counsel identified: The docket does not show any Microsoft in-house attorney entering an appearance in this case; the defense team was outside counsel (Perkins Coie) plus Texas local counsel (Gillam & Smith). If a Microsoft in-house attorney appeared in a later filing, it is not reflected in the public excerpts reviewed.
• Status: Case terminated by stipulated dismissal (Dkt. 18, 4/5/2022) — i.e., Microsoft's counsel appeared and litigated motions to dismiss, but the matter resolved before any answer, claim construction, or trial. The '920 patent was later challenged in IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents), with the PTAB's invalidity decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit in March 2026 — but that proceeding involved different counsel and is not part of this district-court representation record.