Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Monday.com, Inc.

Case Overview: Pedersen v. Monday.com, Inc. (6:22-cv-00923-ADA-DTG, W.D. Tex.)

Parties and accused technology. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen is an individual patent owner (classified by Unified Patents as an NPE/individual) believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions, who has prosecuted a broad multi-defendant campaign around U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (Unified Patents, "AiPi affiliate Pedersen message distribution patent confirmed invalid by Fed. Circuit," Mar. 26, 2026; Unified Patents, "AiPi entity Pedersen message distribution patent found invalid," May 2024). He was represented by William P. Ramey of Ramey LLP, a prolific Western District of Texas filer (Justia docket, ECF No. 1; Ramey LLP press release announcing suits against Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Wix.com, and Zendesk over the '920 patent). Defendant Monday.com, Inc. is an operating company—the Israel-based, Nasdaq-listed provider of the "Monday.com Work OS," a project-management and workflow-collaboration platform. Pedersen's September 8, 2022 complaint (ECF No. 1) asserted infringement of the '920 patent based on Monday.com's electronic-messaging functionality within its platform (Justia docket; PTACTS stay order at ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 12–15). The specific accused modules or claim charts were not available in the sources retrieved, so the precise product features accused should be confirmed against the complaint's exhibits; the patent's subject matter—profile-driven message distribution—maps to Monday.com's email, notification, and automation features, but that characterization is an inference, not a verified pleading detail.

Patent and procedural posture. The sole patent in suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," which claims an electronic message management system for centrally specifying and managing how messages from multiple messengers/sources are distributed to individual recipients—using recipient profile data, messenger profile data, and an individual message generator to produce messages delivered according to each recipient's delivery parameters (email, voice, fax, or digital transmission) (FreePatentsOnline; IPR2023-00029 record). The case was filed September 8, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright and referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland (Justia docket). Monday.com answered on December 19, 2022 (ECF No. 10), then moved to stay pending inter partes review on June 21, 2023 (ECF No. 11). Judge Albright granted the opposed stay on March 13, 2024, citing the parallel IPR and noting the case's relationship to Pedersen's companion suits against Intuit, Upland, and Ziff Davis over the same patent—all of which had been stayed or dismissed (Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 11, entered Mar. 13, 2024, reproduced as Ex. 1029 in IPR2025-01334). The venue matters because Waco/Albright was, at filing, the nation's dominant patent venue, with fast "rocket docket" schedules and standing orders that made WDTX the preferred forum for NPE campaigns—and Ramey LLP's serial '920 filings clustered there.

Why the case is notable. This suit is a node in a much larger assertion campaign: the '920 patent was asserted against Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix.com, Salesforce, Zoho, Ziff Davis, Intuit, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, and Aurea Software, among others (Unified Patents insights, Mar. 26, 2026). The decisive development was the PTAB's final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen (IPR2023-00029, filed Oct. 14, 2022), which on May 10, 2024 held all challenged claims (1 and 14–17) unpatentable, a decision the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 in Pedersen v. Unified Patents (Appeal No. 24-2090) (Unified Patents insights; IPR2023-00029 docket; PatSnap litigation summary). The stay in this case was expressly premised on that IPR, so the Federal Circuit's affirmance extinguished the asserted claims and effectively ended the Monday.com litigation; third-party trackers now list the case as closed (ex parte case tracker), although the user-provided metadata still marks it "Active" and the docket's final termination entry (e.g., a stipulated dismissal or judgment following the affirmance) was not independently verified in the sources retrieved. The case illustrates the modern NPE lifecycle: mass WDTX assertions of a single software patent, coordinated IPR counterattacks by Unified Patents, stays pending review, and appellate affirmance that neutralizes the patent across the entire campaign—reinforcing the role of PTAB review as the primary check on low-quality software-patent assertions in the messaging/CRM space.

Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Monday.com, Inc. — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Case No. 6:22-cv-00923-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.) — Judge Alan D. Albright, referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland

A threshold caveat: the case metadata you supplied lists a filing date of 2022-06-09, but the actual court docket and the Court's own stay order state the Original Complaint was filed 2022-09-08 (ECF No. 1). I have relied on the docket record. The case was stayed in its early stages and never reached trial; its practical outcome was dictated by a parallel PTAB IPR that invalidated the asserted claims.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2022-09-08 — Complaint filed (ECF No. 1). Peter Pedersen, represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP (Houston), sued Monday.com, Inc. in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division, demanding a jury, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (the "′920 patent," titled "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System") under 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Justia docket, 6:2022cv00923; Ramey LLP press release.)
• 2022-09-08 — Case assigned to Judge Albright and referred to Magistrate Judge Gilliland; AO 120 patent form and summons issued (ECF Nos. 2–5).
• 2022-09-14 — Monday.com served (ECF No. 6).
• 2022-10-04 and 2022-11-03 — Two stipulated extensions of the answer deadline (ECF Nos. 7–8), pushing the answer due date from 10/05/2022 to 12/05/2022 (filed by Benjamin L. Bernell for Monday.com).
• 2022-12-19 — Answer filed (ECF No. 10). The stay order confirms Monday.com answered on this date. I found no evidence in public sources of counterclaims; the answer's affirmative defenses (presumably including invalidity/non-infringement) are not separately summarized in the accessible record.

This case was one of a coordinated wave of Pedersen/Ramey LLP suits over the ′920 patent — including related W.D. Tex. actions against Intuit (6:22-cv-00588), Upland Software (6:22-cv-00594), and Ziff Davis (6:22-cv-00597), as well as actions against Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Wix, and Zendesk.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

The only substantive pre-trial motion identified is the stay motion:

• 2023-06-21 — Monday.com filed an Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (ECF No. 11). Pedersen opposed (ECF No. 12); Monday.com replied (ECF No. 14); briefing completed 2023-07-05. Oral argument was held.
• 2023-08-28 — Case Readiness Status Report (ECF No. ~15). Notably, the parties requested no case schedule and proposed no Markman hearing or trial dates — signaling that both sides were content to let the PTAB run.
• 2024-03-13 — Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay (ECF No. ~16). Judge Albright (per the order, signed by the Court) granted the stay pending resolution of IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen). Applying the three-factor test (prejudice, stage of proceedings, simplification), the Court found: (a) Pedersen had not diligently pursued the case (contrast with the January 30, 2024 initial pretrial conferences in the related Intuit/Ziff Davis cases) and would not be unduly prejudiced; (b) the case was in its early stages — no scheduling order, no Markman date, no trial date; and (c) the PTAB decision (due by May 15, 2024) would simplify or dispose of the case. The order required joint status reports and referenced that related cases had already been stayed (Intuit, Ziff Davis) or voluntarily dismissed (Upland). (Stay Order, reproduced as Ex. 1029 in IPR2025-01334, available via DocketAlarm and PTACTS.)

Not identified in the record: no motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), no motion to transfer venue, no summary judgment motion, and no motion for fees — the case was stayed before any such motion practice. I found no indication of a Monday.com-filed IPR petition itself; the stay was premised on Unified Patents' IPR2023-00029 (a separate IPR, IPR2023-00867, was filed by Oracle Corp. on the same patent).

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

None. The case never reached claim construction. The stay order expressly noted there was no Markman hearing date, and the parties' August 28, 2023 status report requested no Markman schedule. The only "claim construction" activity occurred in the PTAB IPR (IPR2023-00029), where the Board construed the claims in its institution/FWD decisions.

---

4. Discovery Milestones

No substantive discovery milestones are documented in the accessible record. The stay order characterized the case as "in its early stages," with no scheduling order entered — meaning fact discovery, expert discovery, and depositions had not progressed. The strategic significance: Monday.com's counsel leveraged the early-stage posture (and Pedersen's lack of diligence) to obtain the stay, avoiding the cost of discovery and any Albright-court trial calendar pressure while the PTAB ran its course.

---

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial was ever scheduled, no verdict was rendered, and there were no post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, or fee motions). The stay effectively froze the litigation before trial.

---

6. Final Disposition / Present Posture

The case has not, per the accessible record, been formally dismissed by a docketed order that I can cite — but it is functionally over:

• The stay remains in effect, now with no viable claims: the PTAB's final written decision (May 10, 2024) invalidated claims 1 and 14–17 of the ′920 patent, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026.
• Docket aggregators diverge on status: Ex Parte's case tracker lists the case as "Closed," while Unified Patents' portal still shows it as "Open" (crawl-date dependent). I could not retrieve a PACER entry showing a Rule 41 dismissal or final judgment for the Monday.com case specifically. If a formal termination order exists, it likely postdates the Federal Circuit affirmance and would be a stipulated dismissal or dismissal on the basis that the asserted claims are cancelled. This is the one point where I cannot cite a definitive docket entry — flag for verification on PACER.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect

This is the dispositive thread of the case:

• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen (PTAB). Unified petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1 and 14–17 of the ′920 patent on obviousness grounds (Funk in view of Law or Kamakura, among other grounds). The PTAB instituted review and, on 2024-05-10, issued a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. (Unified Patents, "AiPi entity Pedersen message distribution patent found invalid," May 13, 2024.)
• Federal Circuit appeal — Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir.). Pedersen appealed (new counsel: Robert Greenspoon, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC). On 2026-03-26, a nonprecedential panel (Lourie and Hughes, Circuit Judges; Chief District Judge Kleeh sitting by designation) affirmed, holding the Board's obviousness finding was supported by substantial evidence — specifically that the prior art (Funk) disclosed the "messenger-specific, user-specified delivery parameters" of claim limitation 1.4. (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026); Unified Patents, "…patent confirmed invalid by Fed. Circuit," Mar. 26, 2026.)
• IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corp. v. Pedersen (PTAB). A separate IPR on the same ′920 patent, filed by Oracle (another Pedersen defendant); Pedersen's mandatory notices (Aug. 29, 2023) identify the Monday.com case as a related district-court proceeding. I did not locate a final decision in this proceeding in the available sources.
• Effect on the litigation: The district court's stay was granted specifically "pending resolution of IPR2023-00029." When the PTAB invalidated the asserted claims (May 10, 2024) and the Federal Circuit affirmed (March 26, 2026), Pedersen was left with no enforceable asserted claims — eliminating any infringement case against Monday.com and making dismissal of the stayed action a formality. The same dynamic played out across Pedersen's ′920 campaign: Upland was voluntarily dismissed (Jan. 30, 2024), and Intuit and Ziff Davis were stayed on the same basis.

---

Bottom Line

Pedersen v. Monday.com was an early-stage W.D. Tex. patent case that was stayed on 2024-03-13 pending Unified Patents' IPR2023-00029. The PTAB invalidated the asserted claims on 2024-05-10, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-26 — leaving Monday.com with a complete victory by way of patent invalidation. The case never saw claim construction, discovery of substance, or trial; the only open question is the exact docket entry (stipulated dismissal vs. judgment on the pleadings vs. administrative closure) that formally closed the district case, which I could not confirm from public sources and would verify on PACER.

Key sources: Justia docket for 6:2022cv00923; Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay (Mar. 13, 2024), reproduced as Ex. 1029 in IPR2025-01334 (DocketAlarm/PTACTS); Unified Patents insights (May 13, 2024; Mar. 26, 2026); Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026) (Vitallaw/PatSnap); DocketAlarm PTAB record for IPR2023-00867.

Based on the available sources, here is what can be confirmed about plaintiff's counsel in Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Monday.com, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00923-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.):

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

1. William P. Ramey III — Lead Counsel

• Firm: Ramey LLP (founding/managing partner), Houston, TX
• Source/role: The Complaint (ECF No. 1, filed 9/8/2022) and the executed Summons return (ECF No. 6) were both filed by "Ramey, William" on behalf of Pedersen (Justia docket, retrieved 11/3/2022: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv00923/[1188357](/patent/1188357)). Ramey LLP's own firm page confirms it filed the suit on Pedersen's behalf against Monday.com (among others) on U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (https://es.rameyfirm.com/ramey-llp-files-new-suit-on-behalf-of-peter-pedersen).
• Experience note: Managing partner of a Houston IP boutique; he is the repeat plaintiff's counsel in Pedersen's parallel W.D. Tex. suits on the '920 patent (against Intuit, Upland Software, Ziff Davis, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Wix, and Zendesk) before Judge Albright.

2. Edward A. Cavazos — Listed on the docket as counsel (role/firm unconfirmed)

• Justia's party listing for this case includes "Edward A. Cavazos" in the "Represented By" block alongside Ramey (same Justia docket page, above).
• Caveat: I could not independently confirm from the search results whether Cavazos appeared for the plaintiff (e.g., as local counsel) or in what capacity; his firm/office location could not be verified from the retrieved materials. Treat this entry as unconfirmed pending a PACER review of the attorney appearance list.

Caution on Benjamin L. Bernell: Although Justia's "Represented By" block also lists "Benjamin L. Bernell," the docket entries show Bernell filing the notices of extension of time on behalf of defendant Monday.com, Inc. (ECF Nos. 7 and 8, both captioned "by Monday.com, Inc. … (Bernell, Benjamin)"). He should therefore be attributed to the defendant, not the plaintiff, absent contrary docket evidence.

Related-but-distinct counsel (PTAB, not district court)

In the parallel inter partes review of the same patent (IPR2023-00029, Unified Patents v. Pedersen), Pedersen's Patent Owner mandatory notices (Jan. 23, 2024) designate Joseph Zito (lead) and Erik Lund (backup) of Whitestone Law, Tysons, VA (DocketAlarm copy of the notice). Those are USPTO/PTAB appearances and are not the district-court counsel of record in 6:22-cv-00923.

Gaps / caveats

• The full PACER attorney-appearance list for the W.D. Tex. case was not retrieved; the Justia snapshot is from November 3, 2022, and later pro hac vice or substitution filings may exist.
• The case was stayed on March 13, 2024, pending IPR (Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 11, quoted in an exhibit to IPR2025-01334), so no post-stay appearances were reviewed.
• If you need a complete, authoritative list, pull the docket's "Attorney" tab on PACER for 6:22-cv-00923 (fees $0.10/page) — I was unable to access PACER directly in this session.

I'll research the counsel of record for Monday.com in this case. Let me search several sources.

I have initial leads. The Justia docket shows Monday.com filings by "Bernell, Benjamin" (ECF Nos. 7-8). Let me dig deeper into the docket and counsel identities.

Ben Bernell is at Pillsbury. Let me get the full docket to identify all Monday.com counsel, including who filed the answer and motion to stay.

Based on the available sources, here is what is verified regarding defense counsel in Pedersen v. Monday.com, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00923-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.):

Confirmed defense counsel

Benjamin L. Bernell — Counsel of record for Monday.com, Inc.

• Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
• Office: Austin, Texas (per the firm's attorney directory)
• Role: Appeared for Monday.com from the outset of the case. He signed Monday.com's Notice of Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (ECF No. 7, filed 10/4/2022) and Notice of Extension of Time for Defendant to Respond (ECF No. 8, filed 11/3/2022), per the Justia docket for 6:22-cv-00923.
• Relevant experience: Per his Pillsbury bio, Bernell is a seasoned IP litigator who has defended patent infringement suits in W.D. Tex. (Waco) — including representing Cloudera in patent litigation before Judge Albright's court — and has won Federal Circuit affirmances of summary judgments of non-infringement (e.g., for Everbridge) and invalidity (e.g., for Qcue). He also defended Valve, Starbucks, and Freescale in patent suits in E.D. Tex.

Additional attorney on the docket (unverified)

The Justia docket's attorney listing also truncates a third name beginning with "Edward A." alongside William P. (Ramey — plaintiff's counsel) and Benjamin L. (Bernell). I could not confirm the full name, firm, or role of this "Edward A." attorney from the available sources, and I will not speculate. It may be a second Pillsbury attorney on the Monday.com team, but that is unverified.

Limitations / status notes

• Docket coverage gap: The Justia docket was last retrieved on November 3, 2022, so it does not cover Monday.com's Answer (filed December 19, 2022), the Opposed Motion to Stay Pending IPR (ECF No. 11), or the Order Granting the Stay (entered March 13, 2024, by Judge Albright, per Exhibit 1029 in IPR2025-01334). Those later filings may identify additional counsel (e.g., lead trial counsel and/or local Waco counsel) not visible in the early docket entries.
• Case posture: The case was stayed pending inter partes review of U.S. Patent 6,965,920 (related IPR2023-00029, filed by Unified Patents), and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability decision (March 2026), which has effectively mooted enforcement of the asserted claims. The ex parte platform listing for the case marks it "Closed," though the court docket's formal status should be checked on PACER.
• No in-house counsel verified: I found no named Monday.com in-house attorney of record in this case from the sources searched; that does not preclude in-house involvement, but none is documented in the public docket excerpts.

Bottom line: Benjamin L. Bernell (Pillsbury, Austin) is the confirmed defense attorney of record for Monday.com based on the early docket filings. A fuller counsel list (including any lead trial counsel and local counsel who appeared later) would require reviewing the post-November 2022 docket entries on PACER, which were not accessible in my search.