Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Wix.com, Inc.

Based on my research, here is the case overview:

Parties and accused technology. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen ("Peter Pedersen") is an individual inventor who, per Unified Patents, is "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions" and is classified by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and Unified Patents as an individual/non-practicing-entity assertor. He is represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP (Houston). Defendant Wix.com, Inc. is the U.S. operating entity of Wix, the publicly traded (Wix.com Ltd., NASDAQ: WIX) Israeli-founded website-building and SaaS platform whose services include email marketing and message-distribution tools. The suit, one of a coordinated five-defendant wave Ramey filed the same day (also naming Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, and Zendesk in parallel WDTX actions), alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 — "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued November 15, 2005 from a July 12, 2000 application (serial 09/904,270). The '920 patent claims an electronic message management system in which recipients centrally define profile data specifying delivery parameters for "where, when and how" messages from specific messengers are delivered, with messenger-profile and message-input applications and an individual message generator that routes individualized messages over a network. While I could not locate a source itemizing the specific Wix features accused, parallel Pedersen complaints against similar SaaS vendors (e.g., Zoho, accused via its email-marketing software) and the patent's subject matter indicate the accusations targeted Wix's profile-driven email/marketing message distribution services; the exact accused Wix product set is not confirmed in the public sources I reviewed.

Procedural posture and venue. The case is 6:22-cv-00925, Western District of Texas (Waco Division), filed September 8, 2022 (note: the case metadata's "2022-06-08" date appears to be an error; Justia, UniCourt, and Docket Alarm all reflect a September 8, 2022 filing), and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright — at the time the leading patent-venue magnet, whose Waco "rocket docket" standing orders and historically plaintiff-friendly schedule drew a wave of NPE filings before venue reforms and his later reassignment. Wix was served September 15, 2022, with the answer deadline extended to November 20, 2022. The case metadata marks the case "Active," but the record shows it was dismissed on August 23, 2023 (per the case list filed in IPR2023-00867 and Unified Patents' litigation portal, which lists it "Closed"); the specific dismissal instrument (e.g., settlement stipulation vs. voluntary dismissal) is not confirmed in the sources I found.

Why the case matters. This is a textbook example of a broad, multi-defendant NPE campaign built on a single dot-com-era internet-business-method patent, asserted against at least a dozen major tech/SaaS companies (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Salesforce, Intuit, Ziff Davis, Zoho, Wix, Monday.com, Constant Contact, Blackbaud, Mailgun, SAP, Aurea, Madwire, and others). Its significance is underscored by the parallel PTAB wars: Unified Patents filed IPR2023-00029 (October 14, 2022), which was instituted May 15, 2023 and resulted in a Final Written Decision (May 10, 2024) holding 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 (Appeal No. 2024-2090, nonprecedential, Lourie and Hughes, JJ., and Chief District Judge Kleeh). Meanwhile, Oracle's IPR2023-00867 and Adobe's IPR2023-00986 both terminated-settled on October 11, 2023, signaling licensing/settlement resolutions — a pattern consistent with Wix's dismissal in August 2023 amid the IPR siege. The case thus illustrates the modern two-front district-court/PTAB defense playbook against serial individual-inventor assertion, and the '920 patent's ultimate demise at the PTAB and Federal Circuit (per Unified Patents' March 2026 post-mortem) has effectively neutralized the patent as an ongoing enforcement asset against the SaaS messaging market.

Based on my research (which hit step limits before I could pull the full PACER docket), here is the best-sourced chronological account. I flag gaps explicitly rather than filling them with speculation.

Threshold note on filing date

The case metadata you provided lists the filing date as 2022-06-08, but the public docket sources (Justia, UniCourt, and PTAB notices) uniformly reflect the complaint as filed on 2022-09-08. The docket receipt number, the sequential WDTX case number (6:22-cv-00925 sits next to Pedersen v. Zendesk, 6:22-cv-00927, filed the same day per Ramey LLP's press release), and the Ramey LLP announcement of a new multi-defendant suit against Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Wix, and Zendesk all point to a September 8, 2022 filing. I would treat the metadata date as an error, though I could not verify via PACER directly.

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2022-09-08 — Complaint filed by Peter Henrik Pedersen against Wix.com, Inc., W.D. Tex. (Waco Division), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement; jury demanded. Patent-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile responsive electronic message management system"). Plaintiff's counsel: William P. Ramey III, Ramey LLP. (Justia docket; UniCourt)
• 2022-09-08 — Summons issued; AO 120 patent form filed; certificate of interested parties filed.
• 2022-09-15 — Wix.com, Inc. served; answer due 10/06/2022.
• 2022-10-04 — Unopposed extension of time to answer (filed by plaintiff's counsel); answer deadline reset to 2022-11-20.
• The free docket record I could retrieve (Justia's last pull was 2022-10-04; UniCourt's was 2022-11-07) does not show Wix's answer, any counterclaims, or Wix's counsel. I could not confirm whether Wix answered or asserted counterclaims — the case appears to have resolved before those documents became visible in free sources. Do not rely on this section without a PACER check.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• I found no docketed motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR for this specific case in the free sources. Given the procedural posture (dismissal within ~11.5 months, coinciding with PTAB institution), a stay motion is plausible but not confirmed.
• The dismissal itself (see § 6) is the only substantive disposition I can source.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• The case was dismissed on 2023-08-23 — before any reported Markman hearing or claim construction order. Judge Albright's standard patent schedule would ordinarily reach claim construction well after that date, and no Markman ruling appears in any source I found. No claim construction occurred.

4. Discovery milestones

• The only discovery-adjacent event visible is the early scheduling compliance with Albright's standing orders (2022-09-16). No substantive discovery orders, depositions, or privilege disputes surfaced in my searches. The case did not reach merits discovery of strategic significance before dismissal.

5. Trial events / verdict / post-trial motions

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion occurred. The case was dismissed before trial.

6. Final disposition

• 2023-08-23 — Case dismissed. The dismissal is documented in the patent owner's Updated Mandatory Notice in IPR2023-00867 (filed 2023-08-29), which lists the Wix action as "6:22-cv-00925 … Dismissed 08/23/2023" (DocketAlarm copy of the PTAB notice).
• I could not confirm from free sources whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, stipulated, or sua sponte, nor the docket entry number. Given the timing (about three months after IPR institution on 2023-05-15 and consistent with a wave of Pedersen dismissals of related '920 suits), a stipulated dismissal following PTAB institution is the most likely form — but that is inference, not verified fact.
• The case is marked Closed in the Unified Patents litigation database. No appeal of the district court dismissal by either party appeared in my searches.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings (decisive for this litigation)

The '920 patent was under coordinated challenge while the Wix case was pending, and the PTAB track effectively ended the litigation:

• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen (the lead proceeding):

  • 2022-10-14 — Petition filed challenging claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent (ipverse/greyb PTAB tracker; Unified Patents' own case list).
  • 2023-02-17 — Patent owner preliminary response.
  • 2023-05-15 — PTAB instituted inter partes review.
  • 2023-08-09 — Patent owner response; petitioner reply 2023-11-15; oral argument set early 2024.
  • 2024-05-10 — Final Written Decision holding the challenged claims unpatentable; proceeding terminated.
  • 2024-07-12 — Pedersen appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. No. 24-2090, Pedersen v. Unified Patents).
  • 2026-03-26 — Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's invalidity finding in a written opinion (Unified Patents press release; PatSnap litigation summary). This extinguishes enforceability of the reviewed claims of the '920 patent.

• IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corporation v. Pedersen (related, same patent):

  • Petition directed to the same '920 patent; the patent owner's Updated Mandatory Notice of 2023-08-29 in that proceeding is the document that confirms the Wix district case's dismissal date. (DocketAlarm)
  • I could not confirm its institution decision or final outcome within my search steps.

Bottom line

Pedersen v. Wix.com, Inc. (6:22-cv-00925) was a short-lived assertion of U.S. Patent 6,965,920 in Judge Albright's Waco courtroom: filed 2022-09-08, Wix served 2022-09-15, answer extended to 2022-11-20, and the case was dismissed 2023-08-23 — roughly three months after the PTAB instituted IPR2023-00029 (2023-05-15). No Markman, no trial, no verdict. The substantive fate of the patent was decided in the PTAB, which found the asserted claims unpatentable in a Final Written Decision (2024-05-10), affirmed by the Federal Circuit (2026-03-26), leaving the '920 patent effectively cancelled as to the challenged claims.

Unverified items to confirm on PACER before relying on this account: (1) the exact dismissal docket entry and whether it was with prejudice; (2) Wix's answer/counterclaims (due 2022-11-20) and Wix's counsel; (3) any stay motion or joint status report tied to the IPR; and (4) the institution/FWD status of Oracle's IPR2023-00867.

Based on the available docket records and firm sources, here is the plaintiff-side counsel picture for Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Wix.com, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00925 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright):

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen

1. William P. "Bill" Ramey III

• Role: Lead counsel / attorney of record (Managing Partner of Ramey LLP). Every substantive filing on the docket in the period captured by PACER mirrors (Docket Nos. 1–7, filed Sept.–Oct. 2022) was signed/filed by Ramey: the Complaint (Dkt. 1), AO 120 form (Dkt. 2), Summons request (Dkt. 3), Certificate of Interested Parties (Dkt. 4), and the Unopposed Extension Notice (Dkt. 7). Justia's docket sheet and UniCourt both list him as the sole plaintiff attorney of record.
• Firm / office: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006.
• Experience note: Career IP/business litigator, Super Lawyers "Top Rated" in IP Litigation (2014–2023 selections), South Texas College of Law (J.D. 2000); Ramey LLP's public announcement of this suit identifies him as managing partner and notes the firm's active NPE-side assertion practice before Judge Albright in W.D. Tex. (e.g., the parallel Pedersen v. Blackbaud/Constant Contact/Monday.com/Wix/Zendesk campaign over U.S. Patent 6,965,920).

2. Jacob B. Henry

• Role: Of counsel at Ramey LLP; he is confirmed as Pedersen's counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings over the same patent (IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents), IPR2023-00867 (Oracle), IPR2023-00986 (Adobe)), where he signed the Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notice for Peter Henrik Pedersen (dated Aug. 29, 2023) as "Attorney for Patent Owner."
• Caveat on district-court appearance: I did not find a filed Notice of Appearance or signature by Henry on any pleading in the W.D. Tex. Wix docket in the available excerpts (which run through Oct. 4, 2022). It is plausible he appeared in the district court case (or in the related co-defendant cases), but I cannot confirm his formal appearance in this case number without a PACER look-up of the full docket/attorney appearance list. Treat him as confirmed counsel for Pedersen at the PTAB level, and likely-but-unconfirmed at the district court level.
• Firm / office: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 8/800, Houston, TX 77006 (USPTO Reg. No. 61,093).
• Experience note: B.S. in Electrical Engineering (UTSA), St. Mary's J.D.; former Blank Rome and Novak Druce + Quigg patent prosecutor/litigator; handles both district court and PTAB/IPR defense of the '920 patent and other Pedersen patents.

Other observations

• Local counsel: None identified. Ramey LLP is Houston-based, but no separate W.D. Tex. local counsel appears on the docket excerpts; W.D. Tex. practice before Judge Albright routinely accepts out-of-division Texas counsel without separate local counsel, so this is not unusual. If local counsel did enter later, it would be visible only on the full PACER docket.
• Case status: Your metadata says "Active," but the more recent record indicates the Wix case was dismissed on 08/23/2023 — the Oracle IPR2023-00867 mandatory notice (Aug. 29, 2023) lists Pedersen v. Wix.com, Inc., 6:22-cv-00925 (WDTX), as "Dismissed 08/23/2023," and Unified Patents' litigation portal likewise marks the case "Closed." I could not retrieve the dismissal instrument itself (stipulation vs. order) within my search limit, so confirm the terminating docket entry on PACER before relying on it.
• Gaps: I could not access the full PACER attorney-appearance list, so there may be additional Ramey LLP associates (or pro hac vice/local counsel) who entered appearances after Oct. 2022. No sealed-filing or non-appearance issue was identified.

Bottom line: William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP, Houston) is the confirmed lead attorney of record for Pedersen in the W.D. Tex. Wix case; Jacob B. Henry (Ramey LLP, Houston) is confirmed counsel for Pedersen in the parallel IPRs on the same patent but his formal entry in this district-court case should be verified against the PACER appearance list.

I'll research defense counsel for Wix.com in this case using multiple search angles.

Free docket aggregators only show plaintiff's counsel so far. Let me dig into CourtListener/RECAP, the parallel co-defendant cases, and Wix's known patent-defense firms.

Good leads. Let me check the CourtListener docket and the parallel co-defendant dockets (which may share counsel), plus Wix's known patent defense firms.

I hit the research step limit before I could pull the PACER/CourtListener docket sheet for this specific case. Here is what the record I did retrieve establishes — and, importantly, what it does not.

Bottom line (and a candid limitation)

*I could not identify any attorney or firm that entered an appearance for Wix.com, Inc. in Pedersen v. Wix.com, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00925 (W.D. Tex.).* The free docket snapshots I retrieved (UniCourt, last updated 11/07/2022; Justia, last retrieved 10/04/2022) list only the plaintiff's counsel, William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP, Houston). No defendant-side "Notice of Attorney Appearance," answer, corporate disclosure, or extension motion by Wix's counsel appears in any source I was able to retrieve. Per the operating rules, I am not going to name an attorney for Wix that I cannot source.

What the docket shows (verified)

• Dkt. 6 (served 9/15/2022, answer due 10/6/2022) — "SUMMONS Returned Executed by Peter Pedersen. Wix.com, Inc. served on 9/15/2022" (UniCourt docket excerpt).
• Dkt. 7 — the only extension-of-time filing visible is "NOTICE Unopposed Notice for Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer … by Peter Pedersen (Ramey, William)" — i.e., filed by the plaintiff, not by defense counsel, which reset the answer deadline to 11/20/2022 (UniCourt/Justia).
• The public docket record ends there. The case was later dismissed 08/23/2023 (per the plaintiff's Updated Mandatory Notice in IPR2023-00867, filed 8/29/2023), and the case is marked "Closed" in Unified Patents' litigation portal.

Inference (flagged as such): Because no defense appearance, answer, or motion by Wix's counsel surfaced before the case terminated, it is plausible that Wix's counsel either (a) appeared only via a short extension and a stipulated dismissal that the free aggregators never captured, or (b) never made a substantive docketed appearance before the case was dismissed. I could not determine which. This means the "counsel of record for defendant" may be a small set or even zero formally-appeared attorneys — unusual for a patent case, but consistent with an early stipulated resolution amid the PTAB pressure described in the case background.

Adjacent data points that may (or may not) bear on Wix's representation

These are not confirmations of Wix's counsel in this case; treat them only as leads to verify on PACER:

1. Co-defendant's counsel in the same Ramey campaign (parallel case, not Wix). In Pedersen v. Constant Contact, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00922 (W.D. Tex.) — filed the same day, Sept. 8, 2022 — the docket shows Neil McNabnay filed the agreed extension (Dkt. 7) and Aaron P. Pirouznia filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance (Dkt. 8) on 9/29/2022 for Constant Contact (Justia docket). Both are Dallas-based patent litigators (McNabnay is widely associated with Fish & Richardson; I could not confirm their firm from the retrieved source, so treat firm affiliation as unverified). If the campaign defendants coordinated, Wix may have retained overlapping or similarly-situated Texas patent counsel — but there is no evidence in my sources that any of these attorneys represented Wix.

2. Wix's established patent-defense firms in other matters (not this case):

   • Durie Tangri LLP represented Wix.com, Ltd. and Wix.com, Inc. in Express Mobile, Inc. v. Wix.com, Ltd., No. 3:19-cv-06559 (N.D. Cal.) — the March 11, 2021 stay motion was signed by Adam R. Brausa of Durie Tangri (CourtListener). (Durie Tangri combined with Morrison & Foerster in 2022; Brausa, Brian Matsui, and Seth Lloyd appear as Wix/related-party counsel in Express Mobile matters per Patexia.) This is a documented Wix patent-defense relationship, but it is a Northern District of California case, and I have no source placing Durie Tangri/MoFo on the W.D. Tex. Pedersen docket.
   • DLA Piper appears as counsel to Wix.com, Ltd. in Kempf v. Wix.com Ltd et al (W.D. Wash., 2026) — a different case type and venue, offered only to show DLA Piper's Wix relationship.

3. Contrast: who represented Wix's co-defendants elsewhere in the '920 campaign. In Pedersen v. SAP America, No. 3:22-cv-01534 (N.D. Tex.), Winston & Strawn LLP (Thomas M. Melsheimer and Michael A. Bittner) represented SAP America (PatSnap litigation summary). Again, this is a different defendant and venue, not Wix.

What I recommend to close the gap

To definitively answer "who represented Wix," pull the full PACER docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00925 and check:

1. The attorney-appearance report / "ATTY" flag (shows every attorney of record and their firm), and
2. The Dkt. 8+ entries between 11/20/2022 and the 8/23/2023 dismissal, including the terminating dismissal order/stipulation (which, if stipulated, would be signed by Wix's counsel and would name them).

CourtListener's RECAP docket for gov.uscourts.txwd case 6:22-cv-00925 would be the fastest free route; the RECAP "attorneys" panel and any dismissal stipulation PDF are the two documents most likely to name Wix's counsel.

Caveat on the case metadata: the prompt marks the case "Active," but the record shows it closed on 08/23/2023 (I flagged this in the earlier sections). If any Wix-side attorney appeared, their names live on that full docket, which I was unable to retrieve within my search limits. I would rather report "not established" than name an attorney without a source.