Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and nature of the dispute. Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, Inc. (No. 6:22-cv-00597-ADA-DTG, W.D. Tex.) is a patent infringement suit filed June 9, 2022, in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, Peter Henrik Pedersen, is an individual inventor (Søborg, Denmark) and the sole named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920; Unified Patents describes him as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions," and he operates as a classic patent-assertion entity pattern — a solo inventor asserting the same patent in a wave of nearly two dozen W.D. Tex. suits against email-marketing and messaging platforms, including Salesforce, Constant Contact, Intuit, Zendesk, Monday.com, Blackbaud, Adobe, Oracle, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Wix, SAP, Upland Software, Zoho, and Ziff Davis (Unified Patents, "AiPi affiliate Pedersen message distribution patent confirmed invalid by Fed. Circuit," Mar. 26, 2026; Stanford NPE Litigation Database). He was represented by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP), Kyril Talanov, and Donald Mahoney III (Justia docket). Defendant Ziff Davis, Inc. is a publicly traded digital-media and internet company whose portfolio includes email-marketing/message-delivery businesses; the complaint (and Amended Complaint, ECF No. 12) asserts the '920 patent against Ziff Davis, which was represented by Darryl Adams (Justia docket; Monday.com stay order citing Ziff Davis ECF No. 12 ¶ 12).

Patent and accused technology. The sole patent in suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, titled "Profile responsive electronic message management system" (filed July 12, 2001; issued Nov. 15, 2005). Technically, it claims a system and method for the "central specification and management of how messages are distributed to recipients": a recipient-profile system storing rules about how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered to each recipient, a messenger-profile system, a message-input system, and an individual-message generator that combines recipient-profile data with message files to produce individualized messages (patent abstract; FreePatentsOnline). The accused technology is Ziff Davis's electronic message distribution/email-marketing services; consistent with the parallel campaign against Constant Contact, Mailgun, Intuit, Oracle Responsys, and similar platforms, the complaint targets profile-based message distribution functionality, though I could not confirm from the public record exactly which named Ziff Davis product or brand is accused — that detail sits in the complaint exhibits not surfaced by my searches.

Procedural posture and venue significance. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in Waco — at filing, the nation's most patentee-friendly forum, whose standing order (OGP) produced fast-track Markman and trial schedules that drew hundreds of NPE cases. Procedurally, the case moved in lockstep with three related Pedersen suits on the same patent: Intuit (6:22-cv-00588), Upland Software (6:22-cv-00594), and Monday.com (6:22-cv-00923). Ziff Davis moved to stay pending inter partes review (ECF No. 16), and on the strength of the PTAB's institution of IPR2023-00029 (filed by Unified Patents Oct. 14, 2022; instituted May 15, 2023), Judge Albright granted stays in the Intuit and Ziff Davis cases (Ziff Davis stay granted at ECF No. 37, per the March 13, 2024 order in Pedersen v. Monday.com); the Upland case was dismissed on the day of the initial pretrial conference (PTACTS copy of the stay order).

Why the case is notable. This is a textbook example of the Waco-forum/NPE assertion pattern colliding with PTAB review. The patent was challenged in IPR2023-00029 by Unified Patents, which the PTAB resolved in a Final Written Decision on May 10, 2024, holding claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable; Pedersen appealed to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 24-2090), and on March 26, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed in a written opinion, extinguishing the asserted claims (Unified Patents, Mar. 26, 2026; PatSnap appeal analysis; IPR2023-00029 docket). That affirmance effectively neutralized the patent across the entire campaign — the Ziff Davis case, stayed pending that IPR, has no post-stay merits activity reflected in my sources, and I could not verify a final disposition (dismissal or judgment) on the district-court docket; the docket appears to remain stayed/closed administratively rather than resolved on the merits. The case also illustrates the secondary-IPR strategy used across the campaign (Adobe's IPR2023-00986 settled/terminated pre-institution Oct. 11, 2023) and why venue in Albright's Waco division — with its related-case coordination and stay practice — shaped the litigation economics for both sides.

Based on the available sources (UniCourt/Justia docket extracts, the March 13, 2024 stay order in the related Pedersen v. Monday.com case, Unified Patents' case updates, and the Federal Circuit's March 26, 2026 opinion), here is the chronological development of Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00597-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., Waco Division, Judge Alan D. Albright; Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland).

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint (2022-06-09): Pedersen sued Ziff Davis for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System") under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a jury demand (ECF No. 1; UniCourt/Justia dockets). Plaintiff was represented by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP), Kyril Vladimir Talanov, and Donald H. Mahoney III; Ziff Davis by Darryl Adams.
• Summons/serve (2022-06-09 to 06-23): Summons issued (ECF No. 5); Ziff Davis served 2022-06-13 (ECF No. 8, with an initial answer due 2022-07-05). A prematurely filed summons return was withdrawn (ECF No. 7, granted 2022-06-26).
• Extensions (2022-07 to 08): Ziff Davis's answer deadline was extended to 2022-08-03 (ECF Nos. 9–10).
• Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12): The operative pleading; the later stay order in Pedersen v. Monday.com cites it as asserting the '920 patent (see Exhibit 1029, Monday.com stay order, at ECF No. 12 ¶ 12).
• Answer: The docket extracts I located do not confirm Ziff Davis's answer or any counterclaims by ECF number or date. (The related Monday.com case's answer was filed 2022-12-19, but that is a different case.) Treat Ziff Davis's answer/counterclaim specifics as unverified.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (ECF No. 16): Ziff Davis moved to stay pending inter partes review — specifically IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen), which challenged claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent. (Per the Monday.com stay order, Ziff Davis, ECF No. 16.)
• Agreed Scheduling Motion and IPTC (2024-01-30): The parties filed an agreed motion for scheduling order (ECF No. 36) and appeared for the initial pretrial conference before Judge Gilliland on 2024-01-30.
• Stay Granted (ECF No. 37, 2024-01-30): On the day of the IPTC, the Court granted Ziff Davis's motion to stay pending resolution of IPR2023-00029. The later Monday.com stay order (2024-03-13) confirms: "the Court granted the motions to stay against Intuit and Ziff. See … Ziff Davis, 6:22-cv-00597-ADA-DTG, ECF No. 37 (same)." The same order notes the Ziff Davis case was "in its early stages with no scheduling order, no Markman hearing date, and no trial date," and that a final written decision in IPR2023-00029 was expected by May 15, 2024.
• No motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment in the Ziff Davis case surfaced in my search (contrast the related Pedersen v. Zoho case, where a 12(b)(6) motion was denied — that was a different defendant/case).

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• Never reached. The case was stayed on 2024-01-30 at a preliminary stage, with no Markman hearing scheduled. The Court expressly found the case was in its early stages (no scheduling order, no Markman date, no trial date).

4. Discovery Milestones

• No substantive discovery occurred. The stay order observed that Pedersen "has not diligently pursued this case and will not be unduly prejudiced by a stay" (per the IPTC transcript in the related Intuit case, cited in the Monday.com order). The case was stayed before any scheduling order issued, so there were no strategically significant discovery events.

5. Trial Events and Post-Trial Motions

• No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, fee motions) — the case never advanced past the stay.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and Their Effect

• IPR2023-00029 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen): Petition filed 2022-10-14 challenging claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent for obviousness; Pedersen's preliminary response was filed 2023-02-17. The Board instituted review and, on 2024-05-10, issued a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (based on Funk in view of either Law or Kamakura). (Unified Patents, "AiPi entity Pedersen message distribution patent found invalid," 2024-05-13.)
• Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2024-2090, Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC): Pedersen appealed (notice of appeal ~2024-07-16). On 2026-03-26, the Federal Circuit (Lourie and Hughes, JJ., and Chief District Judge Kleeh) affirmed the Board's obviousness determination as supported by substantial evidence (nonprecedential). This extinguished enforceability of claims 1 and 14–17.
• Other IPRs: IPR2023-00867 (Oracle Corporation v. Pedersen) also challenged the '920 patent; Pedersen's 2023-08-29 mandatory notice lists the Ziff Davis case as related litigation. I could not confirm IPR2023-00867's outcome (institution decision, settlement, or final decision) from the sources retrieved.
• Effect on the litigation: Because the only asserted claims (1, 14–17) were held unpatentable and that decision was affirmed, the infringement case was effectively resolved against Pedersen. The Ex Parte case tracker lists the case status as "Closed," but I did not locate the specific terminating document (e.g., stipulated dismissal, judgment on the pleadings, or dismissal following the IPR) in the sources available to me — that final docket entry should be verified against PACER (ECF Nos. 38+).

Present Posture / Final Disposition (Summary)

The case was stayed on 2024-01-30 (ECF No. 37) pending IPR2023-00029; the PTAB's 2024-05-10 Final Written Decision invalidated the asserted claims; the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-26; and the district court case is now closed. No Markman, discovery, trial, or settlement occurred — the outcome was driven entirely by the parallel IPR. The exact form of the closing judgment/dismissal in the Ziff Davis docket is the one fact I could not fully confirm from public sources and should be checked on PACER.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, Inc., 6:22-cv-00597 (W.D. Tex.)

Based on the PACER-derived docket (Justia Dockets & Filings and UniCourt mirrors of 6:22-cv-00597), the plaintiff, Peter Henrik Pedersen, is represented by three attorneys of record, all affiliated with Ramey LLP (Houston):

1. William P. Ramey III — Lead Counsel

• Role: Lead/counsel of record; signed and filed the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and all initial pleadings (AO 120 notice, summons request, certificate of interested parties, summons return, extension notice — ECF Nos. 2–9).
• Firm/Office: Managing Partner, Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 8 (Suite 750/800), Houston, TX 77006.
• Experience: Long-time Texas patent litigator and former founding partner of Ramey & Schwaller LLP (later Ramey LLP); handles patent, trade secret, and trademark enforcement; has filed hundreds of patent suits in the W.D. Tex., including the broader Pedersen '920 patent campaign against Zoho, Oracle, Salesforce, Intuit, Upland, Adobe, Monday.com, and others. (Note: he has also drawn repeated sanctions orders and fee awards in other W.D. Tex. and S.D. Tex. cases, most recently a December 2025 Albright sanctions order restricting his filings in W.D. Tex.; see Bloomberg Law, Patent Lawyer Must Get Court's OK Before Filing New Suits, Dec. 18, 2025, and the Federal Circuit/Cisco-related MCom IP LLC v. Cisco Systems, 6:22-cv-00261, redacted sanctions order filed 12/18/25.)

2. Kyril Vladimir Talanov — Attorney of Record

• Role: Appearing counsel for plaintiff on the docket (listed alongside Ramey in the case's attorney/firm details on Justia and UniCourt).
• Firm/Office: Ramey LLP, Houston (he appeared in this and many parallel Ramey LLP W.D. Tex. patent cases, e.g., Ortiz & Associates Consulting v. Ricoh USA, 6:21-cv-01178; CTD Networks v. Microsoft, 6:22-cv-01049; WFR IP v. Apple, 6:22-cv-00980). Martindale-Hubbell carries a listing for him as an associate at Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing (AZA), Houston — that appears to be a legacy/outdated affiliation; his case appearances in 2022–2023 are consistently on Ramey LLP matters.
• Experience: Texas IP litigator (U. Houston Law Center, J.D. 2010; Texas Tech B.S. 2002); previously litigated patent cases at AZA, including VoltStar Technologies v. Superior Communications (E.D. Tex., 2:13-cv-00097) and American Vehicular Sciences v. TK Holdings (C.D. Cal., 8:15-cv-01391).

3. Donald H. "Trey" Mahoney III — Of Counsel (deceased)

• Role: Of counsel at Ramey LLP; listed as plaintiff's counsel of record on the docket.
• Firm/Office: Ramey LLP, Houston.
• Experience: USPTO-registered patent trial attorney with a biochemistry background; all-phase patent litigation experience including Federal Circuit appeals; formerly an associate at Howrey (later Winston & Strawn). Important caveat: Mahoney passed away on August 19, 2022 — about ten weeks after this case was filed (June 9, 2022) — so he was counsel of record only in the early phase of the case.

Additional context / caveats

• Defendant's counsel was Darryl Adams (appearing for Ziff Davis, ECF No. 10), not relevant to your question but confirming the adversary lineup.
• Later proceedings: Per a PTAB filing in IPR2023-00867, the case advanced to an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12), and Judge Albright granted a motion to stay the Ziff Davis action (referenced at ECF Nos. 16, 36, 37), consistent with the PTAB's IPR on U.S. Patent 6,965,920. The '920 patent was ultimately invalidated in IPR2023-00029, affirmed by the Federal Circuit on March 26, 2026 (Unified Patents).
• No local counsel or in-house counsel appear in the docket for the plaintiff; Ramey is admitted in the W.D. Tex. so no pro hac vice or local-counsel designation was needed.
• I did not independently verify post-August-2022 docket entries directly in PACER (the Justia/UniCourt mirrors cut off around August 2022), so it is possible additional Ramey LLP attorneys (e.g., Susan S.Q. Kalra or Jeffrey E. Kubiak, who appear in other Ramey LLP cases) entered appearances in later filings — but the three names above are the confirmed counsel of record as reflected in the case's attorney details.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00597 (W.D. Tex.)

Based on the publicly available docket-derived records (Justia Dockets, UniCourt) and firm sources, only one defense attorney of record is affirmatively identified as of the docket snapshots available (the last retrievable public docket update was August 3, 2022):

Darryl J. Adams

• Role: Counsel of record for defendant Ziff Davis, Inc. (appears as the signing/filing attorney on the defense's first substantive docket entry; given his local Waco practice, he likely functioned as lead and/or local counsel)
• Firm: Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC (Shareholder)
• Office: 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1650, Austin, TX 78701
• Docket basis: ECF No. 10, "Notice of Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by Ziff Davis, Inc. (Adams, Darryl)," filed Aug. 3, 2022 (answer deadline reset to Aug. 3, 2022). Justia's docket listing for 6:22-cv-00597 also lists Darryl Adams as the defendant's sole attorney of record.
• Experience note: ~25+ years of IP litigation, with a focus on electronics/computer patent cases; particularly experienced in Judge Albright's Waco division, where he has served as lead and local counsel in multiple Waco trials (e.g., defending Roku in Judge Albright's first patent jury trial, MV3 Partners v. Roku, No. 6:16-cv-00308, non-infringement verdict; Redfin in Appliance Computing III v. Redfin, No. 6:20-cv-00376; and Microchip in Caddo Systems v. Microchip, No. 6:20-cv-00245). Former Federal Circuit clerk (Judge Alvin A. Schall); EE/MSEE background; admitted to the W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex., and Federal Circuit bars.

Explicit caveats / gaps

• No in-house counsel identified. The public docket excerpts do not list any Ziff Davis in-house attorney as appearing, though the company may have had one behind the scenes; I found no reliable source confirming an in-house appearance.
• Later docket entries not verified for additional counsel. The case continued past the August 2022 snapshot: there is an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12), filings at ECF Nos. 16 and 36, and the court ultimately granted a stay of the Ziff Davis case (referenced in a PTAB exhibit: Peter Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, Inc., 6:22-cv-00597-ADA-DTG, ECF No. 37 — the stay order). I could not retrieve the attorney-signature pages of those later filings from free sources, so it is possible that additional defense counsel (e.g., from a national firm or Ziff Davis's in-house department) appeared after August 2022. If that matters for your analysis, the definitive answer requires a PACER lookup of the full docket (or the ECF signature blocks on Nos. 10, 12, 16, 36, and 37).
• Parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR2023-00029 by Unified Patents, IPR2023-00867 by Oracle, IPR2023-00986 by Adobe) targeted the same '920 patent but were brought by third parties, not Ziff Davis, and their counsel (e.g., Jacob Henry as patent-owner respondent counsel) are not Ziff Davis's counsel of record in this district-court case.

Bottom line: The only well-sourced defendant attorney of record is Darryl J. Adams of Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC (Austin, TX). Any assertion of additional defense counsel would be speculative absent a PACER review of the post-August-2022 docket.