Porta Sophia v. Gregory Ellis

Porta Sophia, the plaintiff in this Inter Partes Review (IPR), is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the public domain and fostering innovation in the field of psychedelics. They achieve this by building and maintaining a free online library of curated psychedelic prior art, which includes scientific, historical, and cultural information. Porta Sophia also provides prior art services, including third-party preissuance submissions to the USPTO, to challenge overly broad or invalid patent applications related to psychedelics. Gregory Ellis, the patent owner, is an individual inventor. While some of his other patents relate to "remotely accessed virtual recording room" systems and check fraud detection, US Patent 11235110 concerns a "Delivery system for ayahuasca-like substances."

The patent at issue, US Patent 11235110, titled "Delivery system for ayahuasca-like substances," describes a delivery device and vaporizable formulations designed to provide users or patients with a safe, reliable, and convenient method to obtain a therapeutic vapor containing an ayahuasca-like substance. The system includes a chamber coupled to a power unit to vaporize the formulations for consumption. This IPR was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with case number IPR2025-01460, commencing on August 22, 2025, and terminating on February 10, 2026. The petition was "Not Instituted" for "Procedural" reasons, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to the merits of the patentability challenge. The PTAB is a significant venue for challenging patent validity, offering a potentially faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation.

This case is notable due to its involvement in the burgeoning and often controversial field of psychedelic-related patents. Porta Sophia's mission specifically targets the prevention of "bad" patents in the psychedelic space, aiming to ensure that traditional knowledge and publicly known practices are not monopolized. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome suggests that the petition may have failed on a technicality rather than on the substantive merits of the prior art presented, highlighting the strict procedural requirements of IPRs. Given the increasing commercial interest and patenting activity around psychedelics, cases involving challenges from organizations like Porta Sophia are significant in shaping the intellectual property landscape of this emerging industry.

No Patent Infringement Litigation Identified; PTAB IPR Denied on Procedural Grounds

As of 2026-05-25, no patent infringement litigation in federal court has been identified between Porta Sophia and Gregory Ellis concerning US Patent 11235110. The Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices filed in the related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01460, explicitly stated that Gregory Ellis was not aware of any litigation involving the '110 patent.

The key legal developments for US Patent 11235110 are centered around the Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Porta Sophia against Gregory Ellis at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: IPR2025-01460

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-08-22: Porta Sophia, as Petitioner, filed an Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-01460, challenging US Patent 11235110. The patent, titled "Delivery system for ayahuasca-like substances," is assigned to Monster Color Carnival, LLC, with Gregory Ellis identified as the organizer and sole member. The petition challenged all 20 claims of the patent, citing a 2012 forum post as prior art for DMT delivery.
• 2025-12-01: Gregory Ellis, the Patent Owner, filed a Preliminary Response to Porta Sophia's petition. In the mandatory notices accompanying the IPR, the Patent Owner stated that the '110 patent was not at issue in any other proceeding before the USPTO, and that they were not aware of any litigation involving the '110 patent.

Outcome - Not Instituted (Procedural):

• 2026-02-10: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Director Discretionary Decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01460. The petition was "Not Instituted - Procedural."

Context of Discretionary Denial in 2025:
The PTAB's decision to discretionarily deny institution was made within a period of significant policy shifts regarding IPR institution at the USPTO. In February 2025, the USPTO rescinded the 2022 "Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation" (Vidal Memo), signaling a return to a broader discretionary framework, including a renewed emphasis on the Fintiv factors. Subsequently, in March 2025, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a new memorandum establishing an interim bifurcated process for IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions. Under this new procedure, decisions on institution involve two phases: first, the Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, determines whether discretionary denial is appropriate based on various factors. If discretionary denial is not applied, the petition proceeds to a three-member PTAB panel for a review of the merits and other non-discretionary considerations. The factors considered for discretionary denial can include whether another forum has already adjudicated patentability, changes in law, the strength of the challenge, reliance on expert testimony, and the settled expectations of the parties. While the specific procedural reason for the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01460 was not detailed in the provided snippets, it falls within this context of the PTAB's stricter and more policy-driven approach to IPR institution in 2025.

Absence of Patent Infringement Litigation

Based on the Patent Owner's mandatory notices in the IPR proceeding, there is no indication of any co-pending patent infringement litigation in federal court involving US Patent 11235110 between Porta Sophia and Gregory Ellis. Therefore, there are no legal developments related to complaints, answers, counterclaims, pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery, trial events, or appeals to report for such litigation.

Porta Sophia was represented by the following counsel in IPR2025-01460:

• David A. Casimir (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Casimir Jones S.C. (likely Madison, Wisconsin, given Porta Sophia's stated location and Casimir's founding role).
  • Experience Note: A longtime patent attorney and co-founder of Porta Sophia, he focuses on challenging "bad" patents in the psychedelic space and promoting ethical patenting practices.

• Thomas A. Isenbarger (Counsel)

  • Firm: Casimir Jones S.C. (likely Madison, Wisconsin).
  • Experience Note: (Specific patent litigation experience for this individual beyond this case was not immediately available in the search results.)

The AI Litigation Platform lists "Casimir Jones" as a party attorney, which likely refers to the firm Casimir Jones S.C.. Porta Sophia is described as a non-profit psychedelic prior art library based in Madison, Wisconsin.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01460, the patent owner, Gregory Ellis, represented himself pro se.

Gregory Ellis (Pro Se Patent Owner)

• Firm: N/A
• Office Location: Boulder, CO
• Note: Gregory Ellis is the named inventor on US Patent 11235110 and other patents related to "remotely accessed virtual recording room" systems and check fraud detection. He is also identified as the organizer and sole member of Monster Color Carnival, LLC, the assignee of record for the patent at issue.