Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Unified Patents

This case involves an ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,224,678, initiated by Unified Patents against Stingray IP Solutions LLC at the USPTO Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). Stingray IP Solutions LLC is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and an entity of Acacia Research Corporation, primarily focused on monetizing wireless networking intellectual property through litigation against operating companies. Unified Patents, conversely, is a member-based organization dedicated to challenging patents, particularly those asserted by NPEs, to deter what it considers frivolous patent litigation and promote innovation.

While this is not an infringement suit, the patent at issue, US Patent 7,224,678, relates to detecting an intrusion in a network system. Stingray IP Solutions has previously asserted this patent in district court litigations against various operating companies, including Leedarson IoT, Schlage Lock, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Vivint, and Allegion, targeting their networking, IoT, and security solutions that utilize wireless protocols such as ZigBee and Wi-Fi. The procedural posture of this matter is an ex parte reexamination before the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). This venue allows any party to request the USPTO to reassess the validity of an issued patent based on prior art, with the examination conducted by specialized examiners. The nature of ex parte reexamination means that after initiation, the third-party requester (Unified Patents) generally has limited further participation, with the process primarily occurring between the patent owner and the USPTO.

This case is notable for several reasons. Unified Patents' involvement underscores its strategy of proactively challenging patents asserted by NPEs to neutralize litigation threats for its members. The outcome—the CRU maintaining rejections and issuing a notice of intent to cancel all challenged claims—represents a significant setback for Stingray IP Solutions and a success for Unified Patents, potentially alleviating future infringement risks for companies operating in the wireless networking and IoT sectors. This reexamination highlights an alternative pathway to challenge patent validity outside of district court litigation or inter partes review (IPR), particularly given recent procedural changes at the USPTO allowing patent owners a pre-order opportunity to submit arguments.

The ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,224,678, initiated by Unified Patents against Stingray IP Solutions LLC, concluded with a notice of intent to cancel all challenged claims. This proceeding took place at the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit (CRU).

Here's a chronological summary of the key developments:

1. Request for Ex Parte Reexamination & Initiation:

• Filing of Request: Unified Patents, an organization focused on deterring patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,224,678. The reexamination was assigned control number 90/019,718. The precise date of the request filing is not explicitly stated in publicly available search results, but the process led to a final decision in May 2026. Unified Patents was represented by in-house counsel, Alyssa Holtslander and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding.
• Patent Owner: Stingray IP Solutions LLC, an entity of Acacia Research Corporation, is the owner of the '678 patent. The patent generally relates to detecting an intrusion in a network system and has been asserted in district court litigation against companies such as Leedarson IoT, Schlage Lock, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Vivint, and Allegion.

2. Reexamination Process and Examiner Actions:

• The USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) conducted the reexamination. In ex parte reexaminations, a third-party requester like Unified Patents typically does not participate after the initial filing, with the process primarily involving the patent owner and the USPTO examiner.
• During the examination phase, the CRU examiner maintained rejections against all challenged claims of the '678 patent. This implies that the examiner found the claims unpatentable based on the prior art presented in the reexamination request.

3. Final Disposition:

• Notice of Intent to Cancel Claims (2026-05-20): On May 20, 2026, the Central Reexamination Unit entered a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate cancelling all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,224,678. This indicates a complete invalidation of the challenged claims at the CRU level.

4. Parallel Proceedings and Context:

• While this specific proceeding was an ex parte reexamination, Stingray IP Solutions LLC has a history of patent enforcement. For example, in January 2023, the Federal Circuit heard a petition in In re Stingray IP Solutions, LLC (Docket No. 2023-102), related to a transfer of venue for patent infringement suits filed by Stingray against TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Unified Patents has actively challenged other patents owned by Stingray IP Solutions. For instance, on January 16, 2025, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 7,440,572, also asserted by Stingray IP Solutions. This demonstrates a broader strategy by Unified Patents to challenge Stingray's patent portfolio.
• A new USPTO procedure, effective for ex parte reexamination requests filed on or after April 5, 2026, allows patent owners to file a "pre-order paper" to respond to a reexamination request before the USPTO determines whether to order reexamination. Given the May 20, 2026, termination date of this reexamination, the initial request filing date would determine if this new procedure was applicable to this specific case, though that filing date is not explicitly available.

In ex parte reexamination proceedings, the third-party requester (Unified Patents) generally has limited participation after initiation, with the process primarily occurring between the patent owner (Stingray IP Solutions LLC) and the USPTO.

While specific counsel for Stingray IP Solutions LLC in this particular ex parte reexamination are not readily available in the provided search results, a review of Stingray IP Solutions LLC's past and related litigation reveals recurring counsel, who likely represent or are affiliated with Stingray in its broader patent enforcement efforts. Stingray IP Solutions LLC is an entity of Acacia Research Corporation.

Attorneys who have represented Stingray IP Solutions LLC in other patent litigation matters include:

• Jeffrey A. Lamken (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: MoloLamken LLP (Washington, DC and New York, NY offices)
  • Note: Mr. Lamken represented Stingray IP Solutions, LLC as lead counsel in a petition for a writ of mandamus before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Stingray IP Solutions, LLC (2023), related to transfer orders in patent infringement suits against TP-Link.

• Lucas M. Walker (Counsel)

  • Firm: MoloLamken LLP (New York, NY office)
  • Note: Mr. Walker was also listed as counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLC in the Federal Circuit mandamus petition.

• Lauren F. Dayton (Counsel)

  • Firm: MoloLamken LLP (New York, NY office)
  • Note: Ms. Dayton was also listed as counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLC in the Federal Circuit mandamus petition.

Other attorneys who have appeared for Stingray IP Solutions LLC in district court patent infringement cases, such as Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, include:

• Barry Kenneth Shelton
  • Firm: Shelton Coburn LLP
• Bradley Dalton Coburn
  • Firm: Shelton Coburn LLP
• Melissa Richards Smith
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP

It's important to note that ex parte reexaminations primarily involve the patent owner and the USPTO examiner. While patent owners can be represented by counsel, the public docket often focuses on the examiner's actions and the patent owner's responses, rather than detailed counsel appearances in the same way as district court litigation. However, given Stingray's nature as an NPE and an Acacia Research entity, it is highly probable that in-house counsel from Acacia Research or outside counsel with whom they regularly work managed their response to the reexamination. Acacia Research has an "IP team" and an Executive Vice President of Licensing and Litigation, Jaime Siegel, who has extensive experience in international IP monetization and enforcement. Jason Soncini is listed as the General Counsel for Acacia Research Corporation.

I'll research this. First, an important framing note I'll verify: this is an ex parte reexamination, not an infringement suit, so there is no "defendant" in the conventional sense — the party adverse to Stingray is the third-party requester, Unified Patents. Let me confirm the requester-side representation.

The Unified Patents blog confirms in-house representation. Let me verify the individuals' titles and check whether any outside counsel appears on the reexam request.

Let me confirm current titles and registration details for these two in-house attorneys, and check whether outside counsel appears on this specific reexam.

Framing correction (important)

Before the contact list: the premise of this task doesn't match the record. This is not a patent infringement case, and there is no "defendant." The matter is an ex parte reexamination (control no. 90/019,718) of U.S. Patent 7,224,678 before the USPTO Central Reexamination Unit. The two sides are:

• Patent owner: Stingray IP Solutions LLC (an Acacia Research entity) — covered in the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section; I won't repeat it.
• Third-party requester: Unified Patents (listed in the case metadata as the "defendant").

This distinction matters legally: in an ex parte reexamination (35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307), the requester is not a party to the proceeding. After the request is filed, the requester's participation is sharply limited (e.g., a reply to the patent owner's statement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.535 and responses to examiner inquiries). Consequently there is no conventional "appearance" or counsel-of-record docket for the requester as there would be in district court or an IPR. The requester's representatives are named on the request papers and identified by the requester itself — which is what we have below.

The case metadata's party fields ("Plaintiff(s): Stingray IP Solutions LLC" / "Defendant(s): Unified Patents") are therefore a caption convention, not a true adversarial posture. I flag this as a potential metadata/caption inconsistency with the actual nature of the proceeding.

---

Requester-side representation (Unified Patents)

Unified Patents states that it was represented entirely in-house in this reexamination:

"Unified was represented by in-house counsel, Alyssa Holtslander and Roshan Mansinghani, in this proceeding."
— Unified Patents, "Acacia entity, Stingray IP, Wi-Fi patent found invalid" (reporting the Feb. 5, 2026 Advisory Action and the May 20, 2026 notice of intent to issue), https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/2/10/acacia-entity-stingray-ip-wi-fi-patent-found-invalid (and the tag pages for "Acacia" and "Intent to Issue" carrying the same statement).

1. Alyssa J. Holtslander — in-house counsel

• Role: In-house counsel, Unified Patents; regularly designated lead counsel in Unified's PTAB/IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2021-01557 Unified Patents v. MicroPairing, Updated Mandatory Notices, Paper 11 (Feb. 22, 2022); IPR2020-00354 Unified Patents v. AutoBrilliance, hearing transcript identifying "Alyssa Holtslander for Petitioner").
• Firm/office: Unified Patents, LLC — 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (also used a Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 53345) address in earlier filings).
• Registration: USPTO Reg. No. 64,026.
• Experience note: A prolific in-house advocate for Unified's NPE-deterrence campaign, appearing as petitioner's counsel across numerous IPR and reexamination challenges; the Unified blog also notes she has handled Unified matters on appeal (e.g., with Kelly Hughes).

2. Roshan S. Mansinghani — in-house counsel

• Role: Unified Patents' senior in-house legal head; listed on this reexam as Unified's representative alongside Holtslander. In Unified's PTAB matters he is typically designated lead or first backup counsel (e.g., IPR2022-00775 Unified v. Flexiworld, IPR2018-00952, IPR2017-02047).
• Firm/office: Unified Patents, LLC — 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (also 13355 Noel Rd., Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75240 and a D.C. address in earlier filings).
• Registration: USPTO Reg. No. 62,429.
• Experience note: Publicly described as "In-House Legal Head, Unified Patents, LLC," overseeing dozens of USPTO invalidation proceedings per year; formerly ~a decade in the IP practice at Baker Botts LLP, with patent litigation/trial and IP diligence experience (Stanford PTAB Discretion 2022 speaker bio).

No outside counsel identified. I found no law firm named in connection with Unified's '678 reexamination; the requester's own reporting attributes the representation solely to the two in-house attorneys above. (By contrast, in some other Unified proceedings the company has used outside firms — e.g., Haynes and Boone, Lee & Hayes — but none is tied to this reexam in the sources reviewed.)

---

Sourcing caveats

• No confirmable USPTO docket for counsel appearances. Because this is an ex parte reexamination rather than a litigated case, there is no PACER docket and no PTAB-style "Notice of Appearance" to cite. The reexamination file (control no. 90/019,718, request viewable at Unified's portal, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90019718) would show the signature block on the request itself, but I could not open that document in this session. The attorney identification above rests on Unified Patents' own published statements, which are reliable for the identity of its chosen representatives but are self-reported and not an official USPTO filing.
• Titles. I am confident both are in-house at Unified with the registration numbers cited. I have not verified Holtslander's exact current internal title (e.g., "Chief Patent Counsel" vs. other senior-counsel designations) from a primary source in this session, so I have described her generically as in-house counsel rather than assert a specific title.
• Scope of the task. If the intent was instead to catalogue counsel for the patent owner (Stingray/Acacia), that was already addressed in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section and is not repeated here; note again that Stingray's representatives, like Unified's, would not appear as "counsel of record" in the ex parte setting but would be named on its submissions and powers of attorney.