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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents counsel of record reexamination 7224678", "Unified Patents attorneys", "Stingray IP Solutions LLC reexamination 7224678 counsel", "Stingray IP Solutions LLC attorneys", "Unified Patents ex parte reexamination 7224678"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in the ex parte reexamination case.
In an ex parte reexamination, the "defendant" in a traditional litigation sense is not directly present. The "challenger" (Unified Patents) initiates the reexamination, and the "patent owner" (Stingray IP Solutions LLC) is the party whose patent is being reexamined. The process is primarily between the patent owner and the USPTO. The prompt specifically asks for the counsel representing the "defendant(s)". Given the context of the reexamination, "defendant(s)" in this scenario likely refers to the party whose interests are being challenged, i.e., the patent owner, Stingray IP Solutions LLC, or potentially the party who initiated the challenge, Unified Patents, as the "defendant" of the patent itself. However, in reexamination, the "challenger" (Unified Patents) typically has limited involvement after initiation. Therefore, the more relevant counsel would be for the patent owner, Stingray IP Solutions LLC.

Let's clarify:

• Plaintiff(s): Stingray IP Solutions LLC (Patent Owner)
• Defendant(s): Unified Patents (Challenger/Requester)

The prompt asks for counsel representing the defendant(s), which is Unified Patents. However, the previous sections state "the third-party requester (Unified Patents) generally has limited further participation, with the process primarily occurring between the patent owner and the USPTO." This implies Unified Patents may not have active "counsel of record" in the same way a patent owner would during the examination phase.

I need to search for counsel representing Unified Patents in this specific reexamination, and also clarify if "defendant(s)" refers to Unified Patents or if there's an implied meaning of the patent owner's counsel because the patent itself is being "defended" against cancellation. Given the specific wording "representing the defendant(s)", I will focus on Unified Patents. If no counsel is explicitly identified for Unified Patents in this ex parte reexamination, I will state that.

I should also check for Stingray IP Solutions LLC's counsel, as they are the party actively participating in the reexamination. It's possible the prompt uses "defendant" in a less strict sense to refer to the party whose patent is under attack. However, sticking to the precise definition, Unified Patents is the defendant in terms of being the party against whom Stingray IP Solutions LLC is the "plaintiff" in the case caption "Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Unified Patents". This is unusual for a reexamination, where usually the caption would be "In re U.S. Patent No. X,XXX,XXX". The case metadata states "Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Unified Patents" as the caption. This strongly suggests that Stingray is the plaintiff and Unified Patents is the defendant.

Therefore, I will look for counsel for Unified Patents.

If Unified Patents, as the requester in an ex parte reexamination, doesn't have "counsel of record" in the same way a patent owner does, I need to explain that. I will also check if Unified Patents used counsel to file the reexamination request.

Let's refine the search queries to target counsel for Unified Patents in this specific reexamination, or generally for Unified Patents in their reexamination activities.In the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,224,678, Unified Patents was represented by its in-house counsel.

The counsel of record for Unified Patents include:

• Alyssa Holtslander (In-house Counsel)

  • Firm: Unified Patents (Headquarters: Washington, DC, USA)
  • Note: Alyssa Holtslander is regularly listed as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in various ex parte reexamination proceedings challenging patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).

• Roshan Mansinghani (In-house Counsel)

  • Firm: Unified Patents (Headquarters: Washington, DC, USA)
  • Note: Roshan Mansinghani also served as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in this specific reexamination proceeding.

Unified Patents operates as a membership organization focused on deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, often through administrative patent reviews like ex parte reexaminations. As an entity that is not a law firm, Unified Patents employs its own legal team to manage and prosecute these challenges.