Unified Patents Inc. v. Carbyne Ltd. et al.

The IPR case IPR2025-01179 involves Unified Patents Inc. as the petitioner challenging the validity of US Patent 11689383, owned by Carbyne Ltd.. Unified Patents is a member-based organization that aims to deter "patent trolls" (Non-Practicing Entities or NPEs) and reduce frivolous patent litigation by challenging the validity of low-quality patents, often through inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the PTAB. Carbyne Ltd. is an American and Israeli technology company specializing in emergency communication technologies, including cloud-based "Next Generation 911" (NG911) solutions that enable real-time video, location, and data transmission to public safety answering points (PSAPs). Centralsquare Technologies, LLC, listed as an opponent in the IPR, is a significant provider of public safety and public administration software to local governments across North America, offering solutions for 911, computer-aided dispatch, and records management. The patent at issue, US 11689383, pertains to systems and methods for handling emergency calls, specifically focusing on prioritizing incoming emergency calls based on caller response to automated queries.

The procedural posture of this case is an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, and the trial has been instituted. The PTAB is an administrative body providing an alternative forum to district courts for challenging the validity of patents based on prior art, typically offering a more efficient and less costly route for invalidation. This IPR is notable because it is linked to a parallel patent infringement litigation: CentralSquare Technologies LLC v. Carbyne, Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01497) filed in the Western District of Texas, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. Judge Albright's court is known for handling a high volume of patent cases. The involvement of Unified Patents often signals a defensive move against a patent owner perceived as a patent assertion entity, and the linkage to a district court case suggests that Centralsquare Technologies, LLC is either an alleged infringer or a company concerned about potential infringement claims related to Carbyne's patent portfolio. Notably, Carbyne has been involved in other patent disputes, including against Apple regarding fraud detection patents, where some cases were dismissed after PTAB proceedings were initiated.

The broader market context involves the highly critical sector of emergency communication and public safety software, where both Carbyne and Centralsquare operate. Carbyne's technology focuses on modernizing NG911 systems with advanced data transmission capabilities, while CentralSquare provides comprehensive software solutions for various public safety functions. The challenge by Unified Patents against Carbyne's patent in this vital industry underscores ongoing efforts to ensure patent quality and reduce litigation risks for operating companies developing critical public infrastructure technologies. The outcome of this IPR could therefore impact the competitive landscape and patent assertion strategies within the emergency services technology market.

The provided case, Unified Patents Inc. v. Carbyne Ltd. et al., IPR2025-01179, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Many of the requested elements, such as complaints, answers, counterclaims, Markman hearings, discovery milestones, trial events, verdicts, and post-trial motions, are specific to district court litigation and do not occur in an IPR proceeding.

However, I can provide a summary of the key developments for this IPR and address the existence of any parallel district court litigation that may have led to this IPR.

Parallel District Court Litigation (Underlying Litigation for IPR)

It appears that the IPR was filed in response to an existing patent infringement lawsuit. Carbyne Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against Centralsquare Technologies, LLC on July 11, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case is Carbyne Ltd. v. CentralSquare Technologies LLC, case number 6:24-cv-00778. This lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383, which is the same patent challenged in the IPR.

Key Legal Developments and Posture of IPR2025-01179

• 2025-08-12: IPR Petition Filed. Unified Patents Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383. The patent owner is Carbyne Ltd., and Centralsquare Technologies, LLC is identified as an opponent.
• 2026-02-12: Institution of IPR. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the trial of IPR2025-01179. The decision on institution found that Unified Patents Inc. had shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims (claims 1-13) of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383 is unpatentable.
• Current Status: The IPR is currently pending and in the trial phase following institution. The final written decision is typically due within one year of institution.

Given the current date of May 20, 2026, the IPR is ongoing, and a final written decision is expected around February 2027. The outcome of the IPR will directly impact the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383, and consequently, the infringement litigation between Carbyne Ltd. and Centralsquare Technologies, LLC in the Western District of Texas.The provided case, Unified Patents Inc. v. Carbyne Ltd. et al., IPR2025-01179, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Many of the requested elements, such as complaints, answers, counterclaims, Markman hearings, discovery milestones, trial events, verdicts, and post-trial motions, are specific to district court litigation and do not occur in an IPR proceeding.

However, I can provide a summary of the key developments for this IPR and address the existence of any parallel district court litigation that may have led to this IPR.

Parallel District Court Litigation (Underlying Litigation for IPR)

It appears that the IPR was filed in response to an existing patent infringement lawsuit. Carbyne Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against Centralsquare Technologies, LLC on July 11, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case is Carbyne Ltd. v. CentralSquare Technologies LLC, case number 6:24-cv-00778. This lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383, which is the same patent challenged in the IPR.

Key Legal Developments and Posture of IPR2025-01179

• 2025-08-12: IPR Petition Filed. Unified Patents Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383. The patent owner is Carbyne Ltd., and Centralsquare Technologies, LLC is identified as an opponent.
• 2026-02-12: Institution of IPR. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the trial of IPR2025-01179. The decision on institution found that Unified Patents Inc. had shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims (claims 1-13) of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383 is unpatentable.
• Current Status: The IPR is currently pending and in the trial phase following institution. The final written decision is typically due within one year of institution.

Given the current date of May 20, 2026, the IPR is ongoing, and a final written decision is expected around February 2027. The outcome of the IPR will directly impact the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383, and consequently, the infringement litigation between Carbyne Ltd. and Centralsquare Technologies, LLC in the Western District of Texas.

The counsel of record representing Unified Patents Inc. in IPR2025-01179 is Brian W. Oaks of Baker Botts, L.L.P..

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Brian W. Oaks
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Baker Botts, L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Austin, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Brian Oaks is a partner in the Intellectual Property group at Baker Botts, specializing in patent litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. He has extensive experience representing clients in federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

It is important to note a discrepancy found in one search result, which listed CentralSquare Technologies, LLC as the "Petitioner" in IPR2025-01179, and Lionel Lavenue as their counsel. However, the provided case metadata and existing case summary explicitly state that Unified Patents Inc. is the plaintiff/petitioner in IPR2025-01179, and CentralSquare Technologies, LLC is involved as an "opponent." Based on the authoritative case metadata and the direct indication from a USPTO document of Brian W. Oaks filing on behalf of Unified Patents Inc. in IPRs, Brian W. Oaks is identified as the counsel for Unified Patents Inc. in this IPR.

The provided case background states that the Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01179) was filed in response to a patent infringement lawsuit: Carbyne Ltd. v. CentralSquare Technologies LLC, case number 6:24-cv-00778, filed on July 11, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,689,383. The task is to identify the counsel for the defendant, CentralSquare Technologies LLC, in this specific district court case.

During the search, a discrepancy was noted. While the background specifies case 6:24-cv-00778, multiple search results consistently identify a related but different district court case: CentralSquare Technologies LLC v. Carbyne, Inc. et al., case number 1:24-cv-01497, filed on December 4, 2024, also in the Western District of Texas. This latter case appears to involve a different patent (U.S. Patent No. RE50,016) and has CentralSquare Technologies LLC as the plaintiff.

Despite repeated attempts to find specific counsel for CentralSquare Technologies LLC in case 6:24-cv-00778 (Carbyne Ltd. v. CentralSquare Technologies LLC), the public web searches (including those targeting legal news sites and docket aggregators) did not yield direct information about the attorneys representing CentralSquare as the defendant in that precise case number. The search results predominantly focused on case 1:24-cv-01497 where CentralSquare is the plaintiff.

Without direct access to the docket for Carbyne Ltd. v. CentralSquare Technologies LLC, case number 6:24-cv-00778, it is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record for the defendant, CentralSquare Technologies LLC, in that specific patent infringement case. If filings are under seal or the information is not readily available through public search, counsel cannot be identified through these means.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in Carbyne Ltd. v. CentralSquare Technologies LLC, case number 6:24-cv-00778, could not be identified through public web search.