Unified Patents Inc. v. Patent Owner of US 10928796

Unified Patents Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US Patent 10928796, a proceeding currently in the 'Instituted' phase before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents is a member-based organization that aims to reduce "patent troll" or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) assertions by proactively challenging the validity of what they consider low-quality or overbroad patents in specific technology sectors. They operate independently of their members, using membership fees to fund their activities, which include analytics, prior art searches, and filing post-grant challenges like IPRs. This particular IPR falls within their strategy of deterring unwarranted patent litigation by increasing the costs for NPEs asserting questionable patents.

Details regarding the specific Patent Owner of US 10928796, their entity type (e.g., operating company, NPE/PAE, university), and any accused products, services, or technologies that might be infringing this patent are not readily available in the initial search results. To provide a one-line technical sketch of US 10928796, the claims of the patent would need to be reviewed. The procedural posture indicates the case is before the PTAB, which is a significant venue for patent validity challenges due to its specialized expertise and streamlined proceedings compared to district court litigation. The PTAB's recent shifts in discretionary denial factors, including considerations for domestic manufacturing, small business status, and "settled expectations" for older patents, highlight the evolving landscape of IPRs and the strategic importance of this forum for patent challengers and owners alike.

The notability of this specific IPR would likely stem from the identity of the Patent Owner (once confirmed), the technology area of US 10928796, or any related district court litigation. Unified Patents' involvement itself makes the case notable, as their IPRs often target patents asserted by NPEs, thereby impacting industries susceptible to such assertions. However, without specific information on the patent owner or any parallel infringement suits, the direct industry impact or specific assertion patterns related to US 10928796 cannot be fully determined at this time. Further investigation into the patent owner and the technical details of the patent would shed more light on why this particular case stands out.Unified Patents Inc. (UPI) has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of US Patent 10928796 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). UPI is a non-practicing entity (NPE) in the sense that it does not assert patents, but rather functions as a member-based organization aimed at deterring patent assertions by other NPEs (often referred to as "patent trolls") by challenging the validity of their patents through IPRs and other post-grant proceedings. Its goal is to improve patent quality and reduce frivolous patent litigation, and it boasts a high success rate in its challenges, defined as a positive institution decision, invalidation, or a no-money settlement.

Information regarding the specific Patent Owner of US 10928796, their entity type, or any accused products, services, or technology associated with the patent is not yet available in the public search results. Likewise, details on the specific administrative patent judges assigned to IPR2025-01369, the exact petition filing date, or the institution decision date have not been identified. The PTAB operates as the adjudicatory body within the USPTO, and recent policy shifts under Director John Squires have centralized institution decisions and introduced new discretionary factors, including considerations for U.S. manufacturing and small business status, making the PTAB a dynamic and strategically important venue for patent disputes.

The notability of this specific IPR is primarily tied to Unified Patents' consistent strategy of targeting patents asserted by NPEs to benefit its members. While the broader impact on the industry or specific assertion patterns cannot be detailed without knowing the Patent Owner and the nature of any associated infringement litigation, the case contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding patent quality and the efficacy of IPRs in challenging potentially invalid patents. Recent trends show a decline in overall IPR petitions but a surge in ex parte reexamination requests, indicating a strategic shift by petitioners in response to stricter PTAB institution criteria.

The case you've provided, Unified Patents Inc. v. Patent Owner of US 10928796, IPR2025-01369, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. As such, many of the requested litigation-specific events—such as the filing of a complaint or answer, motions to dismiss or transfer, Markman hearings, discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions—do not directly apply.

This IPR challenges the validity of US Patent 10,928,796. The proceeding is currently in the "Instituted" status.

To provide a comprehensive overview of this IPR, the following details are relevant:

Key Legal Developments and Current Posture of IPR2025-01369

• Filing of Petition: Unified Patents Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US Patent 10,928,796. The exact filing date is not immediately available in the search results but would have occurred prior to the institution decision.
• Institution Decision: The PTAB has instituted the IPR, meaning it has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. The "Instituted" status confirms this. The search results indicate that, as of October 2025, the USPTO Director began personally making all institution determinations in IPR cases, with routine decisions issued as summary notices. These notices typically do not provide detailed reasoning, unless the case presents novel or important factual or legal issues.
• Patent Owner: The Patent Owner of US 10,928,796 is not explicitly identified in the provided search results for this specific IPR. However, in IPR proceedings, the "Patent Owner" is the party defending the patent against the challenge.
• Current Status: The IPR is "Pending - Instituted," meaning the trial phase of the IPR has begun, where both parties will present arguments and evidence regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect

The prompt specifically refers to IPR2025-01369 as the relevant proceeding, and there is no indication from the search results that this IPR is parallel to a district court litigation involving US 10,928,796. If such a district court litigation exists, its details were not found in the search.

Unified Patents is known for filing IPR petitions to challenge patents it deems a threat to its members' industries. The PTAB has seen recent changes in IPR procedures, including new rules proposed in October 2025 aimed at limiting repeated challenges to patents and governing IPRs, as well as changes to how institution decisions are made. These changes involve the Director's increased involvement in institution decisions and the potential for discretionary denials based on factors such as parallel litigation or prior validity findings. However, for IPR2025-01369, the institution decision has already been made, so these newer rules and policies would primarily affect future IPR filings or subsequent stages of this IPR if discretionary denial was still a possibility post-institution (which is generally not the case once a trial is instituted).

Should you have a specific district court case number where US 10,928,796 is asserted, please provide it for a detailed analysis of that patent infringement litigation.

Unified Patents Inc., the plaintiff in IPR2025-01369, is a membership organization that files inter partes review (IPR) petitions to challenge patent validity. Unified Patents often utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for these proceedings. While a specific Power of Attorney or docket entry explicitly naming counsel for IPR2025-01369 was not directly found, based on Unified Patents' established practices and other IPRs, the following attorneys are likely involved, representing Unified Patents.

Unified Patents In-House Counsel:

• Jonathan Stroud
  • Role: Chief Operating Officer & Chief Legal Officer (COO & CLO)
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents Inc., Chevy Chase, MD.
  • Note: Stroud oversees Unified Patents' legal strategy and has been involved in numerous IPR proceedings.
• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Head of Operations / Legal Head - NPE
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents Inc., Dallas, TX (postal address also P.O. Box 53345, Washington, DC 20009).
  • Note: Mansinghani leads Unified's deterrence efforts against non-practicing entities and oversees numerous USPTO invalidation proceedings annually. He has experience in patent litigation and trials, patent counseling, and IP due diligence.
• Kelly R. Hughes
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents Inc., Chevy Chase, MD.
  • Note: Hughes handles PTAB filings, including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations, and previously focused on patent litigation in software and electronics with Erise IP.
• Jordan M. Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Unified Patents Inc., P.O. Box 53345, Washington, DC 20009 (also listed with a Dallas, TX address).
  • Note: Rossen is an experienced intellectual property litigator who prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. He has represented clients before the PTAB, ITC, district courts, and Federal Circuit.

External Counsel (Frequently Partnered with Unified Patents for IPRs):

• Erise IP, P.A.

  • Firm Office Locations: Overland Park, Kansas; Greenwood Village, Colorado.

  • Note: Erise IP has a distinguished reputation for its capabilities in PTAB proceedings, with its attorneys having filed over 220 IPRs and consistently ranking among the most active and best-performing PTAB attorneys for petitioners.

  • Jason R. Mudd

    • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel in some Unified Patents IPRs)
    • Firm & Office: Shook, Hardy & Bacon (as of September 2022, previously Erise IP, P.A.), Kansas City, MO (Shook). When representing Unified Patents in previous IPRs, he was with Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas office).
    • Note: Mudd has significant experience in patent litigation across federal district courts, the ITC, and the USPTO. He successfully argued on behalf of the petitioner in the first-ever IPR conducted under the AIA and has served as lead counsel in over 50 IPRs, arguing final oral argument in more than 10.

  • Eric A. Buresh

    • Role: Partner (Backup Counsel in some Unified Patents IPRs)
    • Firm & Office: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas.
    • Note: Buresh has litigated over 200 patent infringement matters in district courts and filed over 115 IPR proceedings at the PTAB. He is recognized as a leading IP attorney and a "Litigation Star."

Please note that the specific counsel for IPR2025-01369 could not be definitively identified without direct access to the docket for that particular case. The information above reflects Unified Patents' general legal team and frequently engaged outside counsel for IPR matters.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01369 Unified Patents Inc. v. Patent Owner of US 10928796 counsel", "Unified Patents Inc. v. Patent Owner of US 10928796 IPR2025-01369 attorneys", "Unified Patents IPR counsel", "US 10928796 patent owner"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant (Patent Owner) in the IPR case IPR2025-01369. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a brief note on their experience if available. I will use web search with the provided case number and patent number. I need to be careful to look for counsel representing the Patent Owner, not Unified Patents (the petitioner).This request asks for counsel of record for the defendant(s) in a "patent infringement case." However, as previously established, IPR2025-01369 is an Inter Partes Review before the PTAB, not a patent infringement lawsuit in district court. Therefore, the "defendant" in this context is the "Patent Owner" of US Patent 10,928,796, who is defending the patent's validity against Unified Patents Inc.'s challenge.

Identifying the counsel of record for the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01369 directly from public web search results can be challenging without access to the official PTAB docket or specific dockets for this case. PTAB dockets are not as readily searchable by general web search engines as district court PACER dockets.

Based on general search results for IPR2025-01369, the specific attorneys representing the Patent Owner of US 10,928,796 have not been publicly identified in a way that is easily accessible through typical web searches as of May 24, 2026. This information would typically be found on the PTAB's e-filing system (Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End system or "PTAB E2E") or in the Institution Decision, which often lists the appearing counsel. Without direct access to these specific filings, the requested details cannot be provided.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01369 has not been publicly identified in the accessible web search results. This information is likely contained within the PTAB docket filings for this specific IPR.