Unified Patents Inc. v. Velos Media, LLC

Unified Patents Inc. v. Velos Media, LLC (IPR2025-00038) is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which has been instituted.

Unified Patents Inc. is a membership-based organization that aims to deter "patent trolls" or Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) from asserting low-quality patents by challenging their validity, primarily through IPRs at the PTAB. Members, often operating companies, pay fees for these patent-challenge services in various technology zones, including video codecs. Velos Media, LLC is a patent licensing entity that has historically focused on patents deemed essential to advanced video coding technologies, particularly the High-Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC, or H.265) standard. Velos Media's portfolio has included patents from companies like Ericsson, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp, and Sony, and it was previously part of the Avanci Video patent pool. It is often characterized as an NPE in the context of patent assertions.

While this is an IPR focused on patent validity rather than a direct infringement suit, the patents held by Velos Media generally relate to video encoding and decoding technologies. These patents are asserted by Velos Media against companies whose products and services incorporate HEVC/H.265 codecs, such as video streaming platforms and devices. The specific patent at issue in this IPR is U.S. Patent No. 8,836,842. A technical sketch of patent 8,836,842 indicates it relates to an "Audio processing system for restoring bass frequencies." This patent's relevance to video coding, particularly HEVC/H.265, is not immediately apparent from its title. Further analysis of its claims or Velos Media's assertions regarding this specific patent would be needed to clarify its connection to the HEVC standard, as Velos Media primarily focuses on video codec patents.

The case's procedural posture is an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00038) before the PTAB, which has reached the "Instituted" stage. This means the PTAB has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,836,842 is unpatentable. The PTAB serves as a critical venue for challenging the validity of patents outside of district court litigation, often preferred by challengers due to its specialized technical judges and lower cost compared to full-blown court cases. The PTAB has seen procedural changes recently, including new discretionary denial frameworks by the USPTO Director, impacting institution rates, particularly for older patents or those involved in parallel litigation. This IPR is notable as part of Unified Patents' ongoing strategy to challenge patents asserted by Velos Media, an active player in the often complex and litigious landscape of video codec licensing, particularly concerning HEVC/H.265. By challenging patents like 8,836,842, Unified Patents aims to reduce the burden of what it considers invalid or unessential patents on technology companies implementing video standards.

Unified Patents Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Velos Media, LLC, concerning patent 8836842, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has instituted. This case, IPR2025-00038, is a PTAB proceeding, which differs significantly from traditional patent infringement litigation in a district court.

Due to the nature of PTAB docket information and the timing of IPR2025-00038, specific dates for the petition filing and institution decision for this particular IPR (IPR2025-00038) are not readily available in public search results at this time. However, the case is confirmed to be "Pending - Instituted."

Here is a breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes as they would typically occur in an IPR proceeding, along with any relevant contextual information found from the searches:

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Petition Filing: In an IPR, the proceeding begins with the petitioner (Unified Patents Inc.) filing a petition challenging the patentability of one or more claims of the patent at issue (U.S. Patent No. 8836842). Unlike district court litigation, there are no "complaints" or "answers" in the traditional sense. The petition sets forth the grounds for unpatentability. While the exact filing date for IPR2025-00038 is not available, IPR petitions are typically filed to challenge the validity of patents.
• Patent Owner Preliminary Response: After the petition is filed, the patent owner (Velos Media, LLC) has an opportunity to file a preliminary response. This response aims to persuade the PTAB against instituting the IPR, often by arguing that the petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance (Institution Decision)

• Institution Decision: The most significant "pre-trial" motion in an IPR is the PTAB's decision on whether to institute a trial. For IPR2025-00038, the case status is "Pending - Instituted," meaning the PTAB reviewed the petition and the patent owner's preliminary response (if any) and determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, thus proceeding to a full review. This decision typically occurs within six months of the petition's filing. Recent changes in USPTO policy, effective October 20, 2025, have given the Director of the USPTO personal responsibility for all IPR institution determinations, often resulting in summary notices without detailed explanations for routine decisions.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• In an IPR, the PTAB construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for unexpired patents, which is typically broader than the standard used in district court (Phillips v. AWH Corp.). The claim construction phase in an IPR is part of the overall proceeding, but specific "Markman outcomes" as separate hearings are more characteristic of district court litigation. The PTAB will construe the claims as part of its instituted trial.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Discovery in IPR proceedings is significantly more limited than in district court patent litigation. It generally includes mandatory initial disclosures, production of exhibits cited in the petition or patent owner's response, and limited additional discovery as authorized by the Board. Patent owners may seek to depose petitioners on the real party-in-interest or other preliminary matters.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• Trial and Final Written Decision: The "trial" in an IPR consists primarily of briefing, declarations from experts, and an oral hearing. There is no jury. The proceeding culminates in a Final Written Decision (FWD) by a panel of administrative patent judges, determining the patentability of the challenged claims. Since IPR2025-00038 is pending, a Final Written Decision has not yet been issued.
• Post-Trial Motions: After a Final Written Decision, either party may file a request for rehearing by the PTAB.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• Present Posture: The case IPR2025-00038 is currently pending before the PTAB, having been instituted. Its final disposition could be a Final Written Decision finding claims unpatentable or not unpatentable, or it could be terminated earlier due to settlement.
• Appeal: Any party dissatisfied with a Final Written Decision from the PTAB may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation

• IPR2025-00038 is itself a PTAB IPR proceeding concerning patent 8836842.
• Other IPRs involving Velos Media: Unified Patents has a history of challenging Velos Media's patents through IPRs. For example, Unified Patents previously filed IPRs against Velos Media concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,094,682 (IPR2019-01663), U.S. Patent No. 10,110,898 (IPR2019-00763), and U.S. Patent No. 9,979,981 (IPR2019-00707), with some leading to claims being held unpatentable. Another IPR, IPR2019-00670, concerning related patent application 13477606 and patent 8964847, was denied institution on September 17, 2019. This pattern indicates Unified Patents' ongoing efforts in its SEP Video Codec Zone to challenge patents owned by Velos Media.
• Parallel District Court Litigation (Other Patents): While IPR2025-00038 specifically involves patent 8836842, Velos Media has been actively involved in district court patent infringement litigation for other patents in its portfolio. For instance, Velos Media, LLC filed suit against ByteDance (TikTok) in the Western District of Texas (1:25-cv-00967), asserting five patents from BlackBerry families and one from a Sharp family, broadly directed to video coding. Velos Media also initiated a parallel patent litigation against Disney in the U U.S. Central District of California (2:26-cv-03052) on March 20, 2026, asserting six U.S. patents related to H.265/HEVC standard-essential video compression technology. These district court cases do not involve patent 8836842, but highlight Velos Media's overall patent enforcement strategy. The existence of parallel district court litigation can sometimes influence PTAB institution decisions, with the PTAB sometimes exercising its discretion to deny institution based on factors such as the proximity of a district court trial.

Despite extensive web searches for IPR2025-00038, Unified Patents Inc. v. Velos Media, LLC, concerning patent 8836842, the specific counsel of record representing the plaintiff has not been definitively identified.

While Unified Patents Inc. frequently utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the precise legal team for this particular case could not be pinpointed through the conducted public web searches.

General information regarding attorneys who have represented Unified Patents in other IPRs against Velos Media or in other PTAB matters includes:

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief IP Counsel, in-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience Note: Frequently involved in Unified Patents' IPR strategies and filings, and has been listed on powers of attorney for various IPR petitions.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Head of Operations, in-house counsel (previously Legal Head-NPE, and listed as back-up counsel in other IPRs)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience Note: Involved in managing patent office proceedings internally for Unified Patents.

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, in-house counsel (listed as back-up counsel in other IPRs)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience Note: Experienced in PTAB practice, including drafting petitions and litigating, often serving as in-house counsel.

• Jessica L.A. Marks

  • Role: SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel, in-house counsel (also listed as Senior Patent Counsel in other IPRs)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: Has represented Unified Patents as in-house counsel in other proceedings.

• Michelle Aspen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, in-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: Has represented Unified Patents as in-house counsel in other proceedings.

• Kelly R. Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, in-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: Has served as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in various proceedings.

External law firms that have represented Unified Patents in other IPRs against Velos Media or other entities include:

• Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. (Michael H. Jones as lead counsel and Mark T. Rawls as back-up counsel in other IPRs)
• WilmerHale (David Cavanaugh, Theodoros Konstantakopoulos as lead counsel in IPR2019-00707 and IPR2019-00757)
• Desmarais LLP (Theodoros Konstantakopoulos)
• Haynes and Boone (Jon Bowser, Adam Erickson for an ex parte reexamination against Velos Media's '520 patent, and Michael F. Qian, Angela M. Oliver in other proceedings)
• Erise IP (lead counsel in an IPR against U.S. Patent 9,930,365 owned by Velos Media)
• Finnegan (lead counsel in an IPR against U.S. Patent 9,094,682 owned by Velos Media)

Official PTAB dockets, typically accessed via the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS), would contain the precise "Power of Attorney" filings that designate counsel for IPR2025-00038. Without direct access to these specific, publicly available docket entries for the identified case number and patent, the definitive list of counsel cannot be provided.

Counsel for Velos Media, LLC in IPR2025-00038 Not Publicly Identified in Search Results

As of June 16, 2026, publicly available web search results do not explicitly identify the counsel of record representing Velos Media, LLC in the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-00038 concerning U.S. Patent 8836842.

While several IPR proceedings involving Unified Patents Inc. and Velos Media, LLC were found, and counsel for Unified Patents were frequently listed, the specific attorneys for Velos Media in IPR2025-00038 were not identified. For instance, in other IPRs, Unified Patents has been represented by attorneys such as Jon Bowser and Adam Erickson of Haynes and Boone, and in-house counsel Jessica L.A. Marks and Michelle Aspen. In other past IPRs, Unified Patents' counsel has also included David Cavanaugh of WilmerHale, Theodoros Konstantakopoulos (formerly of WilmerHale, later Desmarais LLP), and Andrew Sommer of Greenberg Traurig.

Information regarding attorneys for Velos Media, LLC was located for a separate district court case, Velos Media, LLC v. ByteDance Ltd et al (Case No. 1:25-cv-00967), where attorneys like Ognjen Zivojnovic, Melissa J. Baily, Sean San-Chul Pak, Valerie Anne Lozano, I., Sam Stake, Patrick D. Curran, and Kevin Hardy of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, and Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam And Smith, LLP, are listed. Additionally, Nina Labovich and Eric S. Hansen were granted pro hac vice status for Velos Media in that district court case. However, these attorneys are associated with a different legal proceeding and are not confirmed to be representing Velos Media in IPR2025-00038.

Access to the official Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) docket for IPR2025-00038 would be necessary to definitively identify Velos Media's counsel of record for this specific IPR. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) is the official means for electronically filing and tracking IPR documents, where counsel information is recorded. Without direct access to the P-TACTS docket for IPR2025-00038, the counsel for Velos Media in this specific IPR cannot be identified at this time.