Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass Holdings IP LLC

Unified Patents, LLC, a member-based organization focused on deterring abusive patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Dynapass Holdings IP LLC. Unified Patents operates by challenging the validity of patents owned by NPEs through PTAB proceedings, aiming to reduce costly patent litigation in specific technology sectors. Dynapass Holdings IP LLC is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) that owns intellectual property related to personal communication device authentication technologies. Dynapass has actively asserted these patents in district court litigation, targeting numerous financial institutions for their implementation of two-factor authentication systems in online banking and other applications.

The IPR, IPR2023-00425, specifically challenged U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658. This patent is generally directed to two-factor authentication systems using personal communication devices, often involving the use of a "token" or one-time password (OTP) received via SMS for user authentication. Dynapass's core security solution, DynaPass™, is based on this patented technology and has been asserted against a wide array of companies, including major players like Amazon, Wells Fargo, Charles Schwab, and JPMorgan Chase, for their 2FA system implementations. The procedural posture of this case is an IPR at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which has reached a Final Written Decision. The PTAB is a specialized administrative tribunal within the USPTO that provides a mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents, often serving as a strategic venue for defendants in district court litigation to invalidate asserted patents. The judges involved in this IPR were Jason Repko, Kevin Turner, Lynne Browne, and Kristen Droesch.

This case is notable due to Dynapass Holdings IP LLC's aggressive patent assertion campaign against numerous financial services and technology companies, primarily in the Eastern District of Texas, focusing on widely used two-factor authentication technology. Unified Patents' challenge through an IPR highlights its strategy of combating NPE litigation by seeking to invalidate patents that it believes are of poor quality. The outcome of such IPRs can have significant industry impact by potentially removing the threat of infringement lawsuits for technology fundamental to secure online transactions. While the prompt mentions U.S. Patent 11,894,098, the docket information for IPR2023-00425 consistently identifies U.S. Patent 6,993,658 as the patent under review.

I'll research the docket, PTAB records, and parallel litigation. Let me start with several searches.

Key finding: the IPR actually concerns U.S. Patent 6,993,658, and there's a Federal Circuit decision in 2026. Let me dig into the parallel proceedings and the district court track.

Framing notes before the chronology

Two corrections/updates to the earlier sections, then the timeline.

(1) The patent number in the case metadata is wrong. Every PTAB record for IPR2023‑00425 — petition, institution decision, and Final Written Decision — identifies the patent as U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658 B1 ("Use of Personal Communication Devices for User Authentication," inventors Sten‑Olov Engberg and Åke Jonsson). I searched specifically for "11,894,098" and could find no record tying that number to Dynapass, the '658 family, or IPR2023‑00425; the search hits were unrelated patents (e.g., Natural Fiber Welding). I therefore treat 11,894,098 as a metadata error and proceed on '658. This is not merely a typo-level issue: it changes the technology date by roughly two decades, since '658 issued in 2006 and is a 2000‑priority Swedish-origin application.

(2) Patent Owner's IPR counsel, previously unidentified, are now confirmed. The institution decision and FWD list Patent Owner's counsel as John Wittenzellner, Todd E. Landis, Michael J. Fagan, Jr., and Mark McCarthy, all of Williams Simons & Landis PLLC (johnw@wsltrial.com / tlandis@wsltrial.com). Petitioner Unified Patents was represented by Jordan M. Rossen and Ashraf Fawzy, as the earlier section stated. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Dynapass was represented by Fred Williams (Williams Simons and Landis PC) and Bank of America by Eimeric Reig‑Plessis (Winston Taylor LLP).

Also for the record on panel composition: the earlier section's list of four judges (Repko, Turner, Browne, Droesch) is accurate but they sat in two configurations — Turner, Droesch, and Browne instituted on 2023‑07‑18; Turner, Browne, and Repko issued the Final Written Decision (Browne authored).

---

Chronology of key developments

---

Filing and initial pleadings (district court track)

The infringement campaign was filed as a coordinated package: nine complaints in the Eastern District of Texas on 2022‑06‑17, all before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap (with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne), sequentially numbered 2:22‑cv‑00210 through ‑00218:

Unified Patents, LLC, as a member-based organization focused on deterring abusive patent assertions, often utilizes its in-house legal team for IPR proceedings.

For IPR2023-00425, challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658, Unified Patents was represented by the following in-house counsel:

• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C. office).

  • Experience: Jordan Rossen prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, he practiced in the intellectual property litigation departments at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings in Washington, DC, for eleven years, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and the Federal Circuit. His experience spans various industries including computer hardware and software, data processing, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and financial transaction security. He has also been a speaker on webinars related to PTAB and patent litigation.

• Ashraf Fawzy - Counsel, Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C. office).

  • Experience: Ashraf Fawzy is identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in this proceeding. Further details on his specific background were not immediately available in the provided search results beyond his role in this and other IPRs for Unified Patents.

Unified Patents explicitly states that it is not a law firm and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members, operating independently to deter NPE activity. Their legal team consists of experienced patent attorneys who focus on post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

Based on the available search results, the specific counsel of record representing Dynapass Holdings IP LLC (the Patent Owner/Defendant) in IPR2023-00425 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could not be definitively identified. The search results primarily highlight the counsel for Unified Patents, LLC (the Petitioner).

While direct representation for Dynapass in this specific IPR is not explicitly stated in the provided information, attorneys representing Dynapass in related district court patent infringement cases include:

• Todd E. Landis

  • Firm: Williams Simons & Landis PLLC
  • Note: Represented Dynapass IP Holdings LLC as plaintiff in Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al.

• Fred Williams

  • Firm: (Firm not specified in the snippet, but filed documents on behalf of Dynapass)
  • Note: Filed documents on behalf of Dynapass IP Holdings LLC in Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2:2023cv00063).

• Eric Robert Carr

  • Firm: (Firm not specified in the snippet)
  • Note: Appeared on behalf of Dynapass IP Holdings LLC in Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2:2023cv00063).

It is important to note that representation in district court cases does not automatically translate to representation in an IPR proceeding at the PTAB. Without direct docket access or more specific reporting on IPR2023-00425, the counsel of record for Dynapass Holdings IP LLC in this particular IPR cannot be precisely stated.

Note on Patent Number Discrepancy: The initial case metadata in the prompt listed U.S. Patent 11,894,098. However, the previously generated case summary and all relevant search results for IPR2023-00425 consistently identify U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658 as the patent at issue in this IPR. This analysis proceeds based on U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658 as the patent challenged in IPR2023-00425.