Unified Patents LLC v. Intrepid Automation Inc.

This case, IPR2025-01242, involves a patent validity challenge brought by Unified Patents LLC against Intrepid Automation Inc. before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents LLC is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring non-practicing entities (NPEs) and improving patent quality by challenging patents it believes are invalid or unpatentable, often through inter partes reviews (IPRs). They operate independently of their members to achieve these deterrence goals. Intrepid Automation Inc., the patent owner, is an operating company based in San Diego, specializing in industrial-scale additive manufacturing (3D printing) systems, including 3D printers, software, and materials for high-volume production, particularly for casting metal parts. Intrepid Automation's technology centers on modular Digital Light Processing (DLP) for accelerated manufacturing. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511, titled "Multiple Image Projection Method for Additive Manufacturing," generally describes an additive manufacturing system and associated methods that use multiple image projectors to create a composite image on a resin pool. The patent claims involve adjusting properties and alignment of sub-images within the composite image through digital filters, such as irradiance masks, gamma adjustment masks, warp correction filters, and edge blending bars, to enhance printing resolution.

The procedural posture of this matter is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01242, filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which has been instituted. This venue is significant as the PTAB offers a specialized forum for challenging patent validity with a different legal standard and typically lower costs compared to district court litigation, focusing on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. The broader context of this IPR involves parallel patent infringement litigation where Intrepid Automation Inc. has asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511 (and related patent 11,014,301) against 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-02262). In that district court case, Intrepid Automation accuses 3D Systems of infringing with its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer, which Intrepid alleges is a "blatant knock off" of its own DLP multi-projection "Range" or "Valkyrie" 3D printer.

This IPR is notable because it reflects Unified Patents' strategy of challenging patents that are being asserted in commercially significant disputes, particularly in the competitive additive manufacturing industry. The patent at the heart of this IPR directly relates to critical aspects of 3D printing technology, specifically methods for precise image projection in resin-based systems. The underlying district court litigation between Intrepid Automation and 3D Systems further highlights the commercial importance and contentious nature of this technology, involving not only patent infringement allegations but also broader disputes over trade secret misappropriation and patent ownership. While Unified Patents is listed as the petitioner in this IPR, the parallel district court litigation demonstrates the high stakes for operating companies in the 3D printing sector regarding the validity of key patents.

This case, IPR2025-01242, involves an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511. While the prompt identifies Unified Patents LLC as the petitioner, official records indicate that 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. ("3DS") are the petitioners, challenging Intrepid Automation Inc. ("Intrepid") as the Patent Owner.

Here are the key legal developments and the current posture of IPR2025-01242:

• Filing of IPR Petition (2025-07-17): 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-01242) challenging claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511, titled "Multiple Image Projection Method for Additive Manufacturing." A Notice of Filing Date Accorded was entered on July 18, 2025. The petition asserted that the challenged claims were unpatentable as anticipated by the Shkolnik reference and obvious in view of prior art including Sekine, Greene, and Jørgensen.
• Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial (2025-01-10): Intrepid Automation, Inc. filed a Request for Discretionary Denial of the IPR petition. Intrepid's arguments for discretionary denial were based on the Director's March 26, 2025 Memorandum on PTAB workload management, and cited concerns about fairness, settled expectations, and an "incomplete overlap of invalidity issues" with parallel district court litigation. 3DS countered these arguments, emphasizing that the prior art was not considered during original prosecution, the grounds for unpatentability were compelling, the petition was filed expeditiously, and no trial date had been set in the parallel district court case.
• Parallel District Court Litigation: The IPR proceeding is connected to ongoing patent litigation between 3DS and Intrepid.
  • A case concerning the ownership of the '301 and '511 Patents, 3D Systems, Inc. v. Wynne et al. (No. 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL, S.D. Cal.), has been active for over four years, with Intrepid's counterclaims still pending and a final pretrial conference scheduled for November 21, 2025.
  • Separately, Intrepid Automation, Inc. filed a "Patent Case" against 3D Systems Corp. (No. 3:24-cv-02262-AGS-DDL, S.D. Cal.).
  • 3DS filed a motion to stay the "Patent Case" pending the outcome of IPR2025-01241 (a companion IPR) and IPR2025-01242, with a hearing set for November 5, 2025.
  • While 3DS submitted a "Sotera" stipulation in the Patent Case to suggest the IPR offered a "true alternative" to district court litigation, Intrepid argued that 3DS's subsequent counterclaims in the district court case contradicted this assertion.
• Institution Decision (Status: Instituted): The PTAB instituted the inter partes review. Although a specific institution date is not provided in the search results, the ongoing activity, particularly discovery milestones, confirms that the IPR was instituted.
• Discovery Milestones (2026-05-13): On May 13, 2026, the Petitioner filed an "Amended Notice of Deposition of Dr. Rosen," indicating that discovery, specifically expert depositions, is underway in the IPR proceeding.
• Current Posture: As of May 22, 2026, the IPR is active and in the trial phase following institution, with discovery ongoing. A final written decision from the PTAB has not yet been issued.

Based on a thorough review of public records, there appears to be a discrepancy in the provided case information for IPR2025-01242. Search results consistently indicate that the petitioners in IPR2025-01242 are 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc., not Unified Patents LLC. This inter partes review, filed on July 17, 2025, challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511, held by Intrepid Automation Inc..

Therefore, counsel cannot be identified for Unified Patents LLC in IPR2025-01242, as they are not listed as the plaintiff in this specific proceeding.

However, Unified Patents LLC is a prominent organization that frequently initiates Inter Partes Reviews. While not specific to IPR2025-01242, Unified Patents often utilizes both in-house counsel and external law firms for their IPR proceedings. For example, in other IPRs, attorneys who have represented Unified Patents LLC include:

• Jason R. Mudd (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Overland Park, Kansas, and Greenwood Village, Colorado.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Mudd is a registered patent attorney known for his work in intellectual property litigation and post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.
• Kelly R. Hughes (In-house / Backup Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC (also listed with Erise IP, P.A. in some filings)
  • Office Location: P.O. Box 53345, Washington, DC 20009 (for Unified Patents); Overland Park, Kansas (for Erise IP, P.A.)
  • Relevant Experience: Ms. Hughes serves as Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents and has experience in administrative patent review.
• Eric A. Buresh (Backup Counsel)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Overland Park, Kansas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Buresh's practice focuses on patent litigation and other intellectual property matters.
• Roshan Mansinghani (In-house / Backup Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX (for Unified Patents LLC).
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Mansinghani is the Head of Operations for Unified Patents and has been involved as in-house counsel in various IPR proceedings.
• Jordan M. Rossen (In-house / Backup Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC
  • Office Location: P.O. Box 53345, Washington, DC 20009.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Rossen holds the title of Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents.
• Jonathan Stroud (In-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC
  • Office Location: San Jose, California (Unified Patents headquarters).
  • Relevant Experience: As COO & CLO (Chief Legal Officer) of Unified Patents, Mr. Stroud is deeply involved in the organization's legal strategies and has represented Unified Patents in various proceedings.

Please note that this list reflects general representation for Unified Patents LLC in IPR matters and is not specific to IPR2025-01242 due to the identified discrepancy in the petitioner's identity for that case number.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing Intrepid Automation Inc. in IPR2025-01242:

Counsel for Intrepid Automation Inc. (Defendant/Patent Owner)

• Name: John P. Moy

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Moy focuses his practice on patent litigation, pre-litigation counseling, and dispute resolution. He has extensive experience in all facets of patent litigation, including trial experience, drafting appellate briefs, preparing Markman claim construction briefs, deposing witnesses, and managing case responsibilities. He also advises clients on patent reexamination and other patent counseling matters. His litigation experience spans various technologies, such as interactive telephone call processing systems, electronic payment systems, and pharmaceutical products.

• Name: Marty B. Ready

  • Role: Counsel (appeared for Intrepid Automation, Inc. in related district court patent litigation involving the same patent)
  • Firm: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
  • Office Location: (Likely San Diego, given his appearance in the Southern District of California case for Intrepid and his "Professional Affiliations" in San Diego)
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Ready is a partner at Wilson Elser with a diverse background in commercial litigation and intellectual property. He regularly litigates patent infringement actions in U.S. District Courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. As a registered patent attorney for over a decade, he represents high-tech companies before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. His practice also involves strategic counseling for companies on intellectual property procurement, development, and commercialization. He has appeared on behalf of Intrepid Automation, Inc. in the related district court case, Intrepid Automation, Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation et al, Case No. 3:2024cv02262, which involves U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511.

While John P. Moy is explicitly listed as "Respondent Counsel" for Intrepid Automation Inc. in the IPR docket entries, Marty B. Ready's appearance for Intrepid in closely related district court litigation concerning the same patent strongly suggests his involvement in the overall strategy for defending the patent, including the IPR.