Unified Patents, LLC v. Malikie Innovations Ltd

Unified Patents, LLC v. Malikie Innovations Ltd (IPR2026-00007) was an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571. The petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions and improving patent quality through various strategies, including filing IPRs against what it considers poor-quality patents. Unified Patents operates independently of its members and does not pay money to NPEs for licenses, focusing instead on increasing the costs NPEs face when asserting invalid patents. The patent owner, Malikie Innovations Ltd, is an Irish NPE and a subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations Limited (KPI). Malikie Innovations acquired a substantial portfolio of approximately 32,000 non-core patents and patent applications from BlackBerry Limited in March 2023 for up to $900 million and is actively engaged in licensing and asserting these patents across various technology sectors.

U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571, titled "System and method for detecting and adapting to wireless network conditions," generally relates to techniques for managing wireless communication based on detected network conditions. While the specific accused products or services are not directly at issue in an IPR, Malikie Innovations has broadly asserted patents from its acquired BlackBerry portfolio against companies involved in mobile devices, messaging, wireless networking, video chat, and even Bitcoin mining, suggesting the '571 patent likely falls within these mobile communication and wireless technology domains.

The procedural posture of this case is an IPR filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the USPTO. IPRs serve as a crucial mechanism for third parties to challenge the patentability of issued claims based on prior art, often providing a more efficient and less costly alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. This particular IPR was subsequently settled, indicating a resolution between the parties before a final decision on patentability was reached by the PTAB. The case is notable as it highlights the ongoing efforts by Unified Patents to combat NPE assertion campaigns, particularly those stemming from large patent portfolio acquisitions like Malikie's purchase from BlackBerry. The settlement, consistent with Unified Patents' non-monetary deterrence strategy, underscores the strategic use of IPRs to address alleged "bad patents" and potentially influence future patent assertion patterns in the industry.

The IPR proceeding IPR2026-00007, filed by Unified Patents, LLC against Malikie Innovations Ltd concerning US Patent No. 9,542,571, concluded with a settlement.

Here's a chronological overview of key legal developments related to this specific IPR and relevant background on Malikie Innovations' patent assertion activities:

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect on the litigation:

• Filing of IPR2026-00007: Unified Patents, LLC initiated IPR2026-00007 against Malikie Innovations Ltd, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571. The specific filing date for IPR2026-00007 is not available in the provided search results, but it is clear from the case number that it was filed in 2026.
• Settlement of IPR2026-00007: The IPR proceeding was subsequently settled, as stated in the case overview. The exact settlement date is not specified in the provided information.

Malikie Innovations' Broader Patent Assertion Activities (Illustrative Context):

While IPR2026-00007 itself was settled, it's important to note the broader context of Malikie Innovations' patent assertion campaigns, which Unified Patents actively challenges:

• July 24, 2025: The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified Patents' request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,315,747, another patent owned and asserted by Malikie Innovations. This patent is directed to providing availability data in a messaging environment and has been asserted against technology developed by Match Group, Inc..
• October 3, 2025: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 10,779,156, also owned and asserted by Malikie Innovations. This patent relates to a mobile device communicating with a server to retrieve pending data messages (e.g., email) and has been asserted against companies like Match and Bumble..
• November 12, 2025: Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Canon Inc. and Canon USA in a Texas-based court (case number 1:25-cv-01826). The lawsuit alleges infringement of six Malikie patents related to Wi-Fi technology in Canon's digital cameras, printers, and mobile app..
• January 14, 2026: A patent infringement case filed by Malikie Innovations against Match Group, involving five U.S. patents covering mobile communication and data transmission, was administratively closed due to a settlement in principle. Dismissal papers were due by February 27, 2026..
• February 17, 2026: Malikie Innovations Limited was involved in an infringement action against Xiaomi Corporation and several of its subsidiaries before the Unified Patent Court's Court of First Instance in Mannheim, Germany (Case number: UPC_CFI_1733/2025)..
• April 2, 2026: Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Brother Industries, Ltd. and Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc., alleging infringement of four Wi-Fi related patents originally owned by BlackBerry. The case was filed in the Tennessee Western District Court..

I'll research counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, Unified Patents, LLC, in this matter — while flagging an important threshold issue about how the case is being characterized.

Important finding on the case identity — let me dig deeper before drafting.

Threshold issue: the record does not match the metadata (flagged per operating rules)

Before identifying counsel, two characterization problems must be surfaced, because they change the answer entirely:

1. The case is an IPR, not a "patent infringement case." IPR2026-00007 is an administrative trial under 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. There is no "plaintiff" or "defendant" — the parties are a petitioner and a patent owner. I have read the task's "plaintiff(s)" as the petitioner side.
2. Public PTAB records identify the petitioner in IPR2026-00007 as Nintendo, not Unified Patents. The Board's own termination Decision (Chief APJ Kalyan K. Deshpande, paper captioned Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. v. Malikie Innovations Ltd.) lists IPR2026-00003 through IPR2026-00007, including IPR2026-00007 (Patent 9,542,571 B2), and grants joint motions to terminate on settlement. See the PTACTS-hosted decision: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558567](/patent/1558567)/download-documents?artifactId=bycRGq_WBOTLqibdVXv_EoefxP1P8QGlb3hkeukdlh7lU4MM5tAq0bA ; RPX Empower docket ("Nintendo Company Limited et al v. Malikie Innovations Limited IPR of '571", filed 10/09/2025, terminated settled 02/09/2026), https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/ptab/19822-nintendo-company-v-malikie-innovations-limited-ipr-of-571#overview ; ipverse case page, https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2026-00007 ; and the W.D. Wash. stay order referencing Nintendo's October 8–9, 2025 IPR petitions on the five remaining asserted patents, https://ipfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/25-11-07-WDWA24-1490-order-staying-Malikie-v.-Nintendo.pdf.

Per the operating rules, I treat the prompt's metadata (petitioner = Unified Patents, LLC) as authoritative for party names, case number, and patent. I therefore give the petitioner-side answer under both readings, and I do not invent a Unified attorney appearance that does not exist on this docket.

---

A. Counsel of record for the petitioner side as it actually appears on the IPR2026-00007 record

The petition itself (Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571 B2, filed 10/09/2025) designates the following:

Sources: petition mandatory notices and Board service list as reproduced in the PTACTS documents above; ipverse counsel table for IPR2026-00007 (Petitioner Counsel: "BRIGHAM, MATTHEW et al"); RPX docket.

Patent-owner side (already covered in your "Defendant representatives" section, noted here only for completeness): Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Patrick Colsher, Matt Berkowitz, Jeff Leung, Khue Hoang appear on the Board's service list for these proceedings.

---

B. If the metadata controls (petitioner = Unified Patents, LLC)

No appearance of Unified Patents or any Unified-side attorney exists in IPR2026-00007. The only counsel on that docket are the Cooley and RJLF attorneys above. I found no PTABS/PTACTS filing, mandatory notice, power of attorney, or Board order in IPR2026-00007 naming Unified Patents, LLC. So the direct answer to "identify counsel of record for the plaintiff" under the metadata is: there is none on this docket.

What can responsibly be said is who Unified uses in its other Malikie Innovations challenges — necessarily framed as not counsel of record in IPR2026-00007, and subject to confirmation:

Unified in-house (Unified Patents, LLC, 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD 20815):

Outside counsel used by Unified on Malikie matters (per Unified's own published statements):

Sources: Unified Patents insights pages, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/9/18/malikie-cryptography-patent-challenge-granted and https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/9/21/malikie-wi-fi-patent-challenge-granted (each ending with "Unified is represented by …"); and for the firm-attorney pairings in reexaminations, the same pages (also mirrored at https://unifiedpatents.squarespace.com/insights/tag/Key+Patent+Innovations+Limited).

Note also a structural point: Unified's documented challenges to Malikie on the '571-adjacent and other ex-BlackBerry assets have been ex parte reexaminations, not IPRs (e.g., '747, '156, '989, '960, '899). I found no Unified IPR against Malikie on the '571 patent. That is a second, independent reason to doubt the metadata's framing, and I flag it rather than paper over it.

---

C. If the intent was the district court case involving the '571 patent

The infringement action asserting U.S. Pat. 9,542,571 is Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01490-JLR (W.D. Wash.) (Judge James L. Robart; stayed Nov. 7, 2025 pending the IPRs/reexam). There, the plaintiff is Malikie/KPI, and its counsel are:

• Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Patrick Colsher, Matt Berkowitz, Jeff Leung, Khue Hoang (Khue Hoang's declaration, D.I. 60, identifies herself as RJLF counsel of record for Plaintiffs).
• Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC (Seattle, WA) — W.D. Wash. local counsel; identified as a filing firm on the complaint (Individual attorney names not verified in the sources retrieved).

Source: mondaq case note on the filing ("Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC and Reichman Jorgenson Lehman and Feldberg LLP filed the complaint"), https://webiis08.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1537186](/patent/1537186)/malikie-together-with-key-patent-innovations-sues-nintendo ; D.I. 60 declaration, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_District_Court/2--24-cv-01490/Malikie_Innovations_Ltd_et_al_v._Nintendo_Co_Ltd_et_al/docs/60.pdf?download=true.

---

D. Sealing / appearance caveats

• Nothing about counsel identification is sealed here. The confidentiality in IPR2026-00007 attaches only to the settlement agreement, filed Feb. 3, 2026 as Ex. 2001 and kept separate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) at the parties' joint request (Board order granting the joint motions and requests; termination reported Feb. 9, 2026). That order expressly states it "does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)," and the proceedings terminated pre-institution.
• Because the proceedings terminated pre-institution, there is no institution decision, no FWD, and no counsel-withdrawal record — i.e., the four Cooley attorneys and the RJLF attorneys above are the complete appearance set.
• The dates are slightly inconsistent across public sources: the Board authorized the joint motions on Dec. 2, 2025 with a Dec. 12, 2025 filing deadline, while the settlement agreement exhibit is dated Feb. 3, 2026 and termination is reported as Feb. 9, 2026. I could not reconcile these (possibly a renewed/amended motion), and I do not assert one as authoritative.

---

Bottom line

• Documented counsel of record on IPR2026-00007 (petitioner side): Cooley LLP — Matthew J. Brigham (lead), Andrew C. Mace (back-up), with David Yun and Eamonn Gardner. That is the docket fact.
• If the case metadata governs (petitioner = Unified Patents, LLC), no Unified-side attorney appears of record in IPR2026-00007 — I found no such filing. Unified's recurring in-house PTAB team (Stroud, Mansinghani, Rossen, Hughes, Bisk,

Counsel of record — respondent / patent-owner side (Malikie Innovations Ltd.)

⚠️ Threshold discrepancy — read before using this section

The case metadata states that Unified Patents, LLC is the petitioner in IPR2026-00007. Every public source I can locate contradicts that. IPR2026-00007 is captioned Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. v. Malikie Innovations Ltd. — filed October 9, 2025, on U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571 (Tech Center 2800, application 14/715,227), and terminated-settled on February 9, 2026.

• GreyB/IPVerse case page: petitioner "Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.," respondent "Malikie Innovations Ltd.," status "Terminated-Settled," termination date Feb. 9, 2026 — https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2026-00007
• RPX Empower: "Nintendo Company Limited et al v. Malikie Innovations Limited IPR of US9542571B2," filed 10/09/2025 — https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/ptab/19822-nintendo-company-v-malikie-innovations-limited-ipr-of-571
• The Board's own termination decision groups IPR2026-00003 through -00007 (all Malikie patents) as Nintendo v. Malikie — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558567/download-documents

Unified Patents is challenging other Malikie patents, but through ex parte reexaminations (e.g., U.S. 7,372,960; 10,778,989; 10,779,156; 12,395,899), not this '571 IPR, and its reexam counsel (Jordan Rossen, Kelly Hughes, Jenn Bisk, Jason Wejnert, Jessica L.A. Marks, T.J. Murphy in-house; Erise IP and Slater Matsil as outside counsel) has no connection to IPR2026-00007. The "Plaintiff representatives" section previously generated for this case is therefore built on the wrong party alignment and should be corrected. Below I give the respondent/patent-owner counsel (the "defendant" side under your framing), plus the actual petitioner-side counsel for completeness, since the mismatch is material.

Note also the task framing: this is an IPR, not a district court infringement action, so there is no "defendant" in the Rule 12 sense and no local counsel. The party opposing the petitioner is Malikie Innovations Ltd. as Patent Owner.

---

Malikie Innovations Ltd. (Patent Owner) — counsel of record

All Patent Owner counsel identified in this proceeding come from a single firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF). There is no separate local counsel, and no indication that Malikie used in-house attorneys of record in this IPR.

Sourcing caveat. I could not retrieve the Patent Owner's power of attorney filed in IPR2026-00007 itself. The name/role table above is reconstructed from (a) the signature and service blocks of the Board's termination decision covering IPR2026-00003–-00007 (Colsher, Berkowitz, Leung, Hoang for RJLF), (b) the Director's December 2, 2025 e-mail in the same docket addressed to Patrick Colsher and copying Berkowitz, Hoang, Polka and an "RJ Malikie" distribution list, and (c) the verified Patent Owner POA in the sibling Malikie IPR2026-00120 (signed Nov. 21, 2025 by Angela Quinlan for Malikie) naming Colsher as lead and Berkowitz, Hoang, Hasan as back-up. Because IPR2026-00007 settled pre-institution, Malikie may never have filed a formal § 42.10(b) POA in this specific docket, which would explain why no case-specific POA surfaced. Treat Colsher as lead and Berkowitz/Hoang/Leung as back-up with high confidence; treat Polka and Hasan as likely but less firmly tied to -00007.

Corporate signatory (not counsel): Angela Quinlan, Managing Director of Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Malikie's parent/funder), signed the Patent Owner POA paperwork as Malikie's authorized representative. She is a party representative, not an attorney of record — do not list her as counsel.

---

Petitioner side (for contrast, and because of the metadata conflict)

The entity that actually petitioned in IPR2026-00007 was Nintendo, through Cooley LLP:

• Matthew J. Brigham (Reg. No. 44,047) — lead counsel, Cooley LLP, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004 (Cooley bio: https://www.cooley.com/people/matthew-brigham/in-depth; described as "of counsel," long-time Nintendo patent counsel, including Malikie v. Nintendo in W.D. Wash.)
• Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342) — back-up counsel, Cooley LLP
• David Yun and Eamonn Gardner — also on the Cooley service block for the five Malikie IPRs; Patrick W. Lauppe and Dena Chen were named as further back-up counsel (pro hac vice to be requested) in the '571 petition

GreyB's counsel table for IPR2026-00007 shows exactly two entries: Petitioner Counsel "BRIGHAM, MATTHEW et al." and Respondent Counsel "Colsher, Patrick et al."

---

Sealing / availability notes

• The settlement agreement itself is confidential and unavailable. It was filed February 3, 2026 as Exhibit 2001 with a joint request under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c); the Board (Chief APJ Kalyan K. Deshpande) granted the request and ordered the agreement kept separate from the patent file, releasable only to federal agencies on written request or on a showing of good cause. So the financial terms and any license-back are sealed — but counsel identification and the termination order are public.
• The docket's outcome: joint motions to terminate authorized Dec. 2, 2025 (due Dec. 12, 2025), agreement filed Feb. 3, 2026, petitions dismissed and proceedings terminated Feb. 9, 2026, expressly not a final written decision under § 318(a) and with no institution decision.
• No attorney names in this matter appear to be under seal; where I could not confirm a role, I've said so rather than filling the gap.