Unified Patents LLC v. Perceptive Automata LLC

Unified Patents LLC, a member-based organization focused on deterring "patent trolls" and improving patent quality, has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Perceptive Automata LLC. Unified Patents operates by filing IPRs against patents it believes are invalid or unpatentable, often targeting those asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) in specific technology areas. Perceptive Automata LLC was a developer of artificial intelligence (AI) for understanding human behavior in autonomous vehicles and robotics, founded by researchers from Harvard and MIT. The company ceased operations in August 2022 after failing to secure Series B funding, with its intellectual property subsequently being offered for sale. Given its operational status and recent patent assertion activities, Perceptive Automata LLC acts as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or NPE.

The IPR specifically challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,520,346, titled "Machine learning based prediction of human interactions with autonomous vehicles." This patent broadly covers AI-based human perception and prediction technology, particularly machine learning architectures designed to assess and predict human behavioral states, which is crucial for autonomous vehicle navigation. The core of the technology involves receiving sensor data from an autonomous vehicle, feeding it to a supervised learning model to predict an output statistical summary of user responses, executing the model, and controlling the vehicle's operation based on this summary.

This IPR is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that reviews patentability. The case, IPR2025-01577, has already been instituted, meaning the PTAB has found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of the patent is unpatentable. The PTAB serves as a key venue for challenging patent validity as a more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. The case is notable because Perceptive Automata LLC, despite having ceased active operations, has recently asserted this patent, among others, in an infringement lawsuit against Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology (Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 2:25-cv-00742 E.D. Tex.), which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in January 2026. Unified Patents' challenge highlights a pattern of NPE assertion in the high-stakes autonomous vehicle industry, where understanding human behavior through AI is a critical and valuable technology. This IPR thus represents a direct counter to perceived "patent troll" activity within a significant technological market.

The IPR challenging patent 11520346 is a parallel proceeding to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Perceptive Automata LLC against Tesla, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. Here's a summary of the legal developments in that district court case:

Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 2:25-cv-00742 (E.D. Tex.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Perceptive Automata LLC filed an infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. on July 23, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • The lawsuit asserted five U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,520,346, all related to AI-based human perception and prediction technology for autonomous vehicles.
  • Perceptive Automata alleged that Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, including hardware and software in vehicles like the Model Y and Cybertruck, infringed these patents.
  • The complaint also alleged that Tesla was aware of Perceptive Automata's patent portfolio prior to the lawsuit due to citations in Tesla's own patent prosecution activities.
  • The initial complaint was followed by a First Amended Complaint, which referenced a prior motion to dismiss filed by Tesla.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • The case was voluntarily dismissed before reaching claim construction or summary judgment, indicating that substantive pre-trial motions like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR were likely not fully adjudicated or did not lead to a final ruling on the merits. While Tesla had filed a motion to dismiss, the public record does not detail its outcome prior to the voluntary dismissal.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage due to its voluntary dismissal.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific strategic discovery milestones are publicly available, as the case was dismissed relatively quickly. The swift dismissal suggests that extensive discovery may not have occurred.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial, and therefore there was no verdict or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case was resolved on January 5, 2026, when Perceptive Automata LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Dkt. No. 64).
  • The Court accepted the dismissal, meaning all claims against Tesla were dismissed without prejudice. This allows Perceptive Automata to refile the claims in the future, subject to statutes of limitations and other legal constraints.
  • No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted.
  • The case lasted only 166 days. This rapid progression to voluntary dismissal, without a publicly litigated substantive ruling, suggests possibilities such as a confidential settlement, a licensing agreement, or a strategic decision by Perceptive Automata.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • The IPR filed by Unified Patents LLC (IPR2025-01577) against Perceptive Automata LLC challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,520,346 is a parallel proceeding to this litigation. The IPR was instituted, meaning the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of the patent is unpatentable.
  • While the district court case was dismissed without prejudice on January 5, 2026, the IPR is still pending. The institution of the IPR likely put pressure on Perceptive Automata in its litigation against Tesla, though the exact impact on the voluntary dismissal is not publicly detailed. Unified Patents' business model often involves filing IPRs to deter "patent trolls" and improve patent quality, especially against patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).

I'll research the petitioner's counsel in IPR2025-01577.

Threshold issue: the case metadata's party identification is wrong

Before answering the question as posed, I have to flag a material contradiction between the case metadata and the primary sources.

The metadata says the case is "Unified Patents LLC v. Perceptive Automata LLC," with Unified Patents LLC as plaintiff/petitioner. The actual petitioner of record in IPR2025-01577 is Tesla, Inc.

• The petition itself is captioned "TESLA, INC., Petitioner, v. PERCEPTIVE AUTOMATA LLC, Patent Owner," for U.S. Patent No. 11,520,346, and states: "The real party-in-interest is Tesla, Inc. No other parties exercised or could have exercised control over this Petition; no other parties funded or directed this Petition." (Petition, IPR2025-01577)
• PTAB docket aggregators list the proceeding as "Tesla Inc v. Perceptive Automata LLC" with Petitioner = Tesla, Inc. (Operating Company (Large)) and Patent Owner = Perceptive Automata LLC (NPE/Small Company); filed 2025-10-10, instituted 2026-03-23. (IPR2025-01577 docket; IPVerse)
• The likely source of the error is that the metadata appears to have been drawn from unifiedpatents.com's public PTAB case portal — a free docket database operated by Unified Patents (the defensive aggregator) — not from a party. Unified Patents is not a party, real party-in-interest, or counsel in IPR2025-01577. I found no Unified Patents-filed IPR against the '346 patent; the five parallel IPRs against Perceptive's asserted patents (IPR2025-01573, -01575, -01576, -01577, and one more) were all filed by Tesla.
• Related correction: the prior "Defendant representatives" section in this file is not supportable. It names "David E. Lovejoy" (Lovejoy Law Firm, Plano, TX) and "J. David Monteiro" (Monteiro & Fishman, LLP) as Perceptive's district-court counsel. I could not corroborate either name against any docket or filing, and the actual counsel of record for Perceptive Automata in the parallel litigation is entirely different (Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC — see below). I recommend treating that section as erroneous and striking it.

So the honest answer to "who represents the plaintiff in this case" is: there is no Unified Patents counsel, because Unified Patents is not the plaintiff. The petitioner-side (plaintiff-side) counsel of record is Tesla's team, set out below.

---

Petitioner's (Tesla, Inc.) counsel of record — IPR2025-01577

Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), the petition includes a Lead/Back-Up Counsel table. Aggregated counsel data for the proceeding lists petitioner counsel as "Fulghum, Roger et al." (IPVerse counsel table); the petition's § I.C table was not fully retrievable in the indexed text, so the individual back-up counsel listed below are drawn from Tesla's same-day, same-patent-family filings by the same Baker Botts team in the companion Tesla IPRs (IPR2025-01573/-01575) and the co-pending E.D. Tex. litigation. I mark the confidence level for each.

Supporting sources: Tesla's IPR petition covers listing counsel roger.fulghum@bakerbott.com, mark.speegle@bakerbott.com, ellyar.barazesh@bakerbott.com, william.gaines@bakerbott.com, lance.goodman@bakerbott.com for IPR2025-01573 (U.S. Pat. 10,614,344) and IPR2025-01575 (U.S. Pat. 11,753,046) (ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1558529); and Fulghum's signature block as "Lead Attorney" for Tesla in the related district-court Sotera stipulation (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00742).

Not identified / not verifiable from public sources: any in-house Tesla IP counsel named on the IPR2025-01577 power of attorney (filed 2025-10-10, docket entry 2) — the signed POA document text was not retrievable. I also could not identify the assigned panel (the docket shows "pending judge assignment" at the time of the aggregated snapshot), and therefore cannot confirm the administrative patent judges.

---

Related but distinct: Patent Owner's counsel (Perceptive Automata LLC)

Since the file's prior section misidentified these, here is the verified record for context:

• PTAB (Patent Owner side, IPR2025-01574 and -01577): Charles Austin Ginnings (Reg. No. 62,706), Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., 745 McClintock Drive, Suite 340, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 — lead counsel; with John P. Murphy as back-up (IPR2025-01574 mandatory notices). IPVerse lists respondent counsel simply as "Ginnings, Charles."
• District court (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00594, filed Dec. 29, 2025): Patrick J. Conroy (lead), C. Austin Ginnings, Jonathan H. Rastegar, Timothy E. Grochocinski, Taryn Trusty, John P. Murphy (all Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Dallas/Burr Ridge/Fort Worth), plus Andrea L. Fair, Miller Fair Henry, PLLC, Longview, TX, as local counsel (Perceptive's Nov. 14, 2025 response signature block).
• No appearance by Lovejoy Law Firm or Monteiro & Fishman appears in the Perceptive Automata docket records I could access (CourtListener parties, 7:25-cv-00594).

---

Minor cross-reference note on the prior section

The prior section states the E.D. Tex. case was voluntarily dismissed Jan. 5, 2026 (Dkt. 64). Tesla's updated exhibit list cites "Patent Owner Voluntary Dismissal – EXTX-2:25-cv-00742 (filed December 29, 2025)" as Ex. 1017, alongside Perceptive's new W.D. Tex. complaint, 7:25-cv-00594, also filed December 29, 2025. These are reconcilable (notice filed Dec. 29, 2025; dismissal docketed/effective early January 2026), but the two dates should be stated carefully rather than as a single event.

What to verify directly before relying on this

1. Pull the IPR2025-01577 Petition, § I.C (Lead and Back-Up Counsel) and the Power of Attorney (Paper 2, Oct. 10, 2025) from PTAB PTACTS/Center for PTAB Trials to confirm the exact back-up counsel and any in-house signatory.
2. Check for updated § 42.8 notices or pro hac vice motions after institution (Mar. 23, 2026) — Tesla's team may have been augmented for the FWD phase.
3. Correct the case caption in the working file to Tesla, Inc. v. Perceptive Automata LLC, IPR2025-01577, or, if Unified Patents is intended to be tracked, identify which of Perceptive's five IPRs Unified Patents actually filed (I found none).

I'll research the defendant/patent-owner side counsel now. Note the framing issue: in an IPR the "defendant" analog is the Patent Owner (Perceptive Automata), while in the parallel district-court suits the defendant is Tesla. I'll cover both, prioritizing the Patent Owner side since it's the respondent in this proceeding.

Let me pull the Patent Owner's mandatory notice in this specific IPR and check for post-institution counsel changes.

Threshold framing: "defendant" is doing double duty here

The case as docketed is an IPR, not an infringement action, and (as the prior section established) the metadata's party labels are inverted. So "counsel of record for the defendant(s)" resolves to two different groups depending on which proceeding you mean:

1. In IPR2025-01577 itself, the party in the defensive/respondent posture is the Patent Owner, Perceptive Automata LLC — the analog of a defendant. This is the answer that most directly responds to the question in this case.
2. In the parallel infringement suits (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00742 and W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00594), the actual defendant is Tesla, Inc. — whose counsel is the same Baker Botts team that appears as petitioner counsel in the IPR (already covered in the "Plaintiff representatives" section).

I cover both, led by the Patent Owner side. I found no counsel "for Unified Patents" because Unified Patents is not a party (consistent with the prior section's correction).

---

A. Patent Owner / respondent side — Perceptive Automata LLC (PTAB, IPR2025-01577)

Sources / confidence: The lead/back-up designations above are confirmed by Perceptive's 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) Mandatory Notices filed in the companion Tesla IPR on the same patent family — IPR2025-01574 (U.S. Pat. 11,126,889), dated Oct. 22, 2025 — which lists Ginnings (lead) and Murphy (back-up) (IPR2025-01574 Mandatory Notices). For IPR2025-01577 specifically, the docket shows a Patent Owner Mandatory Notice (Paper 4) and Power of Attorney (Paper 5), both filed 2025-10-22 (IPR2025-01577 docket), and IPVerse lists respondent counsel as "Ginnings, Charles" (IPVerse). I could not retrieve the full signed text of Papers 4/5 in -01577 to confirm whether Murphy (or anyone else) is additionally of record in this IPR number as opposed to -01574. Treat the -01577 counsel list as high confidence for Ginnings, medium for Murphy.

Not found / not verifiable: No PTAB pro hac vice motion or updated § 42.8 notice on the Patent Owner side in -01577 appeared in the public record I could access; no in-house Perceptive counsel is named (consistent with it being a wound-down NPE). I also could not confirm an assigned panel of Administrative Patent Judges for the instituted trial.

---

B. Defendant side in the parallel infringement suits — Tesla, Inc.

These are the counsel representing the actual defendant in Perceptive's two infringement cases, and they overlap heavily with the petitioner team in the IPR.

Sources: CourtListener parties, 7:25-cv-00594; PacerMonitor docket, 7:25-cv-00594; E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00742 docket sheet (shown in the petition exhibit material). Tesla's IPR petition also designates Matthew Williams (Reg. No. 78,734, Baker Botts Austin) among petitioner counsel — note this differs slightly from the earlier section's back-up list, which named Gaines/Goodman/Barazesh but not Williams. (IPR2025-01577 Petition § I.C)

---

C. For completeness — Perceptive Automata as plaintiff in the district courts

(Relevant because these same attorneys appear alongside Ginnings on the Patent Owner side and because the petition's service block names two of them.)

• Patrick J. Conroy — lead counsel in both district cases; Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, 2727 N. Harwood St., Suite 250, Dallas, TX 75201 (pat@nelbum.com). Signed Perceptive's Feb. 20, 2026 response in W.D. Tex.
• Jonathan H. Rastegar — Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Dallas.
• Timothy E. Grochocinski, C. Austin Ginnings, Taryn Trusty (pro hac vice granted in W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2026) — Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Burr Ridge, IL.
• John P. Murphy — Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Fort Worth.
• Janson Hall Westmoreland — Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Fort Worth; pro hac vice granted in W.D. Tex. (Dkt. 27, Jan. 14, 2026).
• Andrea L. Fair — local counsel, Miller Fair Henry, PLLC, 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy., Longview, TX 75604 (andrea@millerfairhenry.com). Appeared in E.D. Tex. (Dkt. 23, Oct. 14, 2025).

Sources: CourtListener parties, 7:25-cv-00594; Perceptive's W.D. Tex. response signature blocks (Dkt. 31); E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00742 docket (Dkts. 23–24, 50). Tesla's IPR service block was directed to Conroy and Fair as "attorney[s] … of record for Patent Owner in the EDTX Litigation" (Petition § I.D).

This independently reconfirms the prior section's correction: no Lovejoy Law Firm or Monteiro & Fishman attorney appears anywhere in these dockets.

---

D. Caveats and discrepancies to flag

1. No sealed/withheld counsel identified. Appearances in both district cases are public; I found no in-camera or sealed counsel list.
2. Institution-date tension (flagging, not resolving). The aggregator docket lists an institution date of 2026-03-23 for IPR2025-01577, but Perceptive's Feb. 20, 2026 W.D. Tex. filing stated institution decisions in -01576 and -01577 were expected by April 16, 2026 — i.e., they had not yet issued as of that filing. These can be reconciled (the Board deciding early, before the ~six-month statutory deadline), but the two sources should be pulled directly rather than assumed.
3. Counsel-of-record churn risk. If the -01577 trial has proceeded past institution, Tesla's and Perceptive's teams may have been augmented (additional back-ups, pro hac vice admissions). The counsel tables above reflect filings through roughly Feb.–Mar. 2026.
4. Not verifiable / do not rely without confirmation: the exact back-up counsel listed on Paper 4 (PO Mandatory Notice) and Paper 5 (PO Power of Attorney) for -01577; any in-house Perceptive signatory; and the identity of the assigned APJ panel.