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).

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents LLC v. Perceptive Automata LLC IPR2025-01577 counsel of record", "Unified Patents LLC IPR counsel", "Unified Patents LLC attorneys", "Unified Patents LLC lead counsel IPR", "Unified Patents IPR attorney experience"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for Unified Patents LLC (the plaintiff) in the IPR2025-01577 case. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for these attorneys.

I will use web search with the provided case name and number to look for docket entries, PTAB filings, and news articles that typically list the attorneys involved in an IPR. I will specifically look for counsel representing the petitioner, Unified Patents LLC.Unified Patents LLC, as a petitioner in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, typically leverages a combination of its experienced in-house legal team and, at times, external counsel for its challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific docket entries for IPR2025-01577 are not directly available in the search results, Unified Patents' general practice and identified counsel can be inferred from its public information and other IPR filings.

Based on publicly available information and examples from other IPR cases filed by Unified Patents, the following individuals are likely to be involved as counsel for Unified Patents LLC in IPR proceedings:

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief Operating Officer (COO) & Chief Legal Officer (CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC (In-house)
  • Office Location: Likely Washington, D.C. area (Unified Patents has a preference for candidates in this area, though remote work is possible)
  • Experience: Oversees Unified Patents' legal strategy and operations, including its robust PTAB practice.

• Kelly Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC (In-house), potentially also listed as external counsel for specific IPRs through Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Unified Patents' office (possibly remote or in the D.C. area). For Erise IP, P.A., an office is listed in Greenwood Village, Colorado.
  • Experience: Supports Unified's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and appellate practice. Previously a patent attorney at Erise IP, focusing on patent litigations and PTAB practice. Was listed as a backup counsel in a Power of Attorney for IPR2021-01260.

• Jordan M. Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC (In-house)
  • Office Location: Unified Patents' office, with a postal address provided in Washington, D.C. for an IPR filing.
  • Experience: Involved in managing patent office proceedings internally, as evidenced by his listing in a Power of Attorney for IPR2021-01260.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Head of Operations, also listed as counsel in IPR filings.
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC (In-house)
  • Office Location: Unified Patents' office, with a postal address provided in Dallas, TX for an IPR filing.
  • Experience: Involved in the legal and operational aspects of Unified Patents' IPR filings, listed in a Power of Attorney for IPR2021-01260.

It is common for Unified Patents to have its internal Senior Patent Counsel serve as lead or backup counsel in IPR proceedings. Additionally, they sometimes retain external law firms specializing in PTAB practice, such as Erise IP, P.A., as seen in previous IPRs. The specific composition of counsel for IPR2025-01577 would be confirmed by the Power of Attorney and other filings on the PTAB's docket for that particular case.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Perceptive Automata LLC v. Unified Patents LLC IPR2025-01577 counsel of record", "Perceptive Automata LLC IPR attorney", "Perceptive Automata LLC patent litigation counsel", "Perceptive Automata LLC attorneys"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant, Perceptive Automata LLC, in the IPR2025-01577 case. I need to find their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience.

I will use web search, focusing on "IPR2025-01577" and "Perceptive Automata LLC" to find docket entries, PTAB filings, and news articles that list the attorneys representing Perceptive Automata. I will also look for information about Perceptive Automata's past litigation counsel, especially in the context of their now-dismissed case against Tesla, as it might indicate their preferred counsel for patent matters.Perceptive Automata LLC, as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01577, is represented by counsel specializing in patent prosecution and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific counsel for IPR2025-01577 were not explicitly identified in the provided search results, information regarding Perceptive Automata's representation in its prior district court litigation against Tesla, Inc. and its overall patent strategy can offer insight into likely representation.

In the related district court case, Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 2:25-cv-00742 (E.D. Tex.), Perceptive Automata LLC was represented by:

• David E. Lovejoy

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in district court)
  • Firm: Lovejoy Law Firm
  • Office Location: Plano, Texas
  • Experience: Mr. Lovejoy has experience representing patent holders in infringement litigation, including previous cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• J. David Monteiro

  • Role: Counsel (in district court)
  • Firm: Monteiro & Fishman, LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Experience: Mr. Monteiro is listed as counsel for Perceptive Automata in the Tesla litigation, indicating experience in patent enforcement matters.

It is common for patent owners to retain specialized counsel for PTAB proceedings, who may be different from or complement their district court litigation team. Given the specialized nature of IPRs, Perceptive Automata would likely engage attorneys with strong PTAB experience. Without direct docket access for IPR2025-01577, the definitive counsel for Perceptive Automata LLC in this specific IPR cannot be precisely stated at this time, but the attorneys involved in their district court actions provide a strong indication of their legal representation strategy.