Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen

Case Overview & Background

A threshold framing note: Although styled as "litigation," Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen (IPR2023-00029) is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district-court infringement suit. It is the defensive validity challenge that Unified Patents mounted against a patent that Pedersen was simultaneously asserting in roughly 20 infringement cases in the Western District of Texas. The underlying W.D. Tex. suits are separately captioned Pedersen v. Google, Pedersen v. Microsoft, Pedersen v. Oracle, etc.

Parties and patent. Unified Patents, LLC is a Washington, D.C.-based membership organization (founded 2012, acquired by Anaqua in August 2026) that describes itself as an NPE-deterrence entity: it monitors patent assertions and files IPRs, prior-art contests, and analytics against patents it believes are unpatentable, acting independently of its ~350 member companies, and it never pays NPEs to settle (it trades challenges for royalty-free licenses). Peter Henrik Pedersen is the sole named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System"), which issued November 15, 2005 from an application filed July 12, 2001 (priority to a July 12, 2000 provisional). Unified Patents describes Pedersen as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions," though that affiliation is not independently confirmed in the PTAB record. The '920 patent claims a central electronic-message management system in which recipients supply messenger-specific profile data — delivery parameters for where, when, and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered to them — and the system generates individualized messages accordingly (see Fed. Cir. op. at 2–3; '920 patent col. 2 ll. 46–50, col. 11 ll. 26–31). In the district court cases, Pedersen accused the email-marketing and webmail platforms of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/Verizon (AOL/Yahoo Mail), Oracle (Responsys), Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, Zoho, Ziff Davis/J2 Global, Mailgun, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Blackbaud, Aurea, Upland, Wix, Madwire, and SAP of infringing through profile-based email filtering/preference features.

Procedural posture. Unified Patents filed the IPR petition on October 14, 2022; the Board (APJs Larry J. Hume, Stacey G. White, and Michelle N. Wormmeester) instituted review on May 15, 2023. After oral argument on February 14, 2024, the Board issued its Final Written Decision on May 10, 2024 (opinion by APJ White), holding claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious over Funk (U.S. 5,937,162) in view of either Law (U.S. 7,058,586) or Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310). Pedersen appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-2090), where Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig (Robert Greenspoon arguing) challenged the Board's location of the messenger-specific delivery-parameter limitation in Funk; on March 26, 2026, a panel of Judges Lourie and Hughes and Chief District Judge Kleeh affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion, holding the Board's obviousness finding supported by substantial evidence. Counsel shifted over time: Haynes and Boone (Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Raghav Bajaj, et al.) handled the PTAB phase for Unified before the appeal was argued in-house by Kelly Hughes and Alyssa Holtslander; Pedersen was represented at the PTAB first by Ramey LLP (William Ramey, Jacob Henry) and then Whitestone Law (Erik Lund). The venue backdrop matters: Pedersen filed his infringement wave in the W.D. Tex. (Austin Division) — largely before Judge Alan Albright in cases such as Pedersen v. Oracle, 6:22-cv-00410 — a district then notorious for its patent-friendly docket and fast-track scheduling. Parallel validity attacks confirm the strategic pressure: Oracle's IPR2023-00867 and Adobe's IPR2023-00986 against the same patent both settled and terminated on October 11, 2023, leaving Unified's IPR as the one that reached a merits decision.

Why it is notable. The case is a clean illustration of Unified Patents' collective-defense model: a single IPR brought by a membership organization — not by any named defendant — neutralized a patent that an individual-inventor/NPE-style campaign had asserted against a broad cross-section of the email-marketing and webmail industry, and the Federal Circuit's affirmance extinguished enforceability of the challenged claims. It also shows the typical IPR-district-court linkage: the PTAB petition was filed within months of Pedersen's November 2021–April 2022 wave of W.D. Tex. suits, and while several targeted defendants (Oracle, Adobe) resolved their own IPRs through settlement, Unified pressed through to a final written decision and appellate affirmance. The Federal Circuit decision itself is doctrinally modest (a routine substantial-evidence affirmance of the Board's obviousness analysis), but commercially it removed a patent that had threatened widely deployed email platforms, and it feeds into the ongoing policy debate about Unified's model — including the separate, high-profile MemoryWeb RPI dispute over whether Unified must name its members as real parties in interest.

Key Legal Developments — Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, IPR2023-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920)

Threshold framing

A threshold point: the case in the metadata is not a district court patent-infringement suit. IPR2023-00029 is an inter partes review before the PTAB (filed 2022-10-14, terminated 2024-05-10). It therefore has no complaint/answer, no Markman hearing, no jury trial, and no verdict in the Article III sense. What it does have is (a) a full PTAB trial docket culminating in a Final Written Decision, (b) a Federal Circuit appeal that has now been decided, and (c) an extensive web of parallel district court infringement actions that Pedersen filed in the Western District of Texas asserting the same '920 patent, plus two parallel IPRs by other petitioners. I cover all three below, mapping your requested milestones onto the IPR's procedural analogues where the district-court framework doesn't literally apply.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (the IPR petition)

• 2022-10-14 — Unified Patents, LLC filed its Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 1) challenging claims 1 and 14–17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued 2005-11-15, application 09/904,270). Grounds: obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over (1) Funk in view of Law, and (2) Funk in view of Kamakura (PTACTS case record). Unified's initial PTAB counsel was from Haynes and Boone (Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Michael McCarty); Raghav Bajaj is also listed as petition-stage counsel. Patent Owner Peter Henrik Pedersen was represented by Ramey LLP (William P. Ramey III; Jacob B. Henry, reg. no. 61,093).
• ~2023-01/02 — Pedersen filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response (the docket reflects preliminary-response briefing before the institution decision).
• 2023-05-15 — Decision – Institution (Paper 8): the Board (APJs Stacey G. White [authoring judge], Michelle N. Wormmeester, Larry J. Hume) instituted trial on all challenged claims (1, 14–17) on both obviousness grounds. (Unified Patents blog, 2023-05-15; Patexia case summary.)
• 2023-08-09 — Patent Owner Response filed (per Pedersen's mandatory-notice filings in the parallel Oracle IPR). The response argued primarily on claim 1, disputing that Funk discloses "messenger-specific" recipient-defined delivery parameters (limitation 1.4).

2. "Pre-trial" motions of substance in the IPR

IPR practice has no motions to dismiss/transfer/summary judgment, but there were substantive motion-practice analogues:

• No motion to dismiss or transfer was filed; venue at the PTAB is statutory.
• No stay motion — the IPR itself was the stay vehicle for the district court cases (see § 6).
• The parties filed the standard motion to seal / protective-order papers (confidential exhibits) and motion to exclude evidence practice was not outcome-determinative in the public record.
• The only "post-trial" style motion of note is the Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal (see § 7).

3. Claim construction

• In the IPR: The Board construed the claim terms under the Phillips standard in the Institution Decision and Final Written Decision. The dispositive construction dispute centered on limitation 1.4 of claim 1: "delivery parameters specified by a recipient of where, when and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered to the recipient." Pedersen conceded Funk taught "specific types of messages" but argued it did not teach "from specific messengers." The Board rejected that distinction, locating messenger/source-specific delivery parameters in Funk (J.A. 31–36, 45) (Fed. Cir. op., 2026-03-26).
• In the parallel district court litigation: The '920 patent did reach Markman in Pedersen v. Mailgun Technologies, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01153-ADA (W.D. Tex.):
  • 2022-06-14 — Scheduling Order (Dkt. 20).
  • 2022-09-08/12 — Mailgun's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 22); Pedersen's Response (Dkt. 23); Mailgun Reply (Dkt. 26); Pedersen Sur-Reply (Dkt. 29); Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 30, 2022-10-12).
  • 2022-10-18/19 — Court provided Preliminary Claim Constructions (10/18) and held the Markman hearing (10/19); Claim Construction Order signed 2022-10-19 (Dkt. 33). Disputed terms included "message file(s)" (claim 1), the method-claim preamble of claims 8–11 (Mailgun argued indefiniteness), "accepting/entering" (claim 8), and claim 12's messenger-profile-apparatus language (indefiniteness). Pedersen argued plain meaning and that "message file" was not even a claim term; the court's detailed analysis order followed. (Adobe's IPR expert, Dr. Philip Greenspun, relied on this very Claim Construction Order — IPR2023-00986, Ex. 1008/1002.)

4. Discovery milestones

• IPR discovery was limited to the standard IPR toolkit: the Patent Owner Response (2023-08-09), a Petitioner Reply (with supporting expert declaration of Unified's technical expert), a Patent Owner Sur-Reply, and expert depositions (the Fed. Cir. opinion confirms the Board relied on expert testimony to explain Funk's per-source delivery preferences). No depositions or discovery disputes are reported as significant in the public record.
• District court discovery in the parallel WDTX cases was largely aborted or suspended because the defendants moved to stay pending the Unified IPR — the strategic significance being that the defendants used the IPR to freeze discovery (see § 6).

5. "Trial," verdict, and post-trial motions

• 2024-05-10 — Final Written Decision (Paper 29): the Board held claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura, finding the record (including expert testimony) established messenger-specific, recipient-specified delivery parameters (limitation 1.4) in Funk. This is the PTAB equivalent of a merits judgment; the proceeding was terminated the same day. (Unified Patents blog, 2024-05-13; Patexia/IPVerse records.)
• Post-trial motion analogue: 2024-07-12 — Pedersen filed a Notice of Appeal (Paper 30) to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141/142/319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.2–90.3, appealing the FWD "and from all other underlying orders, decisions, rulings and opinions that were adverse to the Patent Owner," including the Board's claim-construction rulings. No request for rehearing at the Board preceded the appeal (none appears in the public docket).

6. Parallel district court infringement litigation (the actual "patent litigation") and its interplay with the IPR

Pedersen (through Ramey LLP) mounted a large W.D. Tex. enforcement campaign on the '920 patent, chiefly before Judge Alan D. Albright (with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland). Key cases and developments:

• Early wave (filed late 2021 – spring 2022), largely resolved or settled:
  • Pedersen v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-01152-ADA (filed 2021-11-09): amended complaint 2022-02-01 (Dkt. 16); Google answer with jury demand 2022-03-01 (Dkt. 18). Status: closed (resolved).
  • Pedersen v. Mailgun Technologies, 6:21-cv-01153-ADA (filed 2021-11-09): reached Markman (2022-10-19), then dismissed by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation referencing a settlement — Pedersen's claims dismissed with prejudice; Mailgun's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice; each side to bear its own fees (PatSnap litigation analysis of the PACER docket).
  • Pedersen v. Yahoo!/Verizon, 6:21-cv-01308 (filed 2021-12-15): closed.
  • Pedersen v. Zoho, 6:22-cv-00408 (filed 2022-04-21): closed. Pedersen v. Oracle, 6:22-cv-00410 (filed 2022-04-21): transferred to the Austin Division (1:23-cv-01020) on 2023-08-24 after Pedersen withdrew opposition to Oracle's venue-transfer motion; later dismissed with prejudice under settlement. Pedersen v. Salesforce, 6:22-cv-00409 (filed 2022-04-22): remained pending.
• Second wave (June–September 2022), the stay/dismiss cohort tied to the IPRs:
  • Pedersen v. Adobe, 6:22-cv-00583 (filed 2022-06-07): settled; dismissed (Adobe's IPR2023-00986 was terminated on settlement).
  • Pedersen v. Aurea Software, 6:22-cv-00584; Pedersen v. Madwire, 6:22-cv-00590; Pedersen v. Intuit, 6:22-cv-00588; Pedersen v. Upland Software, 6:22-cv-00594; Pedersen v. Ziff Davis, 6:22-cv-00597 (all filed 2022-06-07/08).
  • Pedersen v. Blackbaud, 6:22-cv-00921; Constant Contact, 6:22-cv-00922; Monday.com, 6:22-cv-00923-ADA-DTG; Wix.com, 6:22-cv-00925; Zendesk, 6:22-cv-00927 (all filed 2022-09-07/08).
  • Monday.com exemplar docket: Original Complaint filed 2022-09-08 (ECF 1); Answer filed 2022-12-19 (ECF 10); Motion to Stay Pending IPR filed 2023-06-21 (ECF 11); Order Granting the Stay entered 2024-03-13, after oral argument. The order recited that the Monday.com, Intuit, Upland, and Ziff Davis cases all involved the '920 patent; Intuit and Ziff Davis stays were granted (Intuit ECF 42; Ziff Davis ECF 37), and Upland was voluntarily dismissed on 2024-01-30, the day of the initial pretrial conference (Upland ECF 29).
  • Pedersen v. Wix.com, 6:22-cv-00925: dismissed 2023-08-23.
  • SAP America filed a declaratory-judgment action, 3:22-cv-01534 (E.D./N.D. Tex., filed 2022-07-14): closed.
• Effect of the IPR on the litigation: The defendants' stay strategy succeeded — after the Board instituted (2023-05-15), the WDTX cases were stayed (or settled/dismissed); after the FWD (2024-05-10) invalidated all asserted claims, the remaining cases (Intuit, Ziff Davis, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Aurea) were left with no viable asserted claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmance (2026-03-26) made the invalidation final — with statutory estoppel and issue-preclusion effects against Pedersen on the invalidated claims.

7. Parallel PTAB IPRs on the '920 patent

• IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corporation v. Pedersen (filed 2023-04-24): terminated 2023-10-11 on a pre-institution settlement — Joint Motion to Terminate filed 2023-09-27 reciting that the parties' agreement "fully resolves their dispute," with Pedersen's claims against Oracle in 1:23-cv-01020 dismissed with prejudice; post-institution fee refunded 2023-10-13. Board never reached the merits.
• IPR2023-00986 — Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen (filed 2023-06-01; challenged claims 1–11 and 14–18): also terminated 2023-10-11 on a pre-institution settlement (joint motion 2023-09-27; fee refunded 2023-10-13); related WDTX case (6:22-cv-00583) settled.
• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents (this case): the only one of the three to be instituted and reach a Final Written Decision (2024-05-10), making it the vehicle that actually invalidated the claims.

8. Appeal and final disposition

• 2024-07-12 — Notice of Appeal filed (PTAB Paper 30); 2024-07-15 — Federal Circuit appeal docketed as Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090 (Fed. Cir.).
• Appellant's counsel: Robert Greenspoon (argued), William W. Flachsbart, Mark Magas, Thomas Mansfield Dunlap (Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC). Appellee's counsel: Kelly Rose Hughes (argued), Roshan Mansinghani, Alyssa J. Holtslander (Unified Patents, in-house — Unified moved the appeal fully in-house).
• 2026-03-26 — Federal Circuit AFFIRMED in a nonprecedential opinion (Lourie and Hughes, Circuit Judges; Kleeh, Chief District Judge, author). Applying Rambus v. Rea (de novo law / substantial-evidence facts), the court held the Board's obviousness finding was supported by substantial evidence: the Board cited Funk's disclosures (a customer's account specifying when/what information from certain databases is delivered; third-party "senders" transmitting messages through the system) plus expert testimony that Funk lets a user "specify preferences for how types of messages from certain sources [are] received." The court rejected Pedersen's "single sender" argument and his contention that Funk lacked messenger-specific, user-specified parameters. (CAFC slip op., 2026-03-26; Fed Circuit Blog; Patterson Sheridan weekly summary; VitalLaw.)
• Final posture: The PTAB case is terminated (FWD 2024-05-10), and the appeal is concluded — the FWD invalidating claims 1 and 14–17 is now final and unreviewable. Unified Patents publicly characterized the result as the '920 patent being "confirmed invalid" (Unified Patents insight, 2026-03-26), noting the patent had been asserted against Zoho, Ziff Davis, Intuit, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Aurea, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix.com, and others.

---

Bottom line

• No infringement verdict ever issued on the '920 patent. The decisive merits determination was the PTAB's Final Written Decision of 2024-05-10 (claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable), affirmed 2026-03-26 by the Federal Circuit.
• The only case to reach claim construction was Pedersen v. Mailgun (Markman order 2022-10-19), which then settled.
• The parallel WDTX infringement actions were progressively stayed pending the Unified IPR, dismissed on settlement (Google, Mailgun, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix, Upland, SAP DJ), or left pending but effectively gutted by the final invalidation (Intuit, Ziff Davis, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Aurea).
• The Oracle and Adobe IPRs (IPR2023-00867, IPR2023-00986) both terminated pre-institution on settlement (2023-10-11) and never reached the merits.

Source caveats: Docket-level details for the individual WDTX cases (e.g., exact dismissal dates for the settled cases) come from secondary litigation databases (Unified Patents Portal, PatSnap/Unicourt, Docket Alarm exhibits) rather than a full PACER pull; where a status ("closed/open") comes only from Unified's portal, treat it as directional. The IPR dates (petition 2022-10-14, institution 2023-05-15, FWD 2024-05-10, notice of appeal 2024-07-12) and the Federal Circuit affirmance (2026-03-26) are well corroborated by primary PTAB/CAFC documents.

Threshold clarification

This matter is not a patent infringement case — it is an inter partes review at the PTAB (IPR2023-00029, Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920). There is no "plaintiff/defendant" posture; Unified Patents, LLC is the Petitioner (the party whose counsel you asked about). It filed the petition on Oct. 14, 2022; the Board instituted on May 15, 2023, issued a Final Written Decision (claims 1, 14–17 unpatentable) on May 10, 2024, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on Mar. 26, 2026 (No. 2024-2090, nonprecedential). Patent owner Pedersen's separate district-court assertions (e.g., Pedersen v. J2 Global, Pedersen v. Mailgun — cited as EX1015/EX1016 in the record) are different cases.

Counsel of record for Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC (PTAB)

Per Unified Patents' updated mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (July 21, 2023 and Nov. 15, 2023 filings) and the hearing transcript:

Lead counsel

• Raghav Bajaj — Lead Counsel for Petitioner. Haynes and Boone, LLP, 2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700, Dallas, TX (firm address later updated to 2801 N. Harwood St., Suite 2300, Dallas, TX); USPTO Reg. No. 66,630. IPR-focused litigator who has led numerous Unified Patents PTAB challenges (e.g., the VideoLabs/VL Collective IP IPRs), signing most petitioner filings in this case.

Backup counsel (final PTAB roster)

• Jonathan R. Bowser — Haynes and Boone, LLP, Washington, DC (800 17th St. NW, Suite 500; later listed at the Dallas address), Reg. No. 54,574. Argued the Mar. 20, 2024 oral hearing for petitioner; experienced PTAB/IPR practitioner. Per Unified Patents' own case summary, Bowser was one of the Haynes & Boone attorneys who "initially handled" the case.
• Angela M. Oliver — Haynes and Boone, LLP, Washington, DC (later Dallas address), Reg. No. 73,271. PTAB/IPR practitioner on the Haynes & Boone team; also handled the case from the outset per Unified Patents.
• Matthew Beck — Initially Haynes and Boone, LLP (Washington, DC); per the Nov. 15, 2023 notice his contact moved in-house to Unified Patents, LLC, 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD, Reg. No. 79,791.
• Michael McCarty — Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (2801 N. Harwood St., Suite 2300), Reg. No. 76,371; added as backup counsel in the Nov. 15, 2023 update (and identified by Unified Patents as part of the initial handling team).
• Kelly Hughes — Unified Patents, LLC (in-house), 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD, Reg. No. 76,593; added as backup counsel July 21, 2023. Later argued the Federal Circuit appeal for Unified Patents.
• Alyssa Holtslander — Unified Patents, LLC (in-house), Chevy Chase, MD, Reg. No. 64,026; backup counsel at the PTAB and appellate counsel on the Federal Circuit appeal.

Former backup counsel (removed mid-proceeding)

• Ellyar Y. Barazesh — Unified Patents, LLC (in-house, Senior Patent Counsel), Chevy Chase, MD; initially on the case but removed as backup counsel per the July 21, 2023 updated mandatory notices (he had previously been in-house counsel on several Unified Patents IPRs, including VideoLabs matters). His email still appeared on a Feb. 9, 2024 service list, but the § 42.8 notice of removal controls the record.

Appellate counsel (Federal Circuit No. 2024-2090)

Per the CAFC opinion of Mar. 26, 2026, Unified Patents (appellee) was represented by:

• Kelly Rose Hughes — Unified Patents, LLC, Washington, DC — argued the appeal.
• Roshan Mansinghani — Unified Patents, LLC (in-house) — on the briefs; Unified Patents' senior in-house attorney on numerous IPR/appeal matters.
• Alyssa J. Holtslander — Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD — on the briefs.

Unified Patents' own post-case summary confirms: "The PTAB case was initially handled by Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, and Michael McCarty of Haynes and Boone. The case was brought fully in-house once it was appealed and handled by Kelly Hughes and Alyssa Holtslander."

Sources

• PTAB updated mandatory notices (July 21, 2023 and Nov. 15, 2023), docket IPR2023-00029 (via ptacts.uspto.gov / Docket Alarm).
• Oral-hearing transcript (Mar. 20, 2024), showing Jonathan R. Bowser arguing for petitioner.
• CAFC opinion, Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090 (Mar. 26, 2026), cafc.uscourts.gov.
• Unified Patents news post, "AiPi affiliate Pedersen message distribution patent confirmed invalid by Fed. Circuit" (Mar. 26, 2026).

Caveat: I did not retrieve the original Oct. 14, 2022 petition's initial mandatory-notice page in full, so the initial backup-counsel list (beyond Bajaj, Barazesh, Holtslander, Bowser, Oliver, Beck) is inferred from the subsequent § 42.8 updates rather than from the petition itself. No filings appear to be sealed in this IPR.

Preliminary framing note

The case in the metadata — IPR2023-00029, Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik Pedersen — is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district court patent infringement suit. There is no "defendant" in the district-court sense; the adverse parties are Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC and Patent Owner/Respondent Peter Henrik Pedersen (the party whose patent rights were at stake and who appeals). Pedersen separately asserted the '920 patent as plaintiff in district court against companies such as Zoho, Ziff Davis, Intuit, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Aurea Software, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, and Wix.com — but those are separate litigations, not this case. Below is the counsel of record for the patent-owner/respondent side of IPR2023-00029 (and its Federal Circuit appeal, No. 2024-2090). No filings are sealed on this point; the PTAB docket and Federal Circuit opinion are public.

A. PTAB phase — initial counsel of record: Ramey LLP (through Jan. 12, 2024)

• Jacob B. Henry — Lead Counsel for Patent Owner (Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 800, Houston, TX 77006). Served as patent owner's lead counsel for the Preliminary Response (Paper 6, filed Feb. 17, 2023) and the Patent Owner Response (Paper 12, filed Aug. 9, 2023). Service on him is documented in the Oct. 10, 2023 Notice of Stipulation (jhenry@rameyfirm.com). He was permitted to withdraw by the Board's Jan. 12, 2024 order (Paper 21, granting Paper 20). Experience: patent litigator at the Ramey firm known for patent-owner-side district court and PTAB work.
• William P. Ramey III — Backup/Of Counsel for Patent Owner (Ramey LLP, Houston, TX). Named on the same service certificates (wramey@rameyfirm.com) and expressly permitted to withdraw alongside Henry in the Jan. 12, 2024 order. Experience: founding name of Ramey LLP (formerly Ramey & Schwaller); long-running patent trial and IPR practitioner, frequently representing plaintiffs/patent owners.

B. PTAB phase — successor counsel of record: Whitestone Law PLLC (from Jan. 12, 2024)

• Kendal Sheets — Lead Counsel for Patent Owner (Whitestone Law PLLC, 1850 Towers Crescent Plaza, Ste. 550, Tysons, VA 22182; Reg. No. 47,077). Designated lead counsel in the Power of Attorney filed Dec. 8, 2023 (Paper 14) and recognized by the Board's Jan. 12, 2024 order. Experience: patent trial counsel; Whitestone's litigation practice handles district court and PTAB patent disputes.
• Joseph J. Zito — Backup Counsel for Patent Owner (Whitestone Law PLLC, Tysons, VA; Reg. No. 32,076). Designated backup counsel in Paper 14 and recognized by the Board's Jan. 12, 2024 order. Experience: veteran registered patent practitioner (Reg. No. 32,076, i.e., admitted to the PTO bar since the 1990s); long career in patent prosecution and litigation.
• Erik N. Lund — Backup Counsel for Patent Owner (Whitestone Law PLLC, Tysons, VA; Reg. No. 77,473). Appears in the Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices of Jan. 23, 2024 (Paper 25, signed by Lund) and argued the PTAB oral hearing on behalf of Pedersen (hearing transcript of Mar. 20, 2024). Experience: PTAB/IPR oral-advocacy and patent litigation.
• (Note: Weir King, also of Whitestone, participated in the Jan. 11, 2024 conference call per the withdrawal order, but I found no filing designating him as counsel of record in this IPR.)

C. Federal Circuit appeal — counsel of record (Appeal No. 2024-2090, decided Mar. 26, 2026)

Per the Federal Circuit's nonprecedential opinion in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026) (affirming the Board's final written decision that claims 1 and 14–17 were obvious):

• Robert Greenspoon — Lead appellate counsel / argued for appellant Pedersen (Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Chicago, IL). Experience: argued the appeal; DBL patent litigation practice.
• William W. Flachsbart — Counsel for appellant (Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC). Also listed on the appellate briefs/opinion.
• Mark Magas — Counsel for appellant (Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC). Also listed on the appellate briefs/opinion.
• Thomas Mansfield Dunlap — Counsel for appellant (Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Vienna, VA). Founding principal of the firm; national IP litigation firm presence.

D. Quick bottom line

Sources: PTAB Papers 6, 12, 14, 20, 21, 25 and the Oct. 10, 2023 stipulation (PTAB docket via Docket Alarm/PTACTS); the Board's Jan. 12, 2024 Order Granting Motion to Withdraw; the Mar. 20, 2024 hearing transcript; and Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026) (nonprecedential opinion), with counsel listings mirrored in Bloomberg Law/Vital Law and the CAFC docket (Justia/CourtListener). If you intended the counsel for the petitioner (Unified Patents) — Haynes Boone's Raghav Bajaj, Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Matthew Beck, and later in-house Kelly Hughes/Alyssa Holtslander — or counsel in one of Pedersen's district court infringement suits, say so and I'll pull that separately.