Unified Patents LLC v. Power2B Inc.

Unified Patents LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-01266) against Power2B Inc. before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093. Unified Patents operates as a patent defense organization, strategically filing IPR petitions to challenge the validity of patents, particularly those asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). Power2B Inc. appears to be a patent monetization entity, as evidenced by its involvement in various patent assertions, making them a typical target for Unified Patents' defensive actions. The challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093, is titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING ENHANCED INTERACTIVE DATA EXCHANGE" and broadly relates to interactive data exchange mechanisms. While there isn't an "accused product" in an IPR, the petition sought to invalidate claims of this patent, likely to preempt or counter an underlying patent infringement assertion by Power2B against companies operating in the interactive data exchange space.

The case was heard by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a specialized administrative court within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is the designated venue for Inter Partes Reviews. This forum is significant because it offers a distinct pathway for challenging patent validity, often seen as a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for petitioners like Unified Patents. The PTAB's technical expertise and its standard for invalidation (preponderance of the evidence) are often perceived as more favorable to challengers compared to district courts. The panel overseeing this IPR consisted of Administrative Patent Judges Lynne E. Pettigrew, Grace L. Yang, and Patrick R. Scanlon.

This IPR is notable as it exemplifies Unified Patents' business model of proactively neutralizing what it perceives as low-quality patents asserted by NPEs, thereby aiming to reduce overall patent litigation and related costs for its members. The Final Written Decision rendered by the PTAB determined the patentability of the challenged claims, directly impacting Power2B's ability to assert the '093 patent in future or ongoing infringement suits. The outcome of such IPRs often has broader implications for patent portfolios and assertion strategies within specific technology sectors, particularly those involving interactive data exchange and related internet technologies.

This IPR concerns U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093 owned by Power2B Inc. and challenged by Unified Patents LLC. The proceeding also involved parallel appeals concerning IPR2021-01239, which challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850, also owned by Power2B Inc. Both patents share a common specification and relate to interactive displays capable of determining the relative position of objects and executing corresponding functions.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

• IPR Petition Filing & Institution: Unified Patents LLC filed its petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2021-01266, challenging the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institutes an IPR within approximately six months of the petition filing if it finds a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

• Final Written Decision (PTAB): In its Final Written Decision, the PTAB found some claims of the '093 patent (specifically, claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–13) to be unpatentable. However, it also held that other challenged claims (claims 26, 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58) were not shown to be unpatentable. The PTAB applied the Phillips claim construction standard, similar to district courts.

• Appeal to the Federal Circuit: Both parties appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) were the appellants (presumably as a related petitioner or intervenor in a consolidated appeal including IPR2021-01239), challenging the PTAB's finding that certain claims were not unpatentable. Power2B Inc. cross-appealed the PTAB's finding that claims 1, 5, 8, and 12-13 of the '093 patent were unpatentable.

• Federal Circuit Opinion (2025-03-31, revised 2025-09-04): The Federal Circuit issued an opinion on March 31, 2025, which was later revised on September 4, 2025. The Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB's claim construction of the term "detector assembly." The Court found the Board's construction of "detector assembly" to be erroneous. Specifically, the Board had found that a prior art reference (Reime) taught every limitation of claim 26 of the '093 patent except for a detector assembly comprising at least two detector elements arranged at one edge. The Federal Circuit stated that Power2B had not attempted during prosecution to limit the term "detector assembly" to require "two or more detector elements."

• Federal Circuit Reversal and Remand (2025-09-04): Based on its erroneous claim construction finding, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB's conclusion that claim 26 of the '093 patent was not unpatentable as nonobvious in view of the prior art. The Federal Circuit also vacated and remanded the PTAB's conclusion that claims 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48–49, and 56–58 of the '093 patent were not unpatentable for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's revised claim construction.

• Dismissal of Appeals (2026-08-11): On August 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeals (Case Nos. 2026-1833, 2026-1834, which included IPR2021-01266) under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) because the parties had agreed to dismiss the proceedings. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. This dismissal indicates a settlement or mutual agreement between the parties regarding the outstanding issues on appeal.

In summary, while the PTAB initially found some claims unpatentable and others not, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB's claim construction and remanded for further proceedings on certain claims of the '093 patent. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed due to an agreement between the parties, indicating a final resolution of the IPR challenges, at least at the Federal Circuit level.

Unified Patents LLC, as the petitioner in IPR2021-01266, is represented by its in-house legal team. The organization explicitly states it is not a law firm and acts as a "deterrence entity" that manages and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB internally.

The following attorneys are noted as Senior Patent Counsel for Unified Patents and are involved in post-grant proceedings:

• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, In-house

  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Washington, D.C. (Preferred location, remote work possible)
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents; previously practiced intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings for eleven years, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and Federal Circuit in various industries.

• David Seastrunk - Senior Patent Counsel, In-house

  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Washington, D.C. (Preferred location, remote work possible)
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents; previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, litigating post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC investigations, and also practiced patent prosecution.

• Michelle Callaghan - Senior Patent Counsel, In-house

  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Washington, D.C. (Preferred location, remote work possible)
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents; previously practiced at Erise IP, defending clients against patent demands in district courts, challenging patents before the PTAB, and preparing opinions on patent validity and infringement across various technologies.

Other Senior Patent Counsel listed on Unified Patents' team, who also engage in similar PTAB-related work, include Jenn Bisk, Kyla Bulter, Kelly Hughes, Patrick King, T.J. Murphy, Vinu Raj, Bill Saindon, Andrea Shoffstall, and Jason Wejnert. Roshan Mansinghani is noted as Head of Operations, and Jonathan Stroud as VP, Head of Unified Patents Operations, and Chief IP Counsel. Jessica L.A. Marks is listed as SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel and has spoken on PTAB-related topics.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2021-01266, Unified Patents LLC v. Power2B Inc., Power2B Inc. was represented by counsel from O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Polsinelli. The attorneys identified as representing Power2B Inc. in related Federal Circuit appeals stemming from this and co-pending IPRs are likely to have also served as counsel before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Here is the identified counsel of record for Power2B Inc.:

• Coke Morgan Stewart

  • Role: Lead Counsel (at Federal Circuit, likely lead in IPR)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Argued for Power2B Inc. (appellants) in the Federal Circuit appeals concerning IPR2021-01239 and IPR2021-01266.

• William Fink

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Experience Note: Also represented Power2B Inc. in the Federal Circuit appeals related to the IPRs.

• Benjamin Haber

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Experience Note: Also represented Power2B Inc. in the Federal Circuit appeals related to the IPRs.

• Abigail Grace McFee

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Experience Note: Also represented Power2B Inc. in the Federal Circuit appeals related to the IPRs.

• Nicholas Whilt

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Experience Note: Also represented Power2B Inc. in the Federal Circuit appeals related to the IPRs.

• Ryan Ken Yagura

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Experience Note: Also represented Power2B Inc. in the Federal Circuit appeals related to the IPRs.

• Adam Daniels

  • Role: Attorney (likely counsel before PTAB and/or Federal Circuit)
  • Firm: Polsinelli
  • Experience Note: Mentioned as Power2B's attorney during oral argument at the Federal Circuit in a related case (Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Nos. 23-2184, 24-1399, 24-1400) concerning PTAB decisions on Power2B's patents.