Unified Patents, LLC v. STASIT, LLC

This case involves an ex parte reexamination proceeding initiated by Unified Patents, LLC against U.S. Patent 8,855,723, owned by STASIT, LLC, at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring frivolous patent litigation and reducing assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as "patent trolls," through various strategies including challenging patent validity via reexaminations and inter partes reviews (IPRs). STASIT, LLC is identified as an NPE that has asserted the patent in question against numerous prominent technology companies. The patent at issue, US Patent 8,855,723, broadly relates to smartphone technology designed to manage and mask notifications of incoming calls and text messages from unauthorized numbers during specified times, logging these communications to a password-protected record while allowing normal handling of authorized communications.

The procedural posture of this case is an ex parte reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) of the USPTO. The reexamination was granted on December 1, 2023, less than a month after Unified Patents filed its request, indicating that the CRU found a "substantial new question of patentability" on all challenged claims of the '723 patent. This administrative venue is crucial because reexaminations allow the USPTO to reassess patent validity based on prior art patents and publications, potentially leading to claims being canceled, amended, or narrowed. Such outcomes can significantly impact or terminate co-pending district court litigation without the complexities and costs associated with federal court proceedings.

This case is notable due to its direct linkage to NPE assertion patterns and the evolving landscape of patent validity challenges. STASIT, LLC, as an NPE, had asserted the '723 patent as the sole basis of infringement allegations against major operating companies like Apple, Meta Platforms, Google, LG, Samsung, and HTC. Unified Patents' strategic use of ex parte reexamination, particularly as requests for this type of proceeding have surged and even outpaced new PTAB petitions in recent quarters, highlights a growing trend in challenging patent quality, especially against NPEs. This shift is partly driven by lower institution rates for IPRs against NPEs at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), making reexaminations a more attractive and effective tool for entities like Unified Patents to combat patents they believe are invalid.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcomes related to US Patent 8,855,723 and associated litigation by STASIT, LLC, in chronological order.

Legal Developments and Outcome for US Patent 8,855,723

1. Patent Infringement Filings by STASIT, LLC (2022)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: STASIT, LLC, an NPE, asserted US Patent 8,855,723 as the sole patent in a series of infringement lawsuits against major technology companies. These lawsuits were filed around September 2022 in the Eastern District of Texas. The defendants included Apple, Meta Platforms, Google, LG, Samsung, and HTC.
  • Examples of specific cases:
    • STASIT LLC v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Texas, Case No. 2:22-cv-00361-JRG)
    • STASIT LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (E.D. Texas, Case No. 2:22-cv-00362)
    • STASIT LLC v. Google LLC (E.D. Texas, Case No. 2:22-cv-00363)
    • STASIT LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Texas, Case No. 2:22-cv-00364)
    • STASIT LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. (E.D. Texas, Case No. 2:22-cv-00365)
    • STASIT LLC v. HTC America, Inc. (E.D. Texas, Case No. 2:22-cv-00366)

2. Ex Parte Reexamination Request by Unified Patents (November 2023)

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings: Unified Patents, LLC filed a request for ex parte reexamination of US Patent 8,855,723 with the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) of the USPTO.

3. Reexamination Granted (December 1, 2023)

• Outcome: On December 1, 2023, less than a month after Unified Patents filed its request, the CRU granted the ex parte reexamination. The CRU found a "substantial new question of patentability" on all challenged claims of the '723 patent. This action suggests that the validity of the patent, which was the sole basis for STASIT's infringement claims, is now under serious scrutiny at the USPTO.
  • This administrative proceeding has the potential to significantly impact or terminate the co-pending district court litigation without the complexities and costs associated with federal court proceedings.

4. Current Posture (As of June 1, 2026)

• The ex parte reexamination is currently granted and ongoing before the CRU. There is no information available indicating a final decision or certificate issued from the reexamination as of the current date. The outcomes of the district court cases against Apple, Meta, Google, LG, Samsung, and HTC are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond the initial filing and the impact of the reexamination. However, the initiation of the reexamination by Unified Patents typically aims to resolve such litigations.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents LLC v STASIT LLC 8855723 reexamination counsel", "Unified Patents LLC counsel", "Unified Patents LLC attorneys", "Unified Patents LLC litigation team"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Unified Patents, LLC in the reexamination of US Patent 8,855,723. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, and any notable experience. I will use web search to look for this information, focusing on sources like the USPTO's public PAIR system, Unified Patents' website, and legal news sites. Since this is a reexamination at the USPTO, PACER is less likely to be the primary source for counsel information related to the reexamination itself, although it might be useful for finding past litigation where Unified Patents' counsel may have appeared or for finding counsel for STASIT. I will prioritize finding the counsel appearing for Unified Patents in the reexamination proceeding.Unified Patents, LLC is represented by in-house counsel in the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 8,855,723. The attorneys are Jessica L.A. Marks and T.J. Murphy.

Here's the breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Jessica L.A. Marks

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: Unified Patents frequently challenges patents from Non-Practicing Entities through reexaminations and inter partes reviews, where their in-house counsel, including Ms. Marks, are actively involved. Unified Patents emphasizes experience in ex parte reexamination proceedings and post-grant petitions for its legal department.

• T.J. Murphy

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: As in-house counsel for Unified Patents, Mr. Murphy is involved in the organization's efforts to challenge patent validity, often in reexamination proceedings that target patents asserted by NPEs. Unified Patents' legal team prioritizes experience in patent office proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations and post-grant petitions.

It is important to note that for ex parte reexamination proceedings, the identity of the challenger can often be maintained as confidential by the USPTO, though Unified Patents openly identifies itself as the requester in its own publications.Unified Patents, LLC is represented by in-house counsel in the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 8,855,723. The counsel of record are:

• Jessica L.A. Marks

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: As an in-house counsel for Unified Patents, Ms. Marks is involved in the organization's practice of challenging patent validity through reexamination proceedings and post-grant petitions, often against patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities.

• T.J. Murphy

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Experience Note: Mr. Murphy, as in-house counsel for Unified Patents, participates in the strategic challenges to patent validity, particularly in ex parte reexaminations at the USPTO.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["STASIT LLC patent 8855723 counsel of record", "STASIT LLC attorney ex parte reexamination 90/019,299", "STASIT LLC legal counsel", "STASIT LLC 8855723 reexamination docket", "STASIT LLC Unified Patents reexamination counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the defendant, STASIT, LLC, in the ex parte reexamination of US Patent 8,855,723. I need to search for attorneys representing STASIT, LLC in this specific reexamination proceeding (Control No. 90/019,299). I will use search terms that focus on the defendant, the patent, the reexamination number, and general counsel information.The provided search results primarily discuss the reexamination request filed by Unified Patents, LLC, and the granting of that request. They repeatedly mention Unified Patents' counsel (Jessica L.A. Marks and T.J. Murphy) but do not explicitly name any counsel for STASIT, LLC in the context of this specific ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/019,299).

Ex parte reexamination is an examiner-driven, non-adversarial process. Once initiated, third-party challengers typically have no further role. While a patent owner can participate, the initial grant of the reexamination is based solely on the requester's submission. The USPTO generally directs correspondence to the patent owner's correspondence address or the most recent attorney of record in the patent file.

Given the nature of ex parte reexamination, it is possible that STASIT, LLC has not yet formally appeared through counsel in this specific reexamination control number, or the information is not readily available in public summaries of the reexamination's initiation. Recent USPTO changes (effective April 5, 2026) now allow patent owners to file a pre-order paper before the substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) determination, but this reexamination was granted on December 1, 2023, before that rule change.

Without specific docket entries or announcements from STASIT, LLC or their representatives, identifying their counsel of record for this specific reexamination proceeding is not possible from the provided search results. The results only state that STASIT, LLC owns and asserted the '723 patent.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for STASIT, LLC's counsel based on the current search.

Defendant Representatives:

STASIT, LLC, as the patent owner in this ex parte reexamination, would typically be represented by counsel to respond to Office Actions from the USPTO. However, the available public information, including the Unified Patents announcement regarding the reexamination grant, does not explicitly identify the counsel of record for STASIT, LLC in Reexamination Control No. 90/019,299.

In ex parte reexamination proceedings, correspondence from the USPTO is generally directed to the correspondence address for the patent being reexamined, or to the most recent attorney or agent made of record for the patent owner. While patent owners do participate in these proceedings by responding to Office Actions and potentially amending claims, the initial grant of a reexamination (which occurred on December 1, 2023) is based on the requester's submission, and patent owner input was historically not part of the initial "substantial new question of patentability" determination.

As such, without access to the specific docket or official USPTO communications for Reexamination Control No. 90/019,299, the counsel representing STASIT, LLC cannot be identified at this time.