Unified Patents LLC v. Zophonos Inc.

Unified Patents LLC, an organization dedicated to deterring abusive patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) and improving patent quality, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition against Zophonos Inc.. Zophonos Inc., an entity described as an "inventor-controlled plaintiff," appears to function as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), with its CEO and sole named inventor, Levaughn Denton, having previously discussed litigation related to his patents. While Zophonos's website describes technology for personalizing and adjusting sound using wearables and smartphones, it does not clearly identify a product or service for sale, which is a characteristic often associated with PAEs. Zophonos has notably sued Samsung over its Galaxy Buds Pro earbuds, alleging infringement related to sound processing features.

The IPR, case number IPR2026-00083, was filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and concerns U.S. Patent 10656906. This patent generally relates to a computing device featuring a sound sensing mechanism that detects and processes "sensed energy." It identifies and isolates specific frequencies, determines if a frequency exceeds a threshold, and then alters the sound, pans/equalizes the energy or noise, or adds audio effects, potentially producing an alert. For instance, in a district court complaint, this patent was asserted against Samsung's Galaxy Buds Pro for its "Siren Detect" mode, which automatically adjusts audio output to enhance the audibility of emergency sirens.

The procedural posture of this case is particularly notable due to its "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. In 2026, under the leadership of USPTO Director John Squires, the PTAB has implemented significant policy shifts, including a surge in discretionary denials and a substantial decrease in IPR institution rates. These changes involve the PTAB weighing factors such as U.S. manufacturing activity when deciding whether to institute an IPR. The procedural denial of Unified Patents' petition, an organization whose core mission is to challenge potentially invalid patents, underscores the PTAB's current patent-owner-friendly stance and the increased difficulty in getting IPRs instituted, especially against alleged NPEs.

The case in question, IPR2026-00083, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. The metadata confirms the parties are Unified Patents LLC as the petitioner and Zophonos Inc. as the patent owner, concerning patent 10656906. The status is "Not Instituted - Procedural."

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2026-00083

This case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a traditional patent infringement litigation in a district court. IPRs are administrative proceedings to challenge the patentability of claims in an issued patent.

Timeline of IPR2026-00083:

• 2025-11-03: Petition Filing
  Unified Patents LLC filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against Zophonos Inc., challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,656,906.
• 2026-03-03: Patent Owner Preliminary Response Due/Filed
  Zophonos Inc. had the opportunity to file a preliminary response to Unified Patents' petition.
• 2026-03-03: Non-Institution Decision - Procedural
  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision on the institution of IPR2026-00083, declining to institute the review. The decision was "Not Instituted - Procedural."

Outcome:

The IPR was not instituted due to procedural reasons. This means the PTAB did not proceed with a full review of the patent's claims. While the specific procedural reason for non-institution in this particular case (IPR2026-00083) is not detailed in the search results, "procedural" non-institution can be due to various factors, such as issues with the petition itself, Real Party in Interest (RPI) challenges, or discretionary denials based on factors like parallel litigation or the stage of district court proceedings, although the latter are typically categorized as discretionary rather than strictly procedural. The recent trend has seen a surge in discretionary denials and stricter procedural changes at the PTAB, leading to a significant drop in IPR institution rates.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and their Effect on Litigation:

While no specific district court litigation directly associated with Zophonos Inc.'s Patent No. 10,656,906 was identified in the provided search results, IPRs are typically filed in response to assertions of patent infringement in district court. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome means that this specific IPR did not proceed to a full review and therefore did not have a direct impact on the patentability of the claims in question from the PTAB's side. If there were ongoing district court litigation involving this patent, the non-institution of the IPR would mean that the district court case would not be stayed or affected by this particular IPR. Unified Patents is known for filing IPRs to challenge patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) and often has members like Samsung and Apple as real parties in interest, which has been a point of contention in other IPR cases.

Unified Patents LLC typically uses its in-house counsel for IPR proceedings, often supplemented by outside counsel from firms specializing in PTAB litigation. While the specific docket for IPR2026-00083 is not directly available to confirm appearances, Unified Patents has a well-documented team of attorneys who regularly handle their PTAB filings.

Based on past and recent practices, the following attorneys are likely to represent Unified Patents LLC in IPR proceedings:

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, In-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: 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 technology fields.

• David Seastrunk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, In-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, (Office location not specified, but Unified Patents has an office in Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Formerly with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he handled post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC investigations, along with patent prosecution and client counseling.

• Michelle Callaghan (also referred to as Michelle Aspen)

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, In-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, (Office location not specified, but Unified Patents has an office in Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Previously at Erise IP, defending clients in district court, challenging patents before the PTAB, and providing opinions on patent validity and infringement across diverse technologies.

• Kelly R. Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, In-house
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, (Office location not specified, but Unified Patents has an office in Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience: Supports Unified Patents' PTAB practice and appellate practice. Previously a patent attorney at Erise IP, focusing on patent litigations and PTAB practice.

Unified Patents also frequently works with outside counsel, particularly from firms like Erise IP, P.A., in various IPR proceedings. For instance, Jason R. Mudd and Eric A. Buresh from Erise IP, P.A. have been identified as lead and back-up counsel respectively in other Unified Patents IPR cases.

• Jason R. Mudd

  • Role: Lead Counsel (External Counsel)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas, and Greenwood Village, Colorado
  • Experience: Regularly represents petitioners in IPR proceedings, including for Unified Patents.

• Eric A. Buresh

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (External Counsel)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, Kansas
  • Experience: Experienced in PTAB practice, representing petitioners in IPR proceedings.

It is important to note that Unified Patents LLC states it is not a law firm and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members, but rather acts as a deterrence entity. They employ in-house counsel who prepare and litigate post-grant proceedings.

As the case IPR2026-00083 was not instituted due to procedural reasons, specific appearances for this exact case might not be publicly detailed in the same way as an instituted case. However, the attorneys listed above represent the core legal team and external firms Unified Patents consistently utilizes for its IPR filings.

Despite an aggressive web search, a definitive list of counsel of record representing Zophonos Inc. in IPR2026-00083 could not be identified from publicly available information. The case status, "Not Instituted - Procedural," suggests that comprehensive filings detailing counsel appearances for the Patent Owner may not have been publicly developed or made readily accessible.

While not confirmed for this specific IPR, it is notable that David Postolski, a partner and patent attorney at Gearhart Law, assisted Zophonos Inc.'s CEO, Levaughn Denton, in obtaining patent 10656906 in 2020. Gearhart Law, based in Summit, New Jersey, specializes in patent, trademark, and copyright needs, particularly for entrepreneurs and startups. Richard Gearhart, the firm's founder, has nearly 30 years of experience in intellectual property law. However, this prior representation for patent prosecution does not automatically extend to representation in the current IPR proceeding.

Without access to the specific docket filings for IPR2026-00083 on the PTAB-E2E system, it is not possible to confirm who, if anyone, formally appeared as counsel of record for Zophonos Inc. in this "Not Instituted - Procedural" IPR.