Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Imaginear Inc

This case, IPR2025-01276, involves a challenge to the validity of US Patent No. 12,070,691, brought before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner is Niantic Inc., a well-known operating company primarily recognized for its augmented reality (AR) games like Pokémon Go. The patent owner is ImagineAR Inc., a Canada-based augmented reality engagement company that offers an AR-as-a-service platform for businesses to create interactive AR campaigns. ImagineAR Inc. also holds and actively seeks to monetize a portfolio of U.S. patents related to AR technology. While the initial case metadata listed Unified Patents PTAB Data as the plaintiff, web searches reveal that Niantic Inc. is the actual petitioner in this IPR. Unified Patents is a membership organization that monitors non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions and files IPRs against patents it believes are invalid, operating independently of its members. It is likely that Unified Patents tracks this IPR as part of its data analysis.

The patent at issue, US12070691, is titled "Systems and Methods for Capture and Use of Local Elements in Gameplay." This patent generally describes methods and systems for altering a storyline in gaming applications and virtual worlds based on local elements and a player's detected geographic location, such as through GPS, to enhance interactive experiences. The IPR was filed defensively by Niantic in response to a patent infringement lawsuit brought against them by ImagineAR Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-01252), where ImagineAR alleges infringement of US12070691 among other patents.

The procedural posture for IPR2025-01276 is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petition was filed on July 14, 2025, and on January 9, 2026, the PTAB issued a decision denying institution on the merits. This "Not Instituted - Merits" outcome is significant because it means the PTAB determined that Niantic did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of US12070691 is unpatentable, thus allowing the patent to survive this specific validity challenge. This denial strengthens ImagineAR's position regarding the validity of its patent in the ongoing parallel district court litigation against Niantic, Inc.

This case involves both an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and a parallel patent infringement lawsuit in a U.S. District Court. While the provided metadata identifies the IPR petitioner as Unified Patents PTAB Data, web search results consistently show Niantic Inc. as the petitioner for IPR2025-01276 challenging Imaginear Inc.'s patent. For the purpose of this summary, and in adherence to the instruction to treat the provided metadata as authoritative, the IPR is presented with Unified Patents PTAB Data as the petitioner.

I. Parallel District Court Litigation: ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW (D. Del.)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-11-13: ImagineAR, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Niantic, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,946,284, 11,484,284, 11,666,827, and 12,070,691, by Niantic's augmented reality products, including the Pokémon GO mobile game. ImagineAR asserted claims for direct, indirect (induced and contributory), and willful infringement.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• 2025-08-01: ImagineAR, Inc. served its infringement contentions on Niantic, comprising over 650 pages. ImagineAR also produced over 5,000 pages of documents during discovery.
• 2025-08-28: Niantic, Inc. served its invalidity contentions on ImagineAR, consisting of over 5,000 pages of charts related to the patents at issue in the IPRs. Niantic also produced over 25,000 pages of documents.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Niantic, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, challenging the validity of the asserted patents.

Judgment & Appeal – Final Disposition:

• 2026-04-07: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a ruling granting Niantic's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found ImagineAR's asserted patents, including US12070691, invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, determining they were directed at abstract ideas and lacked an inventive concept. The court also denied ImagineAR's motion to amend its complaint.
• 2026-04-22: ImagineAR, Inc. announced its plan to appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An appeal was filed, docketed as ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc., Case No. 26-1720.

II. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: IPR2025-01276

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-07-14: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01276, was filed challenging U.S. Patent No. 12070691. As per the provided metadata, the petitioner is Unified Patents PTAB Data, and the patent owner is Imaginear Inc.
• The petition challenged the claims of US12070691 as obvious based on prior art, specifically citing Kolo & Zyda.

Outcome:

• 2026-01-09: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of IPR2025-01276 on the merits. The status of this IPR is "Not Instituted - Merits."

Effect on the Litigation:

• The IPR was filed as a parallel challenge to the validity of US12070691, one of the patents asserted by ImagineAR against Niantic in the district court litigation. Although the IPR petition was denied institution by the PTAB, the district court ultimately found the patent invalid on different grounds (35 U.S.C. § 101) in its April 7, 2026, ruling. The district court's decision on invalidity preceded any potential final written decision from the PTAB for this IPR.

Based on available public records and the authoritative case metadata provided, identifying the specific counsel of record for Unified Patents PTAB Data in IPR2025-01276 presents a conflict. Web searches for IPR2025-01276 consistently indicate that Niantic, Inc. is the petitioner in this proceeding against ImagineAR Inc..

However, adhering to the authoritative case metadata provided in the prompt, which states that "Unified Patents PTAB Data" is the plaintiff in IPR2025-01276, the following attorneys and firms are generally known to represent Unified Patents in its Inter Partes Review proceedings:

Internal Counsel for Unified Patents:

• Jonathan Stroud - COO & Chief Legal Officer.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience Note: Oversees legal strategy and operations for Unified Patents, which frequently challenges patents through IPRs.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Head of Operations (and previously identified as internal counsel).
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C. or Dallas, TX office).
  • Experience Note: Involved in managing patent office proceedings and has appeared as internal counsel in past IPRs for Unified Patents.
• Jessica L.A. Marks - SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel (and previously identified as internal counsel).
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Location not specified, but likely Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience Note: Contributes to Unified Patents' legal efforts, including PTAB invalidation appeals.
• Jordan M. Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience Note: Identified as back-up counsel in other IPR proceedings for Unified Patents.
• Kelly R. Hughes - Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Location not specified, but has also been associated with Erise IP, P.A.).
  • Experience Note: Identified as back-up counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.

External Counsel for Unified Patents (frequently appearing in IPRs):

• Jason R. Mudd - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas, and Greenwood Village, Colorado).
  • Experience Note: Frequently acts as lead counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.
• Eric A. Buresh - Back-Up Counsel.
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas, and Greenwood Village, Colorado).
  • Experience Note: Appears as back-up counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.
• Debbie McComas - Partner.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP (Location not specified, but firm has multiple offices).
  • Experience Note: Successfully represented Unified Patents in Federal Circuit appeals affirming PTAB invalidation decisions.
• Jonathan Bowser - Partner.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP (Location not specified).
  • Experience Note: Represented Unified Patents in Federal Circuit appeals related to PTAB invalidation.
• David McCombs - Partner.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP (Location not specified).
  • Experience Note: Part of the Haynes and Boone team that secured Federal Circuit affirmance for Unified Patents in a PTAB invalidation appeal.
• Angela Oliver - Partner.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP (Location not specified).
  • Experience Note: Involved in Federal Circuit appellate work for Unified Patents.

Due to the conflicting information regarding the petitioner for IPR2025-01276, specific counsel for "Unified Patents PTAB Data" directly associated with this IPR number could not be definitively identified through public web searches. The above list reflects attorneys and firms who regularly represent Unified Patents in their PTAB challenges.

I'll research counsel for the patent owner/defendant side (ImagineAR Inc.) in both the IPR and the parallel district court case.

Counsel of Record — Defendant / Patent Owner Side

Terminology note first. In this PTAB proceeding the party adverse to the petitioner is the patent owner, ImagineAR, Inc. (with Imagine AR, Inc. as exclusive licensee). In the parallel infringement action, ImagineAR, Inc. et al. v. Niantic, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01252-JDW (D. Del.), the roles reverse — ImagineAR is plaintiff and Niantic is the defendant. Because your request asks about "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case," I have listed both sides below, led by the IPR respondent (the "defendant" in IPR2025-01276), and flagged the metadata conflict already noted in the earlier sections (metadata names "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as petitioner; every public source shows Niantic, Inc. as petitioner/plaintiff).

---

A. Patent Owner / Respondent in IPR2025-01276 — ImagineAR, Inc. (and Imagine AR, Inc.)

All counsel are from Greenberg Traurig, LLP, which ImagineAR publicly retained in September 2024 as portfolio-wide patent enforcement counsel (press release, Sept. 10, 2024: https://webfiles.thecse.com/[222755](/patent/222755).pdf).

Sources. Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) (dated Aug. 4, 2025) in the Niantic IPR family designate Lukas as lead and Jarosik, Gilford and Bokar as back-up (PTAB Center document: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558198](/patent/1558198)/download-documents?artifactId=pFMew1OezeJa2k_xm-dEQIsO3oMXx4NemDuXVBoZCkca4tKy8g-CaPs). Counsel listing for IPR2025-01276 specifically: Niantic, Inc. v. ImagineAR, Inc. et al., IPR2025-01276, Respondent Counsel "Lukas, James et al." (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01276). D. Del. appearance and PHV: D.I. 7, granted Dec. 3, 2024 (Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv01252/87352); consolidated signature block naming all ImagineAR counsel (June 11, 2025 filing, hosted at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558198/download-documents?artifactId=NwDtfT29lEaO6OGAG8tOuIrgKoMrdUA7-2iV8uzjh8Zfs2ZIUL5k94E).

Caveat: I could not verify a Lukas-side change of counsel after the Jan. 9, 2026 denial of institution (no public paper located), nor could I confirm appellate counsel for ImagineAR, Inc. v. Niantic, Inc., No. 26-1720 (Fed. Cir.). Treat the appellate representation as unverified.

---

B. Defendant in the Parallel District Court Case — Niantic, Inc. d/b/a Niantic Labs

Niantic is represented by Perkins Coie LLP (national/lead) with Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. as Delaware local counsel. The signature block reads "Attorneys for Defendant Niantic, Inc."

Sources. PACER Monitor docket summary listing Sabri, Piepmeier, Gardner, Farnan and Metzler as Niantic's representatives (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55839276/ImagineAR,_Inc_et_al_v_Niantic,_Inc); Justia docket entries D.I. 11–13 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv01252/87352); Niantic signature blocks containing the full Perkins Coie/Richards Layton roster (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558198/download-documents?artifactId=NwDtfT29lEaO6OGAG8tOuIrgKoMrdUA7-2iV8uzjh8Zfs2ZIUL5k94E); and litigation-report attorney listings for the Sept. 8, 2025 and Apr. 7, 2026 rulings (Delcollo for ImagineAR; Farnan for Niantic) — Bloomberg Law/IP Law Daily summaries at https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-d-del-dismissal-granted-in-video-game-system-patent-dispute/ipm016e878daaa7a2487c8afed4e2a4d8e50b and https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-d-del-video-game-system-patents-succumb-to-invalidity-challenges/ipm01a75898349fb243e190e30f40f61c4f37.

---

C. Petitioner's PTAB counsel in the Niantic IPR family (for completeness)

Not the "defendant" side, but relevant because the same Perkins Coie team ran both tracks: Jessica C. Kaiser (Reg. No. 58,937; Perkins Coie LLP, 1900 Sixteenth St., Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 — lead), with Christopher Marando (Reg. No. 67,898; Washington, D.C.) and Atanas Baitchev (Reg. No. 82,414; San Diego) as back-up, per Niantic's Power of Attorney dated July 10, 2025 (Customer No. 189558) filed in the companion petitions (e.g., IPR2025-01273). https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558198/download-documents?artifactId=N-f11GmrWRQl_AhqwstfoapW6ykFu2QSUDsbjszp7psUsBsB-Xd68JA. GreyB's IPR2025-01276 page likewise lists "Kaiser, Jessica et al." as petitioner counsel.

---

Items I could not confirm

• No counsel identified for the Federal Circuit appeal No. 26-1720 (nothing located in the sources searched).
• Whether Patrick J. Owens (Reg. No. 80,250) entered in IPR2025-01276 specifically — he appears as IPR back-up in a different ImagineAR IPR (PTAB Center petition 1546342), and the Aug. 4, 2025 mandatory notices in the Niantic family list Jarosik/Gilford/Bokar instead. Both are Greenberg Traurig, so the practical effect is minimal.
• No sealing issue found: all of the above counsel appear on public papers; the D. Del. docket is not sealed as to appearances.