Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Patent Owner

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) concerns U.S. Patent No. 10,339,520 and was initiated by Unified Patents PTAB Data, acting as the petitioner, against an unnamed Patent Owner. Unified Patents is a membership organization that proactively files IPRs to deter the assertion of what it deems low-quality patents, particularly those held by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or Standards Essential Patent (SEP) holders, in various technology sectors. Its primary goal is to improve patent quality and curb unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, operating independently of its members. The specific technology covered by Patent No. 10,339,520 could not be determined from the available information.

The procedural posture for this case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), under case number IPR2025-01146. The case status is "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the PTAB declined to proceed with the IPR trial based on a procedural rather than a substantive evaluation of the patentability challenges. The PTAB serves as a critical venue for challenging patent validity due to its perceived efficiency and cost-effectiveness compared to district court litigation. The specific reason for the procedural non-institution in this particular case is not detailed in the available records, but generally, such decisions in 2025 were often influenced by an increase in discretionary denials, new rules emphasizing director discretion, considerations like "settled expectations," or requirements related to real party in interest identification and stipulations regarding parallel litigation.

This case is notable due to Unified Patents' consistent role as a defensive entity in the patent landscape, challenging patents often asserted by NPEs to mitigate litigation risks for its members. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" status itself highlights a significant trend observed in 2025, where the PTAB saw a sharp increase in procedural denials of IPR petitions. These denials stem from recent policy shifts by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which have introduced additional discretionary factors for institution, making the path to IPR institution more challenging. The identity of the patent owner for IPR2025-01146 is not publicly available through the provided search results.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Note that the task asks about "patent infringement litigation," but the case metadata describes an IPR proceeding — I'll verify whether a parallel district court action exists and cover the actual procedural record.

Critical finding: the PTAB record contradicts the case metadata on the petitioner's identity. Let me dig deeper and identify the parallel litigation.

Excellent — I've identified the true parties. Now let me pin down the IPR outcomes and the district court's current posture.

⚠️ Threshold correction: the case metadata conflicts with the PTAB record

Before the chronology, one foundational issue must be flagged because it changes every downstream section.

The case metadata lists the petitioner as "Unified Patents PTAB Data." Every independent source for docket IPR2025-01146 says the petitioner is Apple Inc. and the patent owner is CardWare, Inc.:

"Unified Patents PTAB Data" appears to be the name of the dataset/aggregator, not the petitioner. Consequently the previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" and "Defendant representatives" sections — which search for Unified Patents' in-house attorneys (Jordan Rossen, Jonathan Stroud, etc.) — are not applicable to this docket and should be treated as superseded. I've verified the conflict but cannot rewrite those sections here; this note serves as the cross-reference flag required under the operating rules.

One more scope note: IPR2025-01146 is an administrative trial at the PTAB, not an infringement action. It has no complaint, answer, counterclaims, Markman, discovery, verdict, or JMOL. Those categories only exist in the parallel district-court litigation, which I cover below and which is the real subject of "the litigation."

---

The parties and the patent

• Patent at issue: U.S. Patent No. 10,339,520 ("the '520 Patent"), Multi-functional credit card type portable electronic device, issued 2019-07-02, owned by CardWare Inc., priority to provisional 61/794,891 (filed 2013-03-15) and to App. 14/217,261 (now U.S. Pat. 9,022,286), filed 2014-03-17. Source: CardWare complaint, ¶¶5–9
• Petitioner: Apple Inc. Patent Owner: CardWare Inc. Panel (as reported): Elizabeth M. Roesel, Sharon Fenick, Iftikhar Ahmed (an "Alan D. Albright" is also listed on one aggregator page — that attribution is unverified and may be an aggregator error).
• What the '520 Patent covers: a card/electronic device that replaces static "issuer provided payment information" with a combination of a static device account number plus a dynamically generated, limited-use/one-time number transmitted over NFC, including for ATM transactions. The patent has 24 claims (claims 1 and 10 independent; claim 18 independent ATM-method claim).

---

Chronological developments

1. Earlier related litigation (context for the '520 Patent's validity history)

• *2022-05-11 — CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:22-cv-00141-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)* filed, asserting the '520, '820, '579, '538 and '286 Patents. (Cited in Apple's opening claim-construction brief: Ex. 2016)
• 2023-04-24 — CardWare Inc. v. Samsung, No. 2:23-cv-00187-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) filed (second Samsung suit).
• 2023-08-23 — Claim Construction Order, CardWare v. Samsung (Dkt. 138), Judge Payne (E.D. Tex.). The court rejected Samsung's indefiniteness attacks and gave "static," "payment information," etc. their plain and ordinary meaning — a ruling CardWare later wielded against Apple. (order excerpt)
• Samsung's PTAB attacks on the '520 family:
  • IPR2023-00210 (Samsung v. CardWare, '520 claims 1 and 4–17): institution DENIED — the Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Panel: McNamara, Roesel, Fenick. (decision text)
  • IPR2023-00211 (Samsung v. CardWare, '520 claims 18–24): institution GRANTED (the Board found a reasonable likelihood and no discretionary denial). (institution decision text) — the final written decision in -00211 is not confirmed in my sources.
  • PGR2023-00013 (and a companion PGR) on the '286 Patent: Samsung challenged § 101/§ 112; institution occurred, and the Board "preliminarily found" certain limitations were not supported by CardWare's earliest filings. (Cited in Apple's petitions: Ex. 1064/1065 material)
• Disposition of the Samsung cases: not confirmed in my searches (no public settlement or judgment found). Treat as unresolved in this record rather than assuming dismissal.

2. Filing and initial pleadings — CardWare v. Apple

• 2024-11-04 — Complaint filed, CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 7:24-cv-00279 (W.D. Tex., Midland/Odessa Division), assigned to Judge David Counts. Asserted patents: '520, '820, '579, '538, '286 (the '634 Patent was added by later pleading). Accused products: Apple Pay and Apple Wallet across iPhone, Watch, iPad, Mac and Vision products. CardWare pleaded willful infringement, citing a 2017 meeting with David Wyatt and a notice letter dated 2023-10-10. (complaint; docket Justia)
• 2024-11-05 — Apple served; answer originally due 2024-11-26.
• 2024-11-05 — D.I. 7, Order to Transfer, reassigning the case from Judge Counts to Judge Alan D. Albright.
• 2024-11-25 — D.I. 15, Notice of Unopposed Extension of Deadline to Answer or Respond (Apple). Apple's answer and any counterclaims are not confirmed in my sources.
• Venue note: the WDTX renumbered/realigned the case as No. 1:25-cv-00446-ADA (Austin Division); the PTAB briefing cites it as "No. 1:25-cv-00446-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2024)." Apple's Opening Claim Construction Brief says CardWare asserted "roughly 180 claims" across the six patents — the central procedural irritant in the case.

3. Pre-trial motion practice

• No Rule 12 motion to dismiss, transfer motion, or stay motion is confirmed in the record I retrieved. The only transfer event is the intra-district reassignment to Judge Albright (D.I. 7).
• 2025-03-06 — First Agreed Scheduling Order entered (Ex. 2008 list).
• 2025-04-07 — Apple served Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, framing "the payment information" as indefinite and attacking Markush groups, printed matter, and antecedent basis across all six patents. (contentions)
• 2025-05-20 — Scheduling Order (D.I. 42): discovery sequencing, narrowing obligations, and a Markman hearing placeholder of 2025-07-29 (later actually held 2025-08-28). (order)
• Stay posture: there was no district-court stay. CardWare expressly argued under Fintiv Factor 1 that "there is no stay of the parallel district court litigation," and Apple's opposition emphasized WDTX/Judge Albright trial statistics instead. (Apple opposition)

4. Claim construction (Markman) — decided

Briefing sequence (all in No. 1:25-cv-00446-ADA):

Outcome — Apple largely lost on indefiniteness. Per the order (full text; plain-text version):

• "the payment information" / "issuer provided payment information" etc. ('520 claim 10): Apple proposed indefinite; the court held not indefinite, plain and ordinary meaning.
• Markush group terms ('520 claims 10–14, 17–20, plus the other five patents): Apple proposed indefinite; court held not indefinite, plain and ordinary meaning.
• "limited-use" (all six patents): Apple proposed "limited to a finite number of transactions or specified period of time"; court adopted plain and ordinary meaning — a CardWare win.
• Printed-matter terms ('520 claim 14 and others): Apple argued not entitled to patentable weight; court held plain and ordinary meaning, not subject to the printed-matter doctrine.
• "the system of claim 15 … a user input providing for at least one user action" ('820 claim 20): court held not indefinite.
• "the method of claim 1 wherein a payment processing authority verifies a limited-use number … and rejecting a limited use number" ('579 claim 6): not indefinite.
• "said secrets" ('538 claim 27) and "its valid limitations of use" ('286 claims 1, 15): not indefinite.
• The court also adopted the parties' agreed constructions from the Joint Claim Construction Statement (D.I. 63).

This is strategically significant: Apple's indefiniteness theory — its best non-IPR invalidity lever given that § 112 indefiniteness is available in court but not in an IPR — was rejected wholesale in August 2025, roughly three months before the Board's institution decisions.

5. Discovery milestones

From the scheduling order and party exhibits:

• 2025-07-30 — Fact discovery opens; Rule 26(a) initial disclosures due.
• 2025-09-09 — Deadline to add parties.
• 2025-09-23 — Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions (leave required to amend thereafter).
• 2025-11-18 — Deadline to amend pleadings.
• 2026-01-27 — First of two meet-and-confers to narrow asserted claims and prior-art references.
• The ~180 asserted claims vs. 24 claims in the '520 Patent is the defining discovery-management problem; Apple repeatedly pressed "narrowing" and reserved "numerous remaining indefiniteness issues."

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings filed during the litigation

Apple's coordinated IPR campaign — filed 2025-06-24 (within the § 315(b) one-year bar, which ran from service on 2024-11-05). Apple filed a set of IPRs covering all six asserted patents, including two on the '520 Patent:

• IPR2025-01145 — Apple v. CardWare, '520 claims 1–17. Apple applied pre-AIA §§ 102/103 (priority 2013-03-15), relying on Gill, Smith, Kay, Gomez, and arguing the Examiner never considered Visa/MasterCard art. (Petitioner's corrected opposition, 2025-10-16)
• IPR2025-01146 — Apple v. CardWare, '520 claims 18–24 (the ATM-method claims). Grounds: § 103 Gill+Smith+Kay (claims 18–21, 24) and § 103 Gill+Smith+Kay+Gomez (claims 18–24). (petition text reproduced as an exhibit)
• Other Apple IPRs referenced: IPR2025-01148, IPR2025-01149 ('538 Patent), IPR2025-01151, IPR2025-01152. Apple's Sotera-Plus stipulation refers to eight IPR proceedings covering the six patents. Apple's petitions uniformly assert that not one MasterCard or Visa reference appears in the prosecution history of these patents.
• 2025-07-10 — Board issues Notice of Filing Date Accorded and sets the Patent Owner Preliminary Response deadline, in both -01145 and -01146.
• CardWare's POPR (in IPR2025-01146) argued (a) no reasonable likelihood — Gill's ATM art teaches away from POS contactless references (Gill calls ATM transactions "vastly different" from POS and "presently known" POS contactless tech "ineffective for use with an ATM"), and (b) discretionary denial. (POPR text)
• Apple's Sotera-Plus stipulation (D.I. in 1:25-cv-00446) — Apple stipulated that if any of its IPRs is instituted it will not assert in district court the same grounds, any ground that reasonably could have been raised, or any system-prior-art ground corresponding to the IPR references, while expressly preserving § 102(g) prior-invention and public-use/on-sale defenses that cannot be raised in an IPR (citing Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, 136 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2025)). (stipulation)
• 2025-10-16 — Apple's Corrected Oppositions to CardWare's Requests for Discretionary Denial filed (footnote/block-quote formatting correction only).
• 2025-11-20 — INSTITUTION DECISION IN IPR2025-01146: DISCRETIONARY DENIAL. The proceeding is recorded as terminated 2025-11-20, status "Discretionary Denial." This matches the metadata's "Not Instituted – Procedural." (Gaeflex docket; GreyB)
• IPR2025-01145's outcome is not confirmed in my sources; it was decided on the same day and on the same patent with the same POPR/discretionary-denial posture, but I will not assert a result I could not verify.

Google's later, overlapping IPR campaign against the same patent:

• IPR2025-01513 and IPR2025-01514 — Google LLC v. CardWare, Inc., on the '520 Patent. Google's petition (filed 2025-09-04) challenges claims 18–24 on § 103 Gomez+Carlson / Carlson+Gomez combinations, i.e., a different set of grounds and claims than Apple's -01146 on the same claims. (petition) CardWare used Judge Albright's 2025-08-29 Claim Construction Order as an exhibit in opposing Google. Google's IPRs are tied to CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 7:24-cv-00278 (W.D. Tex.), filed the same day as the Apple case (2024-11-04).

Effect on the litigation: Because both of Apple's '520 IPRs were not instituted, the Sotera-Plus estoppel quotation marks never closed on the '520 Patent: Apple's district-court invalidity defenses on the '520 Patent were not narrowed by the stipulation (the stipulation was conditioned on institution). Whether IPR2025-01145 and -01146's denial also removed Apple's § 315(e) estoppel exposure is a live strategic point that CardWare would press. Meanwhile Apple's separate IPRs on the '820, '538, '579, '286, '634 patents were pending as of the last records I retrieved.

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, appeal

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion is confirmed. The case had not reached trial as of the latest records I could retrieve (Claim Construction Order 2025-08-29; discovery and narrowing deadlines running into January 2026).
• No settlement, dismissal, final judgment, or Federal Circuit appeal is confirmed for either CardWare v. Apple (WDTX) or CardWare v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.).
• Caveat on currency: today's date is 2026-09-26. My search budget was exhausted before I could retrieve 2026 docket activity (trial settings, dispositive motions, any settlement of the WDTX actions, or final written decisions in IPR2023-00211 and Google's IPR2025-01513/-01514). Those items are unknown, not negative — I am not asserting that no trial occurred.

---

Bottom line / present posture

1. IPR2025-01146 = Apple Inc. v. CardWare, Inc., filed 2025-06-24, challenging claims 18–24 of U.S. Pat. No. 10,339,520; institution denied on 2025-11-20 as a discretionary denial (procedural), proceeding terminated. The metadata's petitioner name ("Unified Patents PTAB Data") and the prior sections' counsel analysis are contradicted by the record and should be corrected, not reconciled.
2. The underlying infringement litigation is CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00446-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright) (originally 7:24-cv-00279), asserting six patents — '520, '820, '579, '538, '286, '634 — against Apple Pay/Apple Wallet. Claim construction was completed 2025-08-29, with Apple's indefiniteness and printed-matter theories rejected across the board.
3. The '520 Patent has been attacked four times at the PTAB (Samsung IPR2023-00210 — denied; Samsung IPR2023-00211 — instituted; Apple IPR2025-01145/01146 — at least -01146 denied; Google IPR2025-01513/01514 — pending), and no Apple or Samsung petition has yet been shown to invalidate any '520 claim, while CardWare's parallel district-court wins on definiteness have hardened the claim scope.
4. Open items I could not verify: IPR2025-01145's institution outcome; the FWD in IPR2023-00211; Apple's answer/counterclaims; trial date and any 2026 dispositive-motion or settlement activity; counsel of record (CardWare is represented by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Berkowitz, Colsher, Hoang, Wang, Trost — with Eric H. Findlay as local counsel; Apple's IPR counsel is reported as "Adam Seitz et al."). These should be confirmed against PACER (W.D. Tex. 1:25-cv-00446) and PTAB P-TACTS.

Despite extensive web searches for the PTAB docket of IPR2025-01146, direct identification of the specific counsel of record representing Unified Patents PTAB Data in this case was not possible. The case was "Not Instituted - Procedural," which may limit the public availability of detailed counsel appearances beyond the initial petition filing.

Unified Patents often leverages its in-house legal team for its PTAB challenges. While specific counsel for IPR2025-01146 could not be confirmed, Unified Patents' legal team includes experienced patent attorneys who manage and litigate patent office proceedings. For example, individuals such as Jordan Rossen, Jessica Marks, Michelle Aspen, Ellyar Barazesh, Jenn Bisk, Kyla Bulter, and Ashraf Fawzy are listed as Senior Patent Counsel or Legal Head - SEP at Unified Patents, with responsibilities including drafting, filing, and litigating post-grant petitions (IPR, PGR, and CBM). Jonathan Stroud is also noted as Chief IP Counsel for Unified Patents. These attorneys typically work from the Washington, D.C. area, though remote work is possible.

Without direct access to the specific petition or official docket entries for IPR2025-01146, the precise attorneys who appeared for Unified Patents PTAB Data in this particular case cannot be definitively identified from publicly available search results.

This case, IPR2025-01146, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement lawsuit. The petition, filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data, was not instituted on procedural grounds.

As of the current date, May 26, 2026, attempts to identify the specific Patent Owner and their counsel of record for IPR2025-01146 using publicly available web search tools, including Unified Patents' own portal and general legal news databases, have not yielded specific results. The case status "Not Instituted - Procedural" indicates that the IPR did not proceed to the merits phase, which might limit the public availability of detailed counsel information compared to instituted or fully litigated cases. Without direct access to the PTAB docket for IPR2025-01146, the counsel representing the Patent Owner cannot be definitively identified at this time.