Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Perceptive Automata LLC

Unified Patents PTAB Data has filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01576, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against Perceptive Automata LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,467,579. Unified Patents is a membership-based organization focused on deterring assertions of low-quality patents by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as "patent trolls," through various means, including filing IPRs. Perceptive Automata LLC, the patent owner, is a company that formerly developed advanced AI technology for autonomous vehicles to interpret human intentions and awareness. However, the company ceased operations in August 2022 after failing to secure Series B funding, and its intellectual property is reportedly being sold. This suggests Perceptive Automata is currently acting as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or NPE, asserting its patent portfolio for revenue generation rather than through active product development.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,467,579, is titled "Probabilistic Neural Network for Predicting Hidden Context of Traffic Entities for Autonomous Vehicles." It describes a system that uses a probabilistic neural network to analyze traffic images and predict the "hidden context"—such as the intent—of traffic entities, providing an associated measure of uncertainty. An autonomous vehicle then utilizes both the predicted context and its uncertainty for navigation. While an IPR does not involve an "accused product" in the way a district court infringement case does, this patent, along with others from Perceptive Automata, was previously asserted in a patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc., alleging infringement by Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology. That district court case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in January 2026.

This IPR is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an administrative body of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which provides a specialized forum for challenging patent validity. The case has proceeded to the "Instituted" phase, meaning the PTAB has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of the patent is unpatentable. The institution of this IPR is particularly notable given recent trends at the PTAB, where institution rates have significantly decreased, especially against NPEs, and the USPTO Director has consolidated authority over institution decisions, leading to an increase in discretionary denials. The fact that this IPR was instituted despite a more restrictive PTAB environment underscores the strength of Unified Patents' challenge against a patent owned by an NPE in the high-value and frequently litigated autonomous vehicle technology sector.

The patent infringement litigation involving Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00742, in the Eastern District of Texas, primarily concerned five U.S. patents related to AI-based human perception and autonomous driving systems, including U.S. Patent No. 11,467,579.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (July 23, 2025): Perceptive Automata LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Tesla, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint alleged that Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology infringed the asserted patents, specifically targeting Tesla's "Data Engine" and associated datacenters used for training its FSD models.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (October 2025 - December 2025): Tesla filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). This motion was partially denied in early November 2025. Perceptive Automata subsequently filed an amended complaint.
• Voluntary Dismissal (January 5, 2026): Perceptive Automata LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Court accepted this notice, and all claims against Tesla were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Perceptive Automata retains the right to refile the claims in the future. This dismissal occurred before the case reached claim construction, summary judgment, or trial.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: U.S. Patent No. 11,467,579, one of the patents asserted against Tesla, is currently the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), IPR2025-01576. This IPR has been instituted and is pending. The institution of this IPR is noteworthy given the current PTAB environment, where the USPTO Director has centralized authority over institution decisions and increased discretionary denials, especially since October 17, 2025. While the district court case against Tesla concluded with a dismissal, the ongoing IPR could still impact the validity of the patent, potentially influencing any future assertions of the patent.

Unified Patents PTAB Data, as the petitioner in IPR2025-01576, is represented by counsel specializing in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Unified Patents is a membership organization that files IPRs to challenge the validity of patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). While Unified Patents is not a law firm and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members, it employs a legal department with experienced patent attorneys to manage its patent office proceedings.

Based on available information for Unified Patents' IPR filings, their in-house legal team plays a significant role in preparing and litigating these challenges. Key individuals often associated with Unified Patents' PTAB efforts include:

• Jonathan Stroud - Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents, Inc.
  • Mr. Stroud is a prominent figure in the PTAB space and frequently participates in webinars and discussions on patent reform and PTAB practice.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Legal Head - NPE, Unified Patents, Inc.
  • Mr. Mansinghani is also actively involved in discussions regarding NPE litigation and PTAB strategies.
• Michelle Aspen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents, Inc.
  • Ms. Aspen has spoken on trends in IPR amendments and strategies for responding to motions to amend.
• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents, Inc.
  • Mr. Rossen has participated in discussions concerning the interaction between district courts and the PTAB.

Unified Patents often handles its PTAB challenges internally, with its in-house counsel drafting, filing, and litigating patent office proceedings. They are solely responsible for funding and directing these proceedings. While external law firms may be involved in some capacity for specific tasks or to provide specialized expertise, Unified Patents emphasizes its independent control over IPR strategy.

It is important to note that specific counsel appearances for IPR2025-01576 would be detailed on the official PTAB docket, which is not directly accessible through this search. However, the above individuals are typically at the forefront of Unified Patents' IPR activities.

I'll research counsel of record. Note an important framing point up front: this "case" is a PTAB IPR (Petitioner Unified Patents v. Patent Owner Perceptive Automata), so the party in the defensive/respondent role is the Patent Owner, Perceptive Automata LLC. I'll also check the parallel district court case (where Tesla was the defendant) since the prior sections referenced it.

Key finding already: the PTAB filings indicate the petitioner in IPR2025-01576 is Tesla, Inc. (Baker Botts), not Unified Patents — a potential contradiction with the case metadata. Let me verify and pin down the respondent/patent-owner counsel of record.

⚠️ Threshold correction: the parties (and therefore "defendant") aren't what the metadata says

Before answering the counsel question, one conflict must be flagged, because it changes who the "defendant" is:

• The case metadata and the previously generated sections call the petitioner "Unified Patents PTAB Data." Every primary PTAB document I found says the petitioner in IPR2025‑01576 is Tesla, Inc., and that Tesla is the sole real party‑in‑interest: "The real party-in-interest is Tesla, Inc. No other parties exercised or could have exercised control over this Petition; no other parties funded or directed this Petition." (IPR2025‑01576 Petition, Mandatory Notices § I.A, PTAB petition copy). The petition is signed by Baker Botts for Tesla, and lists Tesla in-house counsel Paul Margulies as back-up.
• Third‑party PTAB trackers agree: "IPR2025‑01576 … Petitioner: Tesla, Inc.; Respondent: Perceptive Automata LLC; Status: Trial Instituted" (GreyB/ipVerse). The "Unified Patents PTAB Data" label appears to be a data-source artifact (Unified Patents operates a public PTAB tracker, e.g. portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01577), not a party. I found no Unified Patents IPR against the '579 patent. This should be corrected in the earlier sections, which also rest on the erroneous premise that Unified Patents filed this IPR.

Consequently, the party occupying the defensive/respondent role in IPR2025‑01576 is the Patent Owner, Perceptive Automata LLC, and Tesla, Inc. is the defendant in the parallel infringement litigation. I give both below.

---

1. Counsel of record for the Patent Owner / Respondent — Perceptive Automata LLC (IPR2025‑01576)

Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Patent Owner's mandatory notices in the sibling Tesla IPRs (IPR2025‑01573/‑01574; same team appearing across the family) designate:

Source: Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, e.g. IPR2025‑01574 (same counsel designation), and the ipVerse counsel listing for IPR2025‑01576 ("Respondent Counsel | Ginnings, Charles"). PTAB service address for the family: austin@nelbum.com / murphy@nelbum.com / perceptive@nelbum.com.

Neither the PTAB designation nor the attorney appearances are sealed — they are public filings. I did not find a Perceptive "Notice of Attorney Appearance" naming additional PTAB counsel in the '579 IPR specifically beyond Ginnings and Murphy; if the Board granted additional pro hac vice admissions after the Oct. 22, 2025 notices, I could not confirm them.

2. Counsel for the infringement defendant — Tesla, Inc. (the party the question literally targets)

PTAB side (petitioner in IPR2025‑01576, per the petition's § 42.10(b) designation):

Sources: IPR2025‑01576 Petition, § C (lead/back-up counsel); E.D. Tex. Civil Docket, 2:25‑cv‑00742‑JRG. Service address for the IPRs: DLTeslavPerceptiveAutomataIPRs@bakerbotts.com.

District court side — additional Tesla defense counsel: the docket sheet for the Texas actions shows Baker Botts (Fulghum lead; Speegle) plus Tesla's in-house team (Fawzy, Trac, Margulies). I did not find a separate local-counsel firm for Tesla in the W.D. Tex. action (7:25‑cv‑00594‑DC‑DTG); the appearances I could source all trace to the same Baker Botts/Tesla in-house group, so I won't name any others.

3. For completeness — Perceptive's own litigation team (plaintiff side, Texas cases)

Because the earlier sections describe the Texas suit, the counsel listed on those dockets are: Patrick J. Conroy (lead counsel, Dallas), Jonathan H. Rastegar (Dallas), Timothy E. Grochocinski (Burr Ridge, IL), Taryn N. Trusty (Burr Ridge, IL) and John P. Murphy (Fort Worth) — all Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.; plus Andrea Leigh Fair, Miller Fair Henry