Unified Patents v. Aon Re, Inc.

Unified Patents, a member-based organization dedicated to deterring unsubstantiated patent assertions and improving patent quality, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition against Aon Re, Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents primarily targets non-practicing entities (NPEs) by challenging patents it deems invalid. Aon Re, Inc. is a subsidiary of Aon, a global professional services firm specializing in reinsurance brokerage and consulting services, making it an operating company. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,529,029, titled "Platform, systems, and methods for identifying property characteristics and property feature maintenance through aerial imagery analysis." This patent broadly describes systems and methods that utilize aerial imagery and image analysis techniques to automatically categorize property characteristics, such as roof condition, and assess damage vulnerability for risk estimation, primarily relevant to the insurance industry.

The case, IPR2025-01358, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an administrative court within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This venue is significant as it offers a potentially faster and less costly avenue to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation. The procedural posture of this particular IPR is "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the PTAB declined to initiate the review for reasons other than the merits of the patentability challenge itself. While the specific procedural reason for this denial in IPR2025-01358 is not publicly detailed, such decisions are often based on discretionary factors, including the stage of parallel district court litigation (Fintiv factors) or the concept of "settled expectations" regarding the patent's validity due to delayed challenges.

This IPR is notable due to Unified Patents' role in proactively challenging patents perceived as "poor quality" to curb what it views as abusive patent assertions, even when the patent owner is an operating company like Aon Re, Inc. Furthermore, the "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome highlights a significant aspect of current PTAB practice concerning discretionary denials. When an IPR is not instituted on procedural grounds, the underlying patent claims remain unchallenged on their merits before the PTAB, potentially impacting any related district court litigation by preserving the patent's enforceability. This outcome underscores the evolving landscape of patent validity challenges at the PTAB and the importance of procedural considerations in IPR proceedings.

This patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,529,029, has been involved in both district court litigation and the PTAB IPR proceeding initiated by Unified Patents.

Parallel District Court Litigation

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
On February 20, 2025, Aon Re, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Zesty.AI, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:25-cv-00201-JFM). Aon alleged that Zesty.AI infringed four of its patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,529,029, which relate to systems using machine-learning classifiers to analyze aerial images of buildings for property risk assessment. Aon claimed it had informed Zesty.AI of the alleged infringement as early as April 2023, but discussions did not resolve the issue. Aon sought monetary damages, a permanent injunction, and legal fees.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
Zesty.AI filed a motion to dismiss the infringement suit, arguing that the patents, particularly Claim 1 of the '029 patent, covered ineligible subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. On July 15, 2025, a Delaware federal judge denied Zesty.AI's motion to dismiss. The court found that the patent claim did not broadly cover evaluating risk using imagery, but instead recited a process with a distinctive structure involving two separate machine-learning classifiers that use pixel groupings from digital images to provide condition and risk information. The court noted that these two classifiers were important for efficiency and reliability and that the claim went beyond merely automating existing practices with generic technology. The initial pretrial conference was scheduled for September 18, 2025.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding

Filing & Outcome:
Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01358, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,529,029. The petition was ultimately "Not Instituted - Procedural."

Procedural Denial Context:
The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome for IPR2025-01358 falls within a period of significant changes in PTAB's discretionary denial practices in 2025. In February 2025, the USPTO rescinded its prior interim procedure for discretionary denials in parallel district court litigation, effectively returning to a more flexible approach based on the Fintiv factors. This framework considers factors like the proximity of the district court trial date, investment in the parallel proceeding, and overlap of issues.

Throughout 2025, there was a rapid increase in discretionary denials. In March 2025, the Acting Director of the USPTO issued a memorandum that bifurcated discretionary denial determinations from merits-based reviews, meaning the Director would personally decide discretionary denial issues. By October 17, 2025, Director John Squires reclaimed personal authority over all IPR and PGR institution decisions, announcing that he would personally determine whether to institute trial proceedings. A new "settled expectations" factor was also introduced, where institution could be denied based on the age of the patent, with patents in force for more than six years facing heightened denial risk.

While the specific, publicly detailed reason for the procedural denial in IPR2025-01358 is not available, such denials in this period were often influenced by these evolving discretionary factors, including the stage of parallel district court litigation (Fintiv factors) and the patent's age ("settled expectations"). The IPR2025-01358 case appears in a January 9, 2026, "Notice of Decisions on Institution" from Director John A. Squires, where it is listed among proceedings for which institution was denied after a review of discretionary considerations. This confirms the procedural nature of the denial based on discretionary factors rather than the merits of the patentability challenge.

Unified Patents, as the petitioner in this IPR, is represented by its in-house counsel. Unified Patents is a membership organization that challenges patents it deems problematic, primarily through IPR petitions.

While the specific attorneys of record for IPR2025-01358 are not explicitly named in the immediate search results, Unified Patents' website and news releases frequently identify key members of their in-house legal team involved in PTAB proceedings. These include:

• Jonathan Stroud - Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents. He has been involved in discussions regarding proposals for improving patent quality.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Legal Head - NPE, Unified Patents (and/or Senior Patent Counsel). He has represented Unified Patents in other reexamination proceedings.
• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents. He has represented Unified Patents in reexamination proceedings that resulted in final rejections of challenged claims.
• T.J. Murphy - In-house counsel, Unified Patents. He has been noted as representing Unified Patents in reexamination proceedings.
• Matthew Beck - In-house counsel, Unified Patents. He has been noted as representing Unified Patents in reexamination proceedings.
• Michelle Aspen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents. She has presented on topics related to Fintiv denials in PTAB proceedings.
• Jessica Marks - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.

Unified Patents often handles its PTAB challenges, including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations, with its internal legal team. They specifically hire experienced, registered patent attorneys with at least five years of experience in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.

It is important to note that Unified Patents operates independently of its members and does not act as a law firm representing them, nor does it have an attorney-client relationship with its members.

I'll research counsel of record for the relevant parties. Note there's an important distinction in this case: the IPR respondent/patent owner is Aon Re, Inc., while the parallel district court infringement suit (Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc., D. Del. 1:25-cv-00201) has Zesty.AI as the infringement defendant. I'll search for both.

Excellent — I have solid leads. Let me dig deeper on each party's counsel and the parallel IPR counsel designations.

I have the key docket details. Let me verify the specifics on both sides' counsel and confirm the Zesty.AI defense team and the IPR counsel designations.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Side

Threshold clarification (important). The captions in this matter point in two directions, and the "defendant" is not the same party depending on which proceeding you mean:

• The IPR itself — Unified Patents v. Aon Re, Inc., IPR2025‑01358 (PTAB) — has Aon Re, Inc. as the respondent/patent owner (i.e., the defending party), challenging U.S. Pat. No. 10,529,029.
• The parallel district‑court infringement case referenced in the earlier sections — Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc., No. 1:25‑cv‑00201‑JFM (D. Del.) — has Zesty.AI, Inc. as the infringement defendant, with Aon Re as plaintiff.

Because the task asks for counsel for the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case, I've organized the response around both, and flag the ambiguity explicitly rather than pick one.

---

A. Infringement defendant in the parallel district court case — Zesty.AI, Inc. (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑00201‑JFM)

Sourcing note / limitation: Zesty.AI's counsel of record is confirmed as Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP) per the July 15, 2025 opinion coverage (VitalLaw IP Law Daily, "PATENT—D. Del.: Eligibility challenge to Aon Re machine learning patent fails," Jul 16, 2025), which lists "Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP) for Zesty.AI, Inc." Michael J. Farnan is a routine co-appearance at the same firm in its cases, but I could not confirm that he (or any out‑of‑state/co‑counsel) has entered an appearance for Zesty.AI in this specific docket before hitting my search limit. Treat any additional Zesty.AI counsel as unverified.

---

B. Named respondent/defendant in the PTAB proceeding (and plaintiff in the district court case) — Aon Re, Inc.

Aon Re's counsel is well documented on the district‑court docket and corroborated in the PTAB. Per the Justia docket for 1:25‑cv‑00201 (last retrieved July 15, 2025), Aon Re is represented by a Delaware local firm plus two out‑of‑state firms admitted pro hac vice:

Sourcing: Docket entries DI 6–8 and the Feb. 27/Mar. 5, 2025 CM/ECF notices on the Justia docket (Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.ai, Inc., 1:2025cv00201); VitalLaw IP Law Daily (Jul 16, 2025) naming Pilar G. Kraman; Law360 firm page listing Colin A. Keith on the case.

---

C. What is not confirmed

• IPR2025‑01358 specifically. I could not retrieve the actual counsel‑and‑service‑information designation for the Unified Patents v. Aon Re petition/patent‑owner side in this docket. The association of Gardella (Gardella Alciati) with Aon Re comes from the parallel IPR2025‑01357 and the district‑court docket, not from a confirmed entry in IPR2025‑01358 itself. The petitioner side (Unified Patents) counsel is covered in the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section.
• Zesty.AI's PTAB representation. In IPR2025‑01357 (Zesty.ai as petitioner), an aggregator lists the petitioner attorney as "Block, Dan et al." I could not verify that attorney's firm or even confirm the name against a primary PTAB filing, so I am not attributing it here.
• Case metadata flag. The case metadata labels the "Defendant(s)" as Aon Re, Inc. and the "Plaintiff(s)" as Unified Patents. That is correct for the IPR posture (Unified = petitioner, Aon Re = respondent/patent owner). It is inverted relative to the district‑court infringement case, where Aon Re is the plaintiff and Zesty.AI is the defendant. If the research target is the infringement defendant, it is Zesty.AI (Section A); if it is the IPR respondent, it is Aon Re (Section B).

Bottom line: For the infringement defendant, the counsel of record identified is Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE). For the IPR respondent / named "defendant" in this case's caption (Aon Re, Inc.), the documented team is Greg H. Gardella and Cook Alciati (Gardella Alciati LLP), Amanda J. Hollis and Ellisen Shelton Turner (Kirkland & Ellis LLP), and Pilar G. Kraman and Colin A. Keith (Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP) as Delaware counsel.