Unified Patents v. Brainguard Technologies Inc.

This IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01031, involved Revelyst Sales LLC as the Petitioner against Brainguard Technologies Inc., the Patent Owner, concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,271,536. Unified Patents, a member-based organization, aims to deter patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) by challenging the validity of patents in specific technology areas through actions like filing IPRs. While Unified Patents was initially identified as the plaintiff, PTAB records for IPR2025-01031 indicate Revelyst Sales LLC as the Petitioner. Revelyst Inc. is a collective of brands that designs and manufactures performance gear and precision technologies for outdoor enthusiasts, with brands like Foresight Sports, Bushnell Golf, and CamelBak. Revelyst Sales LLC, specifically, is noted as specializing in equipment, including dba Foresight Sports. Brainguard Technologies Inc. is a company focused on developing multi-layered helmet designs to protect against rotational shear forces, which are significant contributors to traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Their innovative helmets are designed to allow shell layers greater flexibility to move relative to each other during impacts, dissipating mechanical energy.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,271,536, titled "Energy and impact transformer layer," describes protective gear, such as a helmet, that includes multiple shell layers connected through energy and impact transformer layers. These transformer layers, which may include conical structures, are designed to dissipate mechanical energy applied to an outer shell layer while allowing it to rotate with respect to middle or inner shell layers. Although the specific accused product, service, or technology that allegedly infringes this patent is not detailed in the provided information, given Brainguard Technologies' focus, it would likely relate to helmet technology that incorporates such impact dissipation and rotational movement features.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the petition was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This means the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity based on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the invalidity arguments. The timing of this non-institution decision, in late 2025, makes it notable as it coincided with significant changes in PTAB practice regarding IPR institution, including the USPTO Director taking personal control of institution decisions and stricter conditions for institution, such as mandatory stipulations or real party-in-interest issues. The connection to Revelyst Sales LLC and Brainguard Technologies highlights the ongoing efforts by operating companies, sometimes in conjunction with organizations like Unified Patents, to challenge patents asserted in their industries, particularly those related to safety and performance gear.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01031

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01031, involved Revelyst Sales LLC as the Petitioner against Brainguard Technologies Inc., the Patent Owner, concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,271,536. The case was ultimately "Not Instituted - Procedural."

Timeline of Key Developments:

• 2025-07-09: IPR Petition Filed. Revelyst Sales LLC filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,271,536.
• 2025-11-20: IPR Not Instituted - Procedural. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) terminated the IPR, with the case status indicated as "Not Instituted - Procedural." The institution decision occurred on this date.

Outcome and Context:

The IPR was not instituted, meaning the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity. The "procedural" nature of the denial suggests that the Board's decision was based on a procedural requirement rather than the merits of the invalidity arguments presented in the petition.

This non-institution decision for IPR2025-01031 occurred during a period of significant changes in PTAB practice regarding IPR institution. Specifically, in October 2025, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) took personal control of all merits-based institution determinations for IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings, issuing decisions primarily through concise "summary notices" that often lack detailed reasoning. Around the same time, new proposed rules for IPRs were published, which included stricter conditions for institution, such as mandatory stipulations and preclusion based on prior validity findings or the likelihood of a parallel district court case reaching a validity decision first. Additionally, an October 28, 2025, memorandum emphasized the requirement for petitioners to identify all real parties-in-interest (RPIs) before institution. Given the timing, it is highly probable that the procedural denial of IPR2025-01031 was influenced by one or more of these evolving policies, such as an RPI issue or another procedural gatekeeping requirement under the new Director's guidance. However, without the specific institution decision document, the exact procedural reason for the non-institution of this particular IPR is not publicly detailed.

Note on Petitioner: The initial case metadata provided identified "Unified Patents" as the plaintiff. However, public records for IPR2025-01031 clearly indicate "Revelyst Sales LLC" as the Petitioner.

The direct search for "IPR2025-01031 petition" or "IPR2025-01031 counsel" did not directly yield the specific attorneys of record for this particular IPR. However, a comprehensive search of PTAB dockets is required. I've noted that Unified Patents often uses outside counsel in addition to their in-house legal team for IPRs. To definitively identify the counsel for IPR2025-01031, I need to access the official PTAB docket for this case number.

Given that I don't have direct access to a real-time, comprehensive PACER or USPTO PTAB docket search that can pull the attorney list from the initial petition for a specific IPR number, I will use information from past successful searches regarding Unified Patents' common counsel and their in-house team as a proxy, and state explicitly that the specific filing for IPR2025-01031 was not found in the public search results.

From previous searches, I've seen mentions of:

• Roshan Mansinghani (Legal Head-NPE, Unified Patents) [cite: 5 in step 1, 10 in step 4]
• Jonathan Stroud (Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents) [cite: 5 in step 1]
• Michelle Aspen (Unified Patents) [cite: 10 in step 4]
• Ellyar Barazesh (Unified Patents) [cite: 10 in step 4]
• Haynes and Boone LLP (e.g., Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Michael McCarty, and Matt Beck (now at Unified Patents)) [cite: 4 in step 1]
• Baker Botts LLP (e.g., Brian W. Oaks) [cite: 1 in step 2]
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (listed as petitioner's counsel for other IPR2025 cases for Unified Patents members) [cite: 2 in step 4]

Since I cannot definitively link any specific external firm or individual attorney directly to IPR2025-01031 from the provided search results, and relying on general mentions for other cases would be speculative for this specific IPR, I must explicitly state that the counsel for IPR2025-01031 could not be definitively identified from the public search results.

It is important to emphasize the limitation: the specific counsel for IPR2025-01031 has not been found in the public search results provided. Therefore, I will state that the information isn't available from the accessible data and then list known in-house counsel for Unified Patents and common external firms that represent them in IPRs, while making it clear these are general associations and not confirmed for this specific IPR.

Therefore, my next step should be to compile the known information and state the limitation clearly. No further search queries are likely to yield the specific IPR2025-01031 counsel without direct access to the PTAB's official document retrieval system for that specific case number, which the provided tools cannot fully replicate.

Final Answer: The counsel of record representing Unified Patents in IPR2025-01031 could not be definitively identified through the accessible public search results. The full docket for this specific IPR, which would name the filing attorneys, was not directly available.

However, based on general information regarding Unified Patents' IPR activities and other IPR filings, Unified Patents typically utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and various external law firms.

Known in-house counsel who frequently represent Unified Patents include:

• Roshan Mansinghani (Legal Head-NPE, Unified Patents).
• Jonathan Stroud (Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents).
• Michelle Aspen (Counsel, Unified Patents).
• Ellyar Barazesh (Counsel, Unified Patents).

Law firms that have frequently represented Unified Patents in other Inter Partes Review proceedings include:

• Haynes and Boone, LLP (Attorneys such as Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Michael McCarty, and Matt Beck have represented Unified Patents in IPRs).
• Baker Botts, L.L.P. (Brian W. Oaks has been associated with Unified Patents in IPR-related responses).
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (This firm is listed as petitioner's counsel for other IPR2025 cases by Unified Patents members).

Without direct access to the specific petition or a detailed docket for IPR2025-01031, it is not possible to confirm which of these individuals or firms served as counsel of record for this particular case.The counsel of record representing Unified Patents in IPR2025-01031 could not be definitively identified through the accessible public search results. The specific petition or a detailed docket entry for this IPR, which would name the filing attorneys, was not directly available.

However, based on general information regarding Unified Patents' Inter Partes Review (IPR) activities and other IPR filings, Unified Patents typically utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and various external law firms.

Known in-house counsel who frequently represent Unified Patents in PTAB proceedings include:

• Roshan Mansinghani (Legal Head-NPE, Unified Patents).
• Jonathan Stroud (Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents).
• Michelle Aspen (Counsel, Unified Patents).
• Ellyar Barazesh (Counsel, Unified Patents).

Law firms that have frequently represented Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings or related matters include:

• Haynes and Boone, LLP: Attorneys such as Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Michael McCarty, and Matt Beck (who is now with Unified Patents) have represented Unified Patents in IPRs.
• Baker Botts, L.L.P.: Brian W. Oaks has been associated with Unified Patents in IPR-related responses.
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP: This firm is listed as petitioner's counsel for other IPR2025 cases by entities associated with Unified Patents.

Without direct access to the specific petition or a detailed docket for IPR2025-01031, it is not possible to confirm which of these individuals or firms served as counsel of record for this particular case.

Based on available records, the counsel of record representing defendant Brainguard Technologies Inc. (the Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01031 are from Folio Law Group PLLC. Although the case caption in the prompt names Unified Patents as the plaintiff, PTAB records for IPR2025-01031 and related IPRs (IPR2025-01029, IPR2025-01030, IPR2025-01032) consistently identify Revelyst Sales LLC as the Petitioner against Brainguard Technologies Inc..

The attorneys representing Brainguard Technologies Inc. are:

• David D. Schumann

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA (also has an Austin, TX office)
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Schumann has eighteen years of experience in intellectual property litigation, counseling, and patent post-grant procedures and prosecution. He has represented high-technology companies of all sizes, with trial experience including jury verdicts in excess of $100 million. He has also led over two dozen Inter Partes Reviews, numerous Inter Partes and Ex Parte Reexaminations, and practices before the PTAB. Prior to founding Folio Law Group, he was a partner at Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang and in the Patent Litigation Group at Fenwick & West.

• Timothy Dewberry

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA (also has an Austin, TX office)
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Dewberry has over a decade of experience representing clients as both plaintiff and defendant in patent disputes across various forums, including U.S. District Courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. His technical expertise spans diverse fields such as wireless telecommunications standards, computer processing, networking, graphics processing, and medical devices. He is noted for his "relentless" pursuit of client objectives and for mastering the factual and legal record of cases.