Unified Patents v. Competitive Access Systems

Unified Patents initiated a reexamination proceeding against Competitive Access Systems regarding US Patent 10,868,908. This action, filed with the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) of the USPTO, aims to challenge the validity of the patent, rather than directly accusing infringement.

Unified Patents is a member-based organization focused on deterring frivolous patent litigation and reducing the number of patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as "patent trolls." They achieve this by directly challenging the validity of NPE patents through administrative patent reviews like inter partes reviews (IPRs) and reexaminations. Competitive Access Systems has been identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and the owner of the '908 patent. The patent at issue, US Patent 10,868,908, generally relates to multilink communications between a client and server. Notably, this patent had previously been asserted against Oracle's Linux offering in district court litigation.

The procedural posture of this case involves an ex parte reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) of the USPTO. The CRU consists of specialized examiners who handle post-grant patent proceedings, including ex parte reexaminations, to reassess the patentability of claims based on prior art patents and printed publications. Unified Patents filed the reexamination request on October 4, 2023, and the CRU granted the request on January 2, 2024, finding "substantial new questions of patentability" on all challenged claims. The reexamination concluded on October 2, 2024, with a final rejection of all challenged claims, highlighting the effectiveness of reexamination as a tool for challenging patent validity and curbing assertions by NPEs. This case is notable as it exemplifies Unified Patents' strategy to proactively invalidate patents held by NPEs, particularly those previously asserted in infringement lawsuits, thereby aiming to improve patent quality and reduce the burden of patent litigation on operating companies.

The case "Unified Patents v. Competitive Access Systems" is an ex parte reexamination proceeding within the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) of the USPTO, concerning US Patent 10,868,908. This is an administrative proceeding, not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Therefore, many of the requested categories (such as filing of a complaint, answer, counterclaims, pre-trial motions, Markman, discovery, trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions) are not applicable to this type of proceeding.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments for the reexamination and related proceedings:

Reexamination Proceeding (US Patent 10,868,908)

• 2023-10-04: Reexamination Request Filed. Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 10,868,908, owned by Competitive Access Systems, an NPE. The patent relates to multilink communications between a client and server.
• 2024-01-02: Reexamination Instituted. Less than three months after Unified's filing, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified's request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims of US Patent 10,868,908.
• 2024-10-02: Final Rejection. The CRU issued a final rejection of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 10,868,908. This outcome occurred within one year of the reexamination filing.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding

• 2023-03-01: IPR Petition Filed. Unified Patents filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 10,868,908. This IPR petition was filed prior to the ex parte reexamination request. The patent was asserted against Oracle's Linux offering.

Related District Court Litigations

While the primary case described in the prompt is a reexamination, Competitive Access Systems, Inc. has asserted US Patent 10,868,908 in district court infringement litigations:

• 2025-08-15: Infringement Complaint (E.D. Texas). Competitive Access Systems, Inc. filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America (collectively, "Samsung"), alleging infringement of US Patent 10,868,908 and other patents. The complaint specifies that Samsung's infringing products include Galaxy Smartphones that implement 3GPP standards in conjunction with simultaneous 4G LTE and 5G connections.
• 2025-08-29: Infringement Complaint (N.D. Texas). Competitive Access Systems, Inc. filed an amended complaint with a jury demand against Motorola Mobility LLC in the Northern District of Texas, including US Patent 10,868,908 among the asserted patents. A scheduling order in this case sets the trial for the four-week docket beginning September 6, 2027.

In the reexamination proceeding of US Patent 10,868,908, Unified Patents was represented by several in-house counsel. These attorneys handled the reexamination request and subsequent proceedings that led to the final rejection of the challenged claims.

The counsel of record representing Unified Patents include:

• Michelle Aspen

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Note: Michelle Aspen has frequently represented Unified Patents in various ex parte reexamination proceedings, including the initial request and through to the final rejection in this case. She has also been listed as counsel in other Unified Patents reexaminations and IPRs.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Note: Roshan Mansinghani has served as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in numerous reexamination proceedings, including the one against Competitive Access Systems, and other patent challenges.

• Jessica L.A. Marks

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Note: Jessica L.A. Marks was involved as in-house counsel for Unified Patents during the phase leading to the final rejection of the '908 patent and is also noted for her involvement in other Unified Patents' reexamination challenges.

• Ellyar Barazesh

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Note: Ellyar Barazesh was listed as counsel for Unified Patents in related proceedings concerning U.S. Patent 10,868,908, such as an inter partes review (IPR) against Competitive Access Systems. Barazesh is also mentioned as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in other reexamination cases.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Competitive Access Systems patent reexamination 10868908 counsel", "Competitive Access Systems reexamination counsel", "Central Reexamination Unit reexamination process counsel", "USPTO ex parte reexamination counsel of record"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant, Competitive Access Systems, in the reexamination proceeding for US Patent 10,868,908. I need to find information about attorneys representing Competitive Access Systems in this specific USPTO reexamination.

My previous searches focused on the reexamination process and Unified Patents' role. Now I need to focus on Competitive Access Systems' representation.

I will use web search to look for:

• Docket entries or USPTO public PAIR information for the reexamination.
• News articles or firm announcements related to Competitive Access Systems and this patent or reexamination.
• Information on Competitive Access Systems' general patent litigation counsel, as they might also handle reexaminations.

Since this is an ex parte reexamination, the "defendant" (Competitive Access Systems, the patent owner) is typically represented by their patent attorneys who interact with the USPTO examiner. Unified Patents, as the requester, doesn't directly "litigate" against Competitive Access Systems in the same way as in district court. However, the patent owner still has counsel.

Let's refine the search queries to target counsel for Competitive Access Systems specifically within the reexamination context.Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination proceeding against Competitive Access Systems regarding US Patent 10,868,908. While Unified Patents was represented by in-house counsel Michelle Aspen, Jessica L.A. Marks, and Roshan Mansinghani in this proceeding, the available search results do not explicitly identify the specific counsel of record representing Competitive Access Systems, the patent owner, in this particular reexamination.

In ex parte reexaminations before the USPTO, the patent owner (Competitive Access Systems) interacts with the USPTO examiner. The third-party requester (Unified Patents) generally does not participate after the reexamination request is granted, except for a limited reply if the patent owner submits a statement. The representation for the patent owner in such a proceeding would typically be by their patent attorneys who engage with the USPTO.

Information regarding counsel for Competitive Access Systems in this specific reexamination proceeding would typically be found in the official filings and docket entries within the USPTO's Patent Center (formerly Public PAIR) for the reexamination case. As of the current date, direct web search results have not publicly disclosed the names of the attorneys representing Competitive Access Systems in the reexamination of US Patent 10,868,908. If the filings are not publicly accessible through general web searches, or if the patent owner chose to represent themselves or used in-house counsel whose names are not readily publicized for this specific administrative action, identifying specific counsel can be challenging without direct access to the USPTO's internal records or a detailed docket sheet for the reexamination.