Unified Patents v. Corning Inc.

Unified Patents filed an inter partes review (IPR) against patent owner Corning Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,512,025. Unified Patents is a member-based organization that aims to deter unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, primarily by non-practicing entities (NPEs) and standard essential patent (SEP) holders, through activities like filing IPRs. Corning Inc. is a leading multinational technology company specializing in materials science, particularly known for its innovations in glass and ceramics, including products like damage-resistant cover glass (e.g., Gorilla Glass), optical fiber, and display technologies. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,512,025, is titled "Methods and apparatuses for reducing heat loss from edge directors" and generally describes an apparatus and associated methods for manufacturing a glass ribbon with reduced devitrification, specifically utilizing a forming wedge, an edge director, and a replaceable heating cartridge for heat management.

This case was heard before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB is a critical venue for challenging patent validity due to its specialized expertise, streamlined processes, and a lower burden of proof for invalidity compared to district court litigation. The procedural posture is particularly noteworthy as the IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the PTAB declined to even begin a review of the patent's validity on the merits, citing procedural grounds. This non-institution suggests the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny the petition rather than finding the merits insufficient.

The non-institution of IPR2025-01040 due to procedural reasons makes this case notable, especially within the context of the evolving landscape of PTAB discretionary denials. The PTAB, under recent leadership, has increasingly utilized discretionary factors, such as the Fintiv factors (concerning parallel district court litigation), "settled expectations" (the age of the patent), and real party in interest (RPI) issues, to deny institution of IPRs. While Unified Patents typically targets NPEs, challenging a patent owned by an operating company like Corning could be perceived differently by the PTAB when applying these discretionary factors. The specific procedural reason for denial in this instance would offer valuable insight into the application of current PTAB policies by Director Squires and the Board.

The provided case, Unified Patents v. Corning Inc., IPR2025-01040, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and not a district court patent infringement litigation. Therefore, many of the requested litigation milestones, such as filing of complaints, answers, counterclaims, Markman hearings, discovery, and trial events, do not directly apply to this PTAB proceeding.

This IPR was not instituted due to procedural reasons. While specific details for IPR2025-01040 are not directly available in general search results, PTAB cases with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status, particularly those involving Unified Patents, often relate to the petitioner's failure to properly identify all real parties in interest (RPIs). The PTAB has a precedential decision, Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440, which clarifies the RPI analysis and emphasizes the requirement to identify all RPIs for a petition to be considered. This decision was designated precedential by the USPTO Director in October 2025, underscoring the importance of RPI identification at the PTAB.

As of the current date (2026-05-17), no parallel district court patent infringement litigation specifically asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,512,025 has been identified in the available search results. While Corning Inc. has been involved in other patent litigation, such as Corning Inc. v. Wilson Wolf Manufacturing Corp. (which concluded in March 2025 and involved cell culture patents not including 9,512,025) and a recent Unified Patent Court case against TCL TVs concerning glass sheet manufacturing patents, these do not appear to involve U.S. Patent No. 9,512,025. Another patent infringement case, Jerry Dewayne Alexander, Sr. v. Corning Glass, Inc., was filed in September 2025, but the specific patent at issue is not identified as 9,512,025.

I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing Unified Patents in IPR2025-01040 based on the available web search results.

While Unified Patents is known to file inter partes reviews and works independently of its members, often engaging outside counsel for these proceedings, the detailed docket for IPR2025-01040, which was "Not Instituted - Procedural," is not readily accessible through general web searches to pinpoint the attorneys who appeared in this specific case.

General information about Unified Patents indicates that they employ in-house counsel for intellectual property matters. Some individuals associated with Unified Patents in various roles and past IPR proceedings include:

• Jonathan Stroud - Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Legal Head-NPE, Unified Patents.
• Michelle Aspen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.

Unified Patents has also used external law firms for IPRs in the past, such as Finnegan, Henderson Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP. However, without direct access to the filing documents or a specific counsel appearance list for IPR2025-01040, the precise counsel for this particular proceeding cannot be confirmed.

It appears there was a discrepancy in the initial case caption provided. The PTAB proceeding IPR2025-01040, originally captioned as "Unified Patents v. Corning Inc.", was actually filed by Caihong Display Devices, Co., Ltd against Corning Incorporated. The case status is "Discretionary Denial" as of October 2, 2025, due to procedural reasons.

For the respondent, Corning Inc., the counsel of record identified is:

• Name: Jason Eisenberg
• Role: Respondent Counsel
• Firm and office location: Further search is required to identify his firm and office location.
• Relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases: Further search is required to identify his experience.

Additional counsel for Corning Inc. are indicated by "et al." but are not specified in the search results.

The existing information on counsel for Corning Inc. is currently limited. To provide a comprehensive answer, further investigation is needed to identify Jason Eisenberg's firm and relevant experience, as well as any other named counsel.For Corning Inc. in IPR2025-01040, the identified counsel of record is:

• Name: Jason D. Eisenberg
• Role: Respondent Counsel, Director in the Electronics Practice Group, and Chair for the firm's Reexamination, Supplemental Examination, and Reissue Practice.
• Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
• Office location: Washington, D.C.
• One-line note on relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases: Mr. Eisenberg has nearly 30 years of patent experience, including substantial involvement in nearly 250 AIA proceedings (IPR, CBM, and PGR) at the PTAB, acting for patent owners in 200 of these cases, and has been involved in 20 Federal Circuit cases. He is also an editor and co-author of the firm's monthly "Reexamination, Reissue, and Supplemental Examination Strategies and Insights" newsletter and was previously co-editor and author of several chapters of the "Patent Office Litigation" treatise. He was ranked in the top 50 of "100 Best Performing Attorneys Overall" and "100 Best Performing Attorneys Representing Patent Owners" before the PTAB in the 2023 Patexia PTAB Intelligence Report.

While the PTAB docket indicated "Eisenberg, Jason et al." as respondent counsel, further specific names for additional counsel representing Corning Inc. in IPR2025-01040 were not readily identifiable through public web searches.