Unified Patents v. Distefano Website Innovations, LLC

Unified Patents has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01061, against Distefano Website Innovations, LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring "patent trolls" (Non-Practicing Entities or NPEs) and improving patent quality by challenging questionable patents through various strategies, including filing IPRs. They operate across defined technology sectors, or "Zones," and seek to make it more risky and expensive for NPEs to assert invalid patents. While Unified Patents acts independently of its members, its challenges are often initiated to benefit its members who are targeted by NPE assertions. Distefano Website Innovations, LLC appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), as indicated by Unified Patents' description of the '316 patent owner and its history of asserting patents in litigation. Florida business records show Distefano Website Innovations, LLC as an active Florida Limited Liability Company with a principal address in Miami, FL.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316, generally relates to creating and posting web pages to the internet, and more specifically, to a method for more easily developing web pages through the use of a graphical user interface. This patent has been asserted against major technology companies like ByteDance (including TikTok), indicating that the alleged infringing products or services are likely related to online content creation, management, or social media platforms that involve user-generated web content or interfaces. The IPR is currently pending and has been instituted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The panel of judges for this IPR includes Daniel J. Galligan and James A. Tartal. The PTAB provides an administrative forum for challenging the validity of patents, offering an alternative to district court litigation, which is a key part of Unified Patents' strategy to combat NPE assertions.

This case is notable due to its direct linkage to ongoing patent infringement litigation against prominent technology companies. Distefano Website Innovations, LLC has notably filed patent infringement lawsuits against ByteDance Ltd., TikTok Inc., and other ByteDance entities in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas, and subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California, asserting the '316 patent among others. The IPR by Unified Patents represents a defensive effort to invalidate the patent, thereby undermining the basis for these infringement claims. Unified Patents even ran a crowdsourcing contest, offering a reward for prior art submissions against the '316 patent, highlighting their aggressive strategy in challenging this particular patent. The outcome of this IPR could have significant implications for Distefano Website Innovations, LLC's ongoing and future enforcement efforts against companies utilizing web page creation and user interface technologies.Unified Patents has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR), IPR2025-01061, against Distefano Website Innovations, LLC, targeting U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316. Unified Patents operates as a member-based organization focused on mitigating risks from Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as "patent trolls," by challenging the validity of patents through IPRs and other means. This strategy aims to deter frivolous patent litigation and improve overall patent quality within specific technology sectors. Distefano Website Innovations, LLC, conversely, functions as an NPE, which means it primarily acquires and asserts patents rather than manufacturing products or providing services. Business records indicate Distefano Website Innovations, LLC is an active Florida LLC.

The patent at the center of this dispute, U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316, describes a method for creating and publishing web pages to the internet, with a particular focus on facilitating webpage development through a graphical user interface. This patent has been asserted in underlying patent infringement lawsuits against major technology companies, including ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok Inc., suggesting that the alleged infringing technologies are related to online platforms involving user-generated content, web page creation, or sophisticated user interface elements.

The procedural posture of this case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where the IPR has been instituted and is currently pending. The panel assigned to oversee this review includes PTAB Judges Daniel J. Galligan and James A. Tartal. The PTAB provides an administrative forum for challenging patent validity, offering a streamlined and often less costly alternative to district court litigation, which is central to Unified Patents' approach to counteracting NPE assertions. This case is particularly notable because it exemplifies Unified Patents' proactive strategy to invalidate patents asserted by NPEs against operating companies, directly linking the IPR to ongoing patent infringement lawsuits. Unified Patents even conducted a public crowdsourcing campaign, offering a monetary reward for prior art submissions against the '316 patent, underscoring its commitment to challenging this specific intellectual property. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact Distefano Website Innovations, LLC's ability to enforce the '316 patent and its ongoing litigation efforts against technology giants.

Patent Infringement Litigation and Parallel IPR Proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316

This analysis outlines the key legal developments concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316, owned by Distefano Website Innovations, LLC, which has been asserted in district court litigation and challenged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding.

District Court Litigation Timeline:

• July 8, 2024: Complaint Filed (W.D. Tex.)
  Distefano Website Innovations, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against ByteDance Ltd., ByteDance Inc., TikTok, Inc., TikTok Ltd., Heliophilia Pte. Ltd., and ByteDance Pte. Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case No. 1:24-cv-00763. The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316, along with several other patents.
• October 29, 2024: Case Transferred to E.D. Tex.
  The case, DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC v. ByteDance Ltd. et al., was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:24-cv-00874.
• August 25, 2025: Infringement Contentions Due
  In the district court litigation, infringement contentions were due by this date.
• October 20, 2025: Invalidity and Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions Due
  Invalidity contentions and subject-matter eligibility contentions were due by this date in the district court case.
• December 10, 2025: Case Transferred to N.D. Cal.
  The litigation was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was docketed as Case No. 3:25-cv-10578 or 5:25-cv-10578. The transfer originated from an earlier transfer from the Eastern District of Texas, Case Number 2:24-cv-00874. The case continues to be pending in the Northern District of California.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• July 19, 2024: Unified Patents Announces Prior Art Contest
  Unified Patents launched a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest offering a $2,000 cash prize for prior art submissions related to at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,763,316. The patent generally relates to creating and posting web pages to the internet, specifically a method for easily developing web pages using a graphical user interface, and had been asserted against ByteDance. The contest was set to expire on September 19, 2024.
• November 2, 2024: Prior Art Contest Winner Announced
  Unified Patents announced Calvin Zhong as the winner of the PATROLL crowdsourcing contest, awarding him $1,000 for his prior art submissions on U.S. Patent 11,763,316.
• Petition Filing (Prior to September 17, 2025)
  TikTok, Inc. (an entity related to ByteDance, a defendant in the district court case) filed an Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-01061, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,763,316.
• September 17, 2025: Patent Owner's Brief in Support of Discretionary Denial
  Distefano Website Innovations, LLC, the patent owner, filed a brief opposing the institution of IPR2025-01061. The brief argued against discretionary denial, noting that substantial work in the district court, including the exchange of infringement and invalidity contentions, would have already occurred by this date.
• Institution (Status: Instituted)
  The Inter Partes Review proceeding, IPR2025-01061, has been instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and is currently pending. The exact institution date is not explicitly provided in the available search results, but it occurred sometime after the petition filing and prior to the current date of May 18, 2026. The September 17, 2025, filing suggests institution was either imminent or had just taken place.

The district court litigation is active in the Northern District of California, and the parallel IPR proceeding against patent 11763316 has been instituted at the PTAB. It is common for district court cases to be stayed pending the outcome of an instituted IPR, although a specific order to that effect was not found in the provided search results.

While specific docket filings for IPR2025-01061 listing counsel for Unified Patents were not directly accessible through general web searches, Unified Patents frequently utilizes its in-house legal team for Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, including Inter Partes Reviews. Based on their publicly available team information and mentions in numerous reports and articles regarding PTAB challenges, the following in-house attorneys at Unified Patents are regularly involved in such proceedings and are therefore likely to be among the counsel of record, or supervising counsel, for IPR2025-01061.

In-House Counsel for Unified Patents (likely involved in PTAB proceedings):

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief Operating Officer (COO) & Chief Legal Officer (CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated, though physical office locations are not always specified for each attorney)
  • Relevant Experience: Oversees legal and corporate operations, with emphasis on PTAB proceedings, district court, and appellate litigation; previously a patent attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner LLP, handling early post-grant review matters.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Head of Operations / Assistant General Counsel / Legal Head-NPE
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Oversees Unified's legal department and develops core legal strategies for deterrence, with participation in scores of post-grant proceedings before the USPTO across various technologies; previously practiced intellectual property litigation at Baker Botts L.L.P.

• Kelly Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Handles PTAB filings, including inter partes reviews and ex parte reexaminations; previously a litigator with Erise IP focusing on patent litigation in software and electronics.

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB; experienced intellectual property litigator representing clients before the PTAB, ITC, district courts, and Federal Circuit in various industries.

• Jennifer Bisk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Previously served for 13 years as an Administrative Patent Judge, presiding over various PTAB proceedings, including many of the first AIA trials.

• T.J. Murphy

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Experienced in patent law as a former patent examiner at the USPTO and in patent prosecution and International Trade Commission cases.

• David Seastrunk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB; previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, litigating post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC investigations.

• Andrea Shoffstall

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Panelist on webinars discussing post-grant review trials and strategies for navigating post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.

• Jason Wejnert

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Provides legal guidance on a broad range of intellectual property matters, focusing on patent litigation, ex parte, and inter partes reexamination and review proceedings; previously an engineer for technology companies like Intel and Motorola.

• Kyla Butler

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington D.C. area office indicated)
  • Relevant Experience: Identified as Senior Patent Counsel within Unified Patents' team, contributing to their legal efforts.

Given that Unified Patents often names itself as the sole real party in interest in its IPR petitions, these in-house counsel directly handle or oversee the proceedings. Without direct access to the specific docket for IPR2025-01061, it's not possible to definitively identify which specific attorney filed the appearance for this particular case, but the individuals listed above are highly active in Unified Patents' PTAB practice.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2025-01061, Distefano Website Innovations, LLC is represented by counsel from AddyHart LLC. The attorneys identified as representing Distefano Website Innovations, LLC in related patent infringement lawsuits, and therefore likely involved in the IPR, include:

• Meredith Martin Addy (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: AddyHart LLC
  • Office Location: Likely Washington, D.C. or a related office.
  • Experience: Meredith Martin Addy has appeared on behalf of Distefano Website Innovations, LLC in related district court litigation. She is a prominent patent litigator and a founding partner of AddyHart LLC.
• Robert Patrick Hart (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: AddyHart LLC
  • Office Location: Likely Washington, D.C. or a related office.
  • Experience: Robert Patrick Hart has also filed appearances for Distefano Website Innovations, LLC in the underlying district court cases. He is a founding partner of AddyHart LLC and has significant experience in patent litigation.
• Paul Nathan Tauger (Counsel)
  • Firm: AddyHart PC (likely AddyHart LLC)
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but presumably within the firm's locations.
  • Experience: Paul Nathan Tauger is listed as counsel for Distefano Website Innovations, LLC in related cases.

These attorneys have been involved in the related patent infringement lawsuits filed by Distefano Website Innovations, LLC against ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok Inc. in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, and subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California, where the '316 patent is being asserted. While specific roles like "lead counsel" or "of counsel" are not always explicitly defined in IPR filings, their consistent appearances in the related district court cases indicate their primary roles in representing Distefano Website Innovations, LLC.