Unified Patents v. Eight Khz LLC

This case, Unified Patents v. Eight Khz LLC, IPR2023-01003, centers on an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of US Patent 9226090. The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring non-practicing entities (NPEs), often referred to as "patent trolls," and improving patent quality by challenging questionable patents, primarily through IPRs. The patent owner, Eight Khz LLC, operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE) that has previously initiated patent infringement lawsuits against operating companies, notably against Meta Platforms, Inc., concerning similar patent portfolios.

The sole patent at issue, US Patent 9226090, is titled "Sound Localization for an Electronic Call." It generally describes systems and methods for delivering binaural sound, particularly for electronic calls, through electronic earphones. While there isn't a specific "accused product" in an IPR, the underlying technology typically implicated in Eight Khz LLC's past infringement assertions relates to binaural sound delivery via electronic earphones.

The procedural posture of this case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on January 7, 2025, finding the challenged claims of US Patent 9226090 to be "Unpatentable." This venue, the PTAB, is critical because IPRs offer a streamlined and often more cost-effective avenue than district court litigation to challenge the validity of asserted patents. The case's status is currently "Final Written Decision - Appealed," with appeals (25-1528 and 25-1579) having been filed at the Federal Circuit. This appeal indicates Eight Khz LLC's effort to overturn the PTAB's adverse validity ruling.

This case is notable as a clear example of Unified Patents' strategy to combat NPE patent assertions. By targeting Eight Khz LLC, an entity known for litigating patents in the technology space of binaural sound and electronic earphones, Unified Patents aims to reduce the risk of infringement lawsuits for its members and the broader industry. The PTAB's finding that the patent claims are unpatentable represents a significant victory for patent challengers and underscores the PTAB's role in addressing patent quality, particularly in cases involving NPEs.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, Unified Patents v. Eight Khz LLC, IPR2023-01003, concerns U.S. Patent 9,226,090. This IPR has concluded with a Final Written Decision and is currently on appeal. There is also parallel district court litigation involving the same patent.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

I. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2023-01003)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (IPR Petition): A petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2023-01003) challenging U.S. Patent 9,226,090, owned by Eight Khz LLC, was filed on June 9, 2023.
  • Note on Party Discrepancy: While the authoritative case metadata in the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the petitioner, public records for IPR2023-01003 consistently list Meta Platforms Inc. as the petitioner and Eight KHZ LLC as the patent owner. For the purpose of this report, the prompt's metadata for party names has been followed.
• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision to institute review of U.S. Patent 9,226,090 on January 9, 2024.
• Final Written Decision (FWD): The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision on January 7, 2025. The Board found the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 9,226,090 to be unpatentable.
• Claim Construction: No specific claim construction outcomes were detailed in the available search results for IPR2023-01003. IPR proceedings typically involve claim construction, often applying the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard during the IPR itself.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Two separate appeals were filed: Case No. 25-1528 by Meta Platforms Inc. on March 12, 2025, and Case No. 25-1579 by Eight KHZ LLC on March 24, 2025.

II. Parallel District Court Litigation

• Initial Pleadings: Prior to the IPR proceedings, Eight Khz LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:22-CV-00575, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This litigation involves U.S. Patent No. 9,226,090.
• Status and Effect of IPR: The district court case was ongoing during the IPR proceedings, with a trial in the Texas federal court scheduled for October 2025. The IPR outcome, finding the claims of U.S. Patent 9,226,090 unpatentable, would typically have a significant impact on the parallel district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay or dismissal of the infringement claims related to the invalidated patent. The district court case appears to remain pending.

Clarification of Petitioner in IPR2023-01003

The provided case information states the plaintiff as Unified Patents in IPR2023-01003. However, web searches indicate that IPR2023-01003, involving US Patent 9226090, is actually titled Meta Platforms Inc. v. Eight KHZ LLC, with Meta Platforms Inc. as the petitioner (plaintiff). This IPR resulted in a Final Written Decision finding the patent unpatentable.

Given this discrepancy, counsel for Meta Platforms Inc. in IPR2023-01003 is provided below. While no specific IPR matching "Unified Patents v. Eight Khz LLC" with patent 9226090 could be found, general information regarding Unified Patents' in-house counsel who frequently represent them in IPR proceedings is also included to address the prompt's original request.

---

Counsel for Meta Platforms Inc. (Petitioner in IPR2023-01003)

Meta Platforms Inc. is represented by attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP in IPR2023-01003. Latham & Watkins is a global law firm with a strong patent litigation practice, handling complex, high-stakes patent disputes across various industries, including technology. Their attorneys have experience in district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Specific attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP who are frequently involved in Meta's patent litigation and PTAB cases include:

• Tara D. Elliott (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP, likely from their Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: Her broad intellectual property practice includes successfully representing clients across various industries, with a focus on life sciences patent litigation, copyright disputes, and software patent court proceedings. She was part of Meta's team in a case where most claims of two patents were invalidated before the PTAB.
• Gabriel K. Bell (Counsel)
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: Specializes in patent litigation in the Federal Circuit and District Courts. He also represented Meta Platforms in the Wrinkl Inc. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al. case.
• Richard G. Frenkel (Counsel)
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP.
  • Experience: Also represented Meta Platforms Inc. in the Wrinkl Inc. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al. case.
• Tiffany Weston (Associate)
  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: A former patent examiner, she has practiced patent litigation in district courts and at the PTAB. She successfully argued for Meta Platforms in a summary judgment motion in the MasterObjects v. Meta Platforms case, leading to Meta's dismissal from the case.

Relevant In-House Counsel for Unified Patents (General Practice)

While Unified Patents was not the petitioner in IPR2023-01003 according to public records, they are a prominent organization that frequently files inter partes reviews as a petitioner against various patent owners. Unified Patents maintains a team of in-house counsel for these proceedings.

Notable in-house counsel at Unified Patents include:

• Jonathan Stroud (COO & CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc., Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: As Chief Operating Officer and Chief Legal Officer, he oversees a team of attorneys and manages a docket of administrative challenges and appeals. He has represented Unified Patents in IPR proceedings and appeals, including a Federal Circuit affirmance of an IPR victory against an Intellectual Ventures patent.
• Roshan Mansinghani (Head of Operations)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc., Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: Involved in various IPR proceedings and appeals for Unified Patents, including the appeal against Intellectual Ventures.
• Michelle Aspen (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Chevy Chase, MD office.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in their IPRs.
• David Seastrunk (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Chevy Chase, MD office.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in their IPRs.
• T.J. Murphy (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC.
  • Experience: Identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in various district court litigations and reexaminations.

Unified Patents regularly seeks experienced patent attorneys with PTAB and reexamination experience, demonstrating their focus on these types of proceedings.

Based on available information for IPR2023-01003, Eight Khz LLC was represented by counsel from Brown Rudnick LLP and Spencer Fane LLP.

The counsel of record for Eight Khz LLC includes:

Brown Rudnick LLP

• Homayoon Rafatijo (Attorney)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.
• Jayne Piana (Attorney)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.
• Patrick M. Dunn (Attorney)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.

Spencer Fane LLP

• Kyle L. Elliott (Attorney)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.
• Jayme Partridge (Attorney)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.
• Kevin S. Tuttle (Attorney)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.
• Erick S. Robinson (Attorney)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.
• Brian G. Strand (Attorney)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP. Office location needs further research.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not immediately available from the provided search results for this individual.

The search results did not explicitly define the specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, of counsel) for each attorney within this IPR, nor did they provide the specific office locations for Brown Rudnick LLP or Spencer Fane LLP attorneys for this particular case. Furthermore, detailed one-line notes on relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases for these specific attorneys were not found within the provided snippets.Here is the counsel of record representing Eight Khz LLC in IPR2023-01003, with available details on their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience:

Spencer Fane LLP (Represented Eight Khz LLC during at least part of the IPR proceedings, particularly before November 2024).

• Erick S. Robinson (Partner, Co-Chair of Intellectual Property Group)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP (Houston/Austin, TX office at the time of a significant portion of the IPR).
  • Note: An experienced trial lawyer, patent litigator, and IP strategist with a technical background in computer science, electronics, and biotechnology. He manages and tries "bet-the-business" patent cases and has broad experience in patent monetization, licensing, trade secret disputes, and Inter Partes Reviews before the PTAB. He previously served as Director of Patents for Qualcomm and Senior Patent Counsel at Red Hat.
• Jayme Partridge (Partner)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP (Houston, TX office at the time of a significant portion of the IPR).
  • Note: Combines a technical engineering background with trial advocacy skills, focusing on patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. She has experience in high-profile competitor-to-competitor disputes and previously worked as a licensed petroleum engineer and in-house litigation counsel for ExxonMobil.
• Brian G. Strand (Partner)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP (Houston, TX office).
  • Note: Has a proven track record in all aspects of complex patent litigation, with experience in software and hardware technologies such as semiconductor fabrication, networking architectures, operating systems, cybersecurity, and various wireless communication protocols. He previously worked in software architecture and development, embedded systems, avionics, and robotics.
• Kyle L. Elliott (Partner)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP (Kansas City, MO office).
  • Note: Helps clients obtain patent, trademark, and copyright protection, and enforces these rights against infringers while also defending against accusations of infringement. He has over two decades of intellectual property experience, focusing on electrical, computer, mechanical, and chemical technologies.
• Kevin S. Tuttle (Intellectual Property Attorney/Partner)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP (Kansas City, MO office).
  • Note: Counsels clients on the development, acquisition, enforcement, and defense of intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. He is regularly involved in domestic and international transaction and litigation matters and has represented clients in patent litigation in U.S. District Courts, the Federal Circuit, and before the PTAB.
• Patrick Dunn (Associate)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP (Austin, TX office, then transitioned to Brown Rudnick).
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience details for his time at Spencer Fane are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, but he was part of the IP litigation group.

Brown Rudnick LLP (Represented Eight Khz LLC; some attorneys listed here moved from Spencer Fane to Brown Rudnick in November 2024, towards the end of the IPR proceedings which concluded with a Final Written Decision on January 7, 2025).

• Erick S. Robinson (Partner, Co-Chair of Intellectual Property Group)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP (Houston, TX office from November 2024).
  • Note: As noted above, he is an experienced trial lawyer, patent litigator, and IP strategist with a technical background in computer science, electronics, and biotechnology, with broad experience in PTAB proceedings.
• Jayme Partridge (Partner)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP (Houston, TX office from November 2024).
  • Note: As noted above, she focuses on patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation and has a technical engineering background.
• Jayne Piana (Partner)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP (Houston, TX office from November 14, 2024).
  • Note: Specializes in a range of IP and trial-related matters, notably in the patent space. She previously worked as a petroleum engineer and spent a decade in-house at BP America as senior counsel.
• Patrick M. Dunn (Counsel)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP (Houston, TX office from November 14, 2024, previously Austin office of Spencer Fane).
  • Note: Was part of the IP litigation group that moved to Brown Rudnick. While specific detailed experience for him from the provided snippets is limited, his involvement in this group indicates focus on patent litigation.
• Homayoon Rafatijo (Attorney)
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP. Office location is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this attorney but Brown Rudnick has offices in Boston, New York, and Houston that focus on IP.
  • Note: Specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases are not explicitly available from the provided search results for this individual.