Unified Patents v. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS

This case, IPR2026-00252, involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Unified Patents against InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,185,268. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as patent trolls, by proactively challenging patent validity through IPRs. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS is a subsidiary of InterDigital, Inc., a prominent research and licensing company specializing in foundational technologies for wireless, video, and artificial intelligence, which primarily generates revenue through licensing its extensive patent portfolio rather than selling products. InterDigital is known for its aggressive patent assertion and licensing strategies across various industries, including those involving standard-essential patents (SEPs).

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,185,268, is titled "Methods and Systems for Displays with Chromatic Correction with Differing Chromatic Ranges." It describes methods and systems for correcting color in picture content to ensure consistent visual results across display devices that have different color capabilities or "color gamuts." Specifically, the technology involves mastering source content for a wide-gamut display (a "non-reference type display") and generating associated metadata to enable a color gamut mapping, which transforms the content for accurate display on a standard-gamut display (a "reference type display"). As this is an IPR proceeding, there is no "accused product or service" in the traditional sense of an infringement lawsuit; instead, Unified Patents is challenging the patent's underlying validity.

This IPR is being conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a specialized administrative court within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTAB is a critical venue for challenging patent validity, offering a more streamlined and often faster process compared to district court litigation. The case is notable as it aligns with Unified Patents' core strategy of targeting NPEs like InterDigital, which actively engages in patent licensing and enforcement across global technology markets. InterDigital's portfolio, including patents related to video compression and display technologies, is highly relevant to the streaming and consumer electronics industries, making challenges to its patents impactful for a broad range of technology implementers. Unified Patents has previously challenged other InterDigital patents, particularly those related to video codecs.

Based on the provided case metadata and publicly available information, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00252, was filed by Unified Patents against InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, challenging the validity of US Patent 9185268. The case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

However, public records for IPR2026-00252 indicate that the petitioner is Dolby Laboratories, Inc., and the patent owner is InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, with a filing date of February 9, 2026. [cite: 4 (from previous turn)] Despite this, adhering to the operating rule to prefer the prompt's metadata for party names, court, case number, and patents at issue, this summary proceeds assuming Unified Patents is the petitioner.

As of the current date (2026-05-29), specific docket entries or further legal developments for IPR2026-00252 with Unified Patents as the petitioner challenging US Patent 9185268 are not readily available in public records. Therefore, a detailed chronological list of events such as pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery, trial events, or final disposition cannot be provided for this specific configuration of the case.

Unified Patents is known for filing IPRs to challenge patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) and has engaged in various challenges against InterDigital entities in other proceedings, including an ex parte reexamination against InterDigital VC Holdings concerning U.S. Patent 10,805,610, filed on July 16, 2025.

Given the "Pending" status of IPR2026-00252 as provided in the case metadata, the proceeding would typically follow these general stages at the PTAB, though specific dates and outcomes for this particular IPR are not yet public:

• Filing of Petition: The petitioner (Unified Patents, as per prompt) files a petition challenging the patent claims.
• Preliminary Response: The patent owner (InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS) may file a preliminary response.
• Institution Decision: The PTAB decides whether to institute the IPR. This decision is typically due within six months of the preliminary response or three months of the patent owner's waiver of the preliminary response. Recent policy changes, effective October 20, 2025, indicate that the USPTO Director now decides whether to institute IPR and post-grant review (PGR) trials. Additionally, a March 2026 memo from Director Squires introduced a new discretionary factor for denial, considering U.S. manufacturing activity of both the patent owner and the accused infringer/challenger.
• Discovery: Limited discovery would occur if the IPR is instituted.
• Patent Owner Response & Petitioner Reply: Both parties would file substantive briefs.
• Oral Hearing: An optional oral hearing may be held.
• Final Written Decision: The PTAB issues a final written decision on the patentability of the challenged claims, usually within 12 months of institution.
• Appeal: Either party may appeal the PTAB's final written decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Without further specific public docket information for IPR2026-00252 with Unified Patents as the petitioner for patent 9185268, a detailed timeline of events cannot be constructed beyond its initial filing and pending status.

Unified Patents utilizes both in-house counsel and external law firms for its IPR proceedings. While specific counsel for IPR2026-00252 are not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results, based on Unified Patents' past IPR filings and their organizational structure, the following provides an overview of their typical legal representation:

In-House Counsel (Unified Patents, LLC):

• Roshan Mansinghani (Head of Operations)

  • Role: Likely serves as in-house counsel, potentially overseeing IPR filings. In a past IPR, he was listed as backup counsel for Unified Patents.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Dallas, TX or Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience Note: Has experience as backup counsel in PTAB IPR proceedings.

• Jordan M. Rossen (Senior Patent Counsel)

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience Note: Previously practiced intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings for eleven years, representing clients before the PTAB, ITC, district courts, and Federal Circuit in various technology fields.

• Kelly Hughes (Senior Patent Counsel)

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, involved in drafting and litigating patent office proceedings.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC. She has also been listed with Erise IP, P.A. in past IPR filings.
  • Experience Note: Experience in post-grant petitions (IPR, PGR, and CBM), reexaminations, and other administrative drafting and litigation. She was in-house counsel for Unified Patents in a case involving an AiPi entity patent.

• Jessica L.A. Marks (SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel)

  • Role: Likely plays a role in IPRs, especially those concerning standard-essential patents.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC.
  • Experience Note: Represented Unified Patents as in-house counsel in reexamination proceedings against InterDigital VC Holdings and Atlas Global Technologies.

• Vinu Raj (Senior Patent Counsel)

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, likely involved in PTAB proceedings.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC.
  • Experience Note: Represented Unified Patents as in-house counsel in an ex parte reexamination proceeding against an Atlas Global patent.

External Counsel (Law Firms):

Unified Patents frequently partners with external law firms for IPRs. While a specific firm for IPR2026-00252 is not identified, Haynes and Boone, LLP is a firm they have utilized in the past.

• Haynes and Boone, LLP
  • Attorneys (examples from previous cases):
    • Jon Bowser: Represented Unified Patents in IPRs involving InterDigital VC Holdings and an AiPi entity patent.
    • Dagim Tilahun: Represented Unified Patents in an IPR involving InterDigital VC Holdings.
    • Angela Oliver: Represented Unified Patents in an IPR involving an AiPi entity patent.
    • Michael McCarty: Represented Unified Patents in an IPR involving an AiPi entity patent.
  • Firm Office Location: Not specified for these individuals, but Haynes and Boone has multiple offices.
  • Experience Note: Haynes and Boone attorneys have experience representing Unified Patents in PTAB post-grant proceedings, particularly concerning video codecs and patents asserted by NPEs.

It's important to note that Unified Patents is a "deterrence entity" and not a law firm, and it does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members. They employ a legal department that manages patent office proceedings internally, drafts and litigates proceedings, and supports senior attorneys and outside counsel.

The exact counsel of record for IPR2026-00252 would be specified in the Power of Attorney and other filings on the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (PTAS). Without direct access to the docket for this specific IPR, the information above represents the typical counsel structure and individuals involved in Unified Patents' IPR activities. Filings are not sealed in IPR proceedings, but specific attorney appearances are recorded on the docket.

Identifying the counsel of record for InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS in IPR2026-00252 is challenging without direct access to the PTAB docket for this specific case. However, based on general practice and information regarding InterDigital's legal representation in other patent matters, especially those involving IPRs and related litigation, Alston & Bird LLP frequently represents InterDigital and its subsidiaries.

While a direct listing for IPR2026-00252's counsel is not immediately available, PACERMonitor records show several attorneys from Alston & Bird representing InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS and other InterDigital entities in related district court litigation. These attorneys are likely candidates for representing InterDigital in PTAB proceedings as well.

Based on available information, potential counsel representing InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS could include:

• Philip Hawkyard (Attorney)

  • Firm: Alston & Bird (San Francisco, CA office)
  • Experience Note: Philip Hawkyard has appeared on behalf of InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS and other InterDigital entities in related cases.

• Jason Spotts (Attorney)

  • Firm: Alston & Bird
  • Experience Note: Jason Spotts has been approved for admission pro hac vice in cases involving InterDigital entities.

Other attorneys from Alston & Bird who have represented InterDigital entities in related litigation and may be involved include:

• Michelle A. Clark (Alston & Bird - San Francisco, CA)
• Stephen R. Lareau (Alston & Bird LLP)
• Lindsay Catherine Church (Alston & Bird, LLP - Atlanta, GA)
• Philip C. Ducker (Alston & Bird - San Francisco, CA)
• Andrew James Ligotti (Alston & Bird, LLP - New York, NY)
• Matthew Scott Stevens (Alston & Bird, LLP - Charlotte, NC)

It is also important to note that InterDigital has its own in-house patent department with over 30 US and EP patent attorneys, which plays a core role in supporting their licensing and litigation teams, including post-grant reviews. Julia C. Mattis, EVP, Chief Licensing Officer, has extensive experience in IP and has served in senior roles within InterDigital's legal and licensing teams.

As the PTAB docket for IPR2026-00252 is not publicly detailed in current search results, the definitive counsel of record can only be confirmed through direct access to the official PTAB docket for this specific case.