Unified Patents v. JLI National Settlement Trust

This case, Unified Patents v. JLI National Settlement Trust, IPR2026-00161, involves an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Unified Patents against JLI National Settlement Trust concerning the validity of US Patent 12156533. Unified Patents is a member-based organization focused on deterring assertions of low-quality patents by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) by filing IPRs, operating independently of its members. JLI National Settlement Trust is a Delaware statutory trust established as part of a comprehensive settlement program for litigation against Juul Labs, Inc. (JLI), related to economic loss, personal injury, and government entity claims concerning JUUL products. While the Trust itself is not an operating company, it acts as a patent owner in this IPR and is directly linked to Juul Labs, Inc., a prominent operating company in the e-cigarette and vaping industry.

The patent at issue, US Patent 12156533, is titled "Nicotine salt formulations for aerosol devices and methods thereof" and broadly describes a nicotine salt liquid formulation for generating an inhalable aerosol in an electronic cigarette, typically comprising 0.5% to 20% nicotine. In an IPR proceeding, there is no "accused product" in the traditional sense; rather, Unified Patents challenged the patent's validity based on prior art. Given JLI National Settlement Trust's connection to Juul Labs, the underlying technology relates to e-cigarette and vaping products, a sector marked by significant patent litigation.

The case is procedurally situated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTAB provides a specialized, often faster and less expensive, forum for challenging patent validity compared to district court litigation. This particular IPR is notable because it was "Not Instituted - Procedural," indicating that the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny the petition without reaching the merits of the patentability challenge. This outcome is significant in the current patent landscape, where PTAB institution rates, particularly against NPEs, have seen a substantial decline, with a surge in discretionary denials, potentially influenced by the presence of parallel litigation and factors articulated in cases like Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. The e-cigarette industry, with companies like Juul Labs, has been involved in extensive litigation, including patent infringement suits and disputes with competitors like Altria and NJOY, making the PTAB's decision in this context particularly relevant to ongoing legal strategies in the sector.

I'll research the actual docket and procedural history. Note upfront: this is a PTAB IPR, not a district court litigation, so I'll map the "litigation milestones" onto the IPR's procedural lifecycle and any parallel district court/PTAB matters.

Initial results reveal a significant discrepancy with the case metadata. Let me dig deeper.

Now I have a clear picture — and a major discrepancy to flag. Let me verify the docket details and the parallel ITC/district court proceedings.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — IPR2026-00161

⚠️ Threshold correction: the case metadata does not match the public record

Before the chronology, a material discrepancy must be flagged, because it changes the entire cast of the case:

The petition caption in the PTAB record reads: "NJOY, LLC and NJOY HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. JUUL LABS, INC., Patent Owner, Case No. IPR2026-00161, U.S. Patent No. 12,156,533," attorney docket 58718-0002IP1. I performed targeted searches and found no evidence of any Unified Patents involvement in IPR2026-00161, and no separate Unified Patents IPR against the '533 patent.

The most likely source of the error: throughout the ITC and district court papers, "JLI" is used as shorthand for Juul Labs, Inc. (e.g., "JLI Complaint," "JLI Br.," "JLI Proposed Construction"). It appears that "JLI" was mis-expanded to "JLI National Settlement Trust" in the case metadata. Note also that the '533 patent's face assignee is Juul Labs, Inc. (App. No. 17/171,976, issued 2024-12-03), not the settlement trust. I could not verify any assignment of the '533 patent to the JLI National Settlement Trust — treat that as unsupported.

Per your operating rules I have kept the metadata's case number and patent number, but the substantive chronology below follows the public record. If the underlying task actually concerns a Unified Patents filing, it is a different proceeding from the one docketed at IPR2026-00161.

---

Chronological developments

Pre-filing: the asset and the parties

• 2013-05-06 — Priority date for the '533 patent family (Juul Labs; inventors Adam Bowen and Chenyue Xing).
• 2023-06-01 — Altria Group acquires NJOY, LLC — the corporate fact that makes the parties' later litigation posture adversary-on-both-sides (Altria owned ~35% of Juul until 2023, and Juul's '533 patent was developed with knowledge later attributed to Altria's investment).
• 2024-12-03 — U.S. Patent No. 12,156,533 ("Nicotine salt formulations for aerosol devices and methods thereof") issues. Claim 1 recites an electronic cigarette comprising a cartridge with a nicotine salt liquid formulation (nicotine salt of benzoic or lactic acid, 0.5–20% w/w nicotine, glycerol + propylene glycol carrier, generating an inhalable aerosol upon heating).
• 2025-11-20 — EPO Board of Appeal decision T 1341/23 (Nicotine salt formulations/JUUL LABS) on the related EP 3,073,846, upholding (on auxiliary request 24) a narrow benzoic-acid/3:7 PG:VG formulation as inventive over D10, D13 and D14. Relevant as the only European merits adjudication in the family — and a contrast to the U.S. outcome.

Filing phase (the "complaint" equivalents)

• 2025-08-08 — Juul Labs files a two-front enforcement campaign on the '533 patent:
  1. **D. Ariz., Juul Labs, Inc. v. NJOY LLC et al., No. 2:25-cv-02853-JJT** (Judge John J. Tuchi). Complaint asserts claims 1–8 and 10 against the NJOY Daily cigalike line (Rich Tobacco, Extra Rich Tobacco, Menthol, Extra Menthol). Defendants: NJOY, LLC; NJOY Holdings, Inc.; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Group Distribution Co.; Altria Client Services LLC. Venue predicated on NJOY's Arizona headquarters.
  2. ITC complaint requesting a § 337 investigation on the same patent and same respondents.
• 2025-09-12 — Commission institutes Inv. No. 337-TA-1460, Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof (II), 90 Fed. Reg. 44238.
• October 2025 — Defendants' Answer in D. Ariz. (Doc. 16), denying infringement and asserting invalidity (anticipation/obviousness over Sebastian, Lechuga-Ball

Unified Patents typically uses a team of in-house counsel for its IPR petitions. Key attorneys at Unified Patents involved in PTAB proceedings include:

• Jonathan Stroud - Chief Legal Officer (CLO) and General Counsel. Stroud oversees corporate and legal operations at Unified Patents, including patent reviews and appeals. He previously worked as a patent litigator at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP and as a patent examiner at the USPTO. He also teaches post-grant patent office proceedings as an Adjunct Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law.
• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel. Rossen prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. His prior experience includes eleven years in intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings in Washington, D.C., representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and Federal Circuit.
• David Seastrunk - Senior Patent Counsel. Seastrunk focuses on preparing and litigating post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Before joining Unified Patents, he practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he was involved in post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and International Trade Commission investigations.
• Michelle Callaghan - Senior Patent Counsel. Callaghan prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Her previous experience includes defending clients against patent demands in district courts and challenging patents before the PTAB at Erise IP.
• Kelly Hughes - Senior Patent Counsel. Hughes supports Unified's PTAB practice and appellate practice. She was formerly a patent attorney at Erise IP, focusing on patent litigations and PTAB practice.
• Jung Hahm - Senior Patent Counsel. Hahm focuses on PTAB patent review proceedings for Unified Patents. He previously practiced at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP for over 16 years, concentrating on PTAB trial practice, patent litigation, and patent prosecution.
• Alyssa Holtslander - Trademark Managing Counsel (formerly Senior Patent Counsel). Holtslander's previous experience at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, involved post-grant proceedings, ITC proceedings, and district court litigations.
• Jessica L.A. Marks - SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel (formerly Senior Patent Counsel). Marks also practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where she litigated post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC proceedings.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Head of Operations (also listed as Legal Head - NPE). Mansinghani has been identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in past IPR proceedings and settlements.

The provided information for IPR2026-00161, Unified Patents v. JLI National Settlement Trust, which was "Not Instituted - Procedural," does not explicitly name the counsel of record for JLI National Settlement Trust in this specific IPR proceeding. IPR filings typically list the petitioner's counsel, and the available search results focus heavily on Unified Patents' legal team and general litigation involving Juul Labs, Inc. and the JLI National Settlement Trust, rather than the specific counsel for the Trust in this IPR.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing JLI National Settlement Trust in IPR2026-00161 cannot be definitively identified from the provided information. If filings are sealed or counsel has not yet appeared, this information would not be publicly available through general searches.

However, based on general information about JLI National Settlement Trust's involvement in other significant litigation (primarily class action and antitrust lawsuits related to Juul products), some firms and attorneys have been identified as representing Juul Labs, Inc., which is closely linked to the Trust. It is important to note that these may not be the same attorneys or firms representing the JLI National Settlement Trust in the IPR.

Attorneys and Firms in Related Juul Labs, Inc. Litigation (Not Confirmed for IPR2026-00161):

• King & Spalding LLP: Ashley C. Parrish, Ross E. Elfand, and Benjamin T. Lee of King & Spalding LLP served as outside counsel for Juul Labs, Inc. in the Juul Labs, Inc. Antitrust Litigation. This firm has experience representing JLI in significant legal matters.
• In the broader In re JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, which led to the creation of the JLI National Settlement Trust, numerous law firms were involved as "Class Counsel" for plaintiffs and defense counsel for JLI. While specific defense counsel for JLI in that massive multidistrict litigation are not explicitly listed in the same detail as the plaintiff's class counsel, firms like King & Spalding have been publicly associated with defending Juul.

Without specific docket entries or a power of attorney filed in IPR2026-00161 for JLI National Settlement Trust, a definitive list of their counsel for this particular PTAB proceeding cannot be provided.