Unified Patents v. Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co KG

Unified Patents initiated a Post Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2026-00011, against Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co KG before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents is a member-based organization that aims to deter "patent trolls" (Non-Practicing Entities or NPEs) and improve patent quality by challenging weak patents across various technology sectors, often through administrative patent reviews like IPRs and PGRs. Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co KG is a German operating company and a global leader in thin film technology, specializing in decorative and functional coatings. Their products are used in diverse industries such as automotive, consumer electronics, and for brand and product protection, including security features for banknotes and other documents.

The patent at issue in this PGR is US Patent 12220935. A specific, one-line technical sketch for this exact patent number is not readily available through public search. However, based on Leonhard Kurz's known innovations and patent portfolio, the patent likely pertains to their core business areas, which include methods and devices for applying decorative and functional coatings, security elements for anti-counterfeiting, or related manufacturing processes in thin film technology.

The procedural posture of this case is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), identified by case number PGR2026-00011. The case status indicates that the petition was "Not Instituted" on the merits. This means the PTAB, after reviewing Unified Patents' petition, determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate that it was "more likely than not" that at least one of the challenged claims of patent 12220935 was unpatentable, which is the legal standard for institution in a PGR. The PTAB venue is significant because PGRs allow a broader range of invalidity challenges, including under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, within nine months of a patent's issuance, offering a potentially faster and more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging newly granted patents. This case is notable due to Unified Patents' consistent strategy of challenging patents they deem of low quality or those asserted by NPEs. The "Not Instituted - Merits" decision represents a win for Leonhard Kurz, as their patent survived the initial challenge at the PTAB. This outcome also reflects the ongoing scrutiny and recent policy shifts by the USPTO Director regarding discretionary institution of AIA reviews.

This case, PGR2026-00011, involves a Post Grant Review (PGR) petition filed by Unified Patents against Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co KG, challenging patent 12220935 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The proceeding concluded with the PTAB denying institution of the review.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing of PGR Petition: Unified Patents filed its petition for Post Grant Review (PGR) of U.S. Patent No. 12,220,935 on November 12, 2025.
• Non-Institution Decision: On March 23, 2026, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a "Notice of Decisions on Institution" for PGR2026-00011. The notice stated that institution of the post-grant review was denied "after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations." The notice also indicated that an "Opinion [was] forthcoming" to provide the detailed reasoning for this decision.
• Outcome: The PGR petition was not instituted, concluding the proceeding at the PTAB. The decision to deny institution was based on discretionary and non-merits grounds, rather than a full review of the patentability arguments on the merits as initially implied by the prompt's "Not Instituted - Merits" status. The specific detailed reasoning for this discretionary denial has not yet been publicly released in a full opinion.

Context of PTAB Discretionary Denials:
The denial of institution on discretionary and non-merits grounds for PGR2026-00011 aligns with a broader trend at the PTAB. In the period leading up to and during 2026, the USPTO Director, John Squires, has issued memoranda establishing new discretionary factors for the institution of IPR and PGR proceedings. These factors include considering the extent of domestic manufacturing presence for accused products, the patent owner's competing products, and the petitioner's status as a small business. Institution rates for IPRs and PGRs have seen a significant decline, with a notable increase in denials based on discretionary considerations. While the specific reasons for the denial in Unified Patents v. Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co KG are not yet public, it occurred within this environment of heightened scrutiny regarding discretionary denials.

Inapplicability of District Court Litigation Milestones:
As PGR2026-00011 is a Post Grant Review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, typical patent infringement litigation milestones such as the filing of a complaint or answer, pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, summary judgment), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery, trial events, or appeals to the Federal Circuit regarding infringement findings are not applicable. The case began and concluded at the PTAB with the denial of institution. No parallel district court patent infringement litigation involving patent 12220935 was identified as directly tied to this specific PGR proceeding in the available search results.

The plaintiff, Unified Patents, typically utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for its Post Grant Review (PGR) filings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific counsel for PGR2026-00011 is not directly identified in public records provided, based on Unified Patents' known practices and recent activity, the following in-house attorneys are likely to be involved in PTAB matters, including this PGR:

Unified Patents (In-house Counsel):

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief Operating Officer & Chief Legal Officer (COO & CLO).
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C. area likely for legal leadership).
  • Experience Note: As COO & CLO, he oversees Unified Patents' legal strategies, including its PTAB challenges. He has commented on USPTO proposals related to discretionary denials and PTAB procedures.

• Jessica L.A. Marks

  • Role: SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel, Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (likely Washington, D.C. area).
  • Experience Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified Patents, she practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner, LLP for over ten years, litigating post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings, covering electrical, business method, and biological technologies. She has been identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings in early 2026.

• Vinu Raj

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (likely Washington, D.C. area).
  • Experience Note: Has represented Unified Patents as in-house counsel in ex parte reexamination proceedings in March 2026. He has also authored articles on PTAB decisions.

• Kelly R. Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (likely Washington, D.C. area).
  • Experience Note: Has appeared as both in-house counsel for Unified Patents and as counsel for Erise IP, P.A. in past IPR filings.

• Roshan Mansinghani

  • Role: Head of Operations (also a registered patent attorney).
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (likely Washington, D.C. area).
  • Experience Note: Has been listed as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.

• Jordan M. Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (likely Washington, D.C. area).
  • Experience Note: Has been listed as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.

It is common for Unified Patents to also engage outside counsel for their PTAB petitions. Firms frequently representing petitioners in PTAB cases, and that have worked with Unified Patents, include Erise IP, P.A., Finnegan, Henderson Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, and Haynes & Boone LLP. However, without direct access to the specific docket for PGR2026-00011, it is not possible to definitively name outside counsel for this particular "Not Instituted - Merits" case.

Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co KG, the defendant in PGR2026-00011, is likely represented by Hoffmann & Baron, LLP. The firm announced on January 29, 2026, that it "Prevails Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Behalf of LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG," which aligns with the "Not Instituted - Merits" status of PGR2026-00011. While the specific attorneys for PGR2026-00011 are not explicitly identified in public records or firm announcements, Hoffmann & Baron, LLP has a dedicated practice for Post-Grant Proceedings before the PTAB.

Hoffmann & Baron, LLP has offices in New York, New Jersey, and Washington D.C. The firm specializes in intellectual property law, including patent prosecution, counseling, licensing, and litigation across various scientific and engineering fields. Their litigation team handles matters in federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the USPTO, including Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post Grant Reviews (PGRs), and other post-grant proceedings.

Given the "Not Instituted - Merits" status of the PGR, detailed counsel appearances may not be as readily available as in instituted cases. However, based on the firm's announcement and established practice, Hoffmann & Baron, LLP is the most probable representative for Leonhard Kurz Stiftung and Co KG in this PTAB matter. Specific attorney names involved in this precise PGR proceeding are not publicly identified.