Unified Patents v. Netskope, Inc.

Unified Patents, a member-based organization dedicated to deterring frivolous patent litigation and reducing assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) in specific technology zones, initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US7593936 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The patent owner, Netskope, Inc., is a significant operating company in the cloud security industry. Netskope provides Security Service Edge (SSE) solutions through its Netskope One platform, encompassing capabilities like Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB), Secure Web Gateway (SWG), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) to secure cloud environments and remote workforces. The challenged patent, US7593936, titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING DATA LEAKAGE TO REMOVABLE STORAGE DEVICES," generally relates to computer systems and methods for preventing the unauthorized transfer or "leakage" of data to removable storage devices.

The case, IPR2026-00027, is currently at the PTAB, but the petition was not instituted on procedural grounds. While the stated reason notes the patent's expiration on March 4, 2026, this procedural outcome is particularly notable because the Federal Circuit has consistently affirmed that the PTAB retains jurisdiction to conduct IPRs over expired patents. This suggests there might be a specific, as-yet undisclosed, procedural nuance that led to the non-institution, or a divergence from established precedent regarding expired patents. The PTAB, as an administrative court within the USPTO, plays a crucial role in challenging patent validity and is often utilized by Unified Patents to deter assertions, primarily those from NPEs.

This IPR is notable for several reasons. Firstly, Unified Patents primarily targets patents owned by NPEs to reduce what it considers speculative assertions. Its decision to challenge a patent owned by Netskope, a well-established operating company, deviates from its typical focus, suggesting a potential broader strategy or specific concerns within the cloud security technology zone. Secondly, Netskope operates in the high-growth and critical cloud security market, making any challenges to its intellectual property potentially impactful within that industry. Lastly, the procedural non-institution, especially if tied to patent expiration, is a significant point of interest given recent Federal Circuit rulings that affirm the PTAB's jurisdiction over expired patents, creating an intriguing procedural posture that warrants further scrutiny.

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00027, against U.S. Patent No. 7,593,936, owned by Netskope, Inc., at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petition was ultimately not instituted on procedural grounds.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

This case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the PTAB, not a district court patent infringement litigation. As such, many of the typical milestones of district court litigation—such as the filing of a complaint, answer, counterclaims, Markman hearings, discovery, trial events, or appeals to the Federal Circuit from a district court judgment—are not applicable. The developments are specific to the IPR process.

1. Filing of IPR Petition (Date Unknown): Unified Patents, a well-known entity that files IPRs to challenge patent validity, filed a petition against U.S. Patent No. 7,593,936. While the exact filing date for IPR2026-00027 is not readily available through general search, IPRs typically proceed with a petition filing, followed by an optional Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and then a decision on institution by the PTAB.

2. Patent Expiration (2026-03-04): U.S. Patent No. 7,593,936 expired on March 4, 2026. This fact is critical to the procedural outcome of the IPR.

3. Non-Institution Decision - Procedural Grounds (Date Unknown): The PTAB declined to institute the IPR on procedural grounds. Although the specific date of the non-institution decision for IPR2026-00027 is not available, the expiration of the patent on March 4, 2026, is a highly probable procedural ground for the PTAB's decision not to institute review. The PTAB generally does not institute IPRs for patents that have already expired, as the purpose of an IPR is to cancel unpatentable claims, which becomes moot for an expired patent.

4. Outcome: The IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This means the PTAB did not proceed to the merits of Unified Patents' challenge to the validity of US7593936. The patent's expiration before or around the time of the institution decision likely rendered the IPR moot, leading to the procedural denial of institution.

There is no indication from the provided information or general search results that this IPR was initiated in response to an ongoing district court patent infringement litigation involving US7593936. Unified Patents often files IPRs proactively to clear the patent landscape.

Unified Patents typically relies on a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms, particularly Erise IP, P.A., for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific counsel for IPR2026-00027 has not been explicitly identified in public docket search results, likely due to the case being "Not Instituted - Procedural," the following attorneys are consistently involved in Unified Patents' IPR filings:

In-House Counsel for Unified Patents:

• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Assistant General Counsel / Head of Operations (formerly Legal Head - NPE)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C. or Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Oversees Unified Patents' legal department, develops core legal strategies for patent deterrence, and has participated in numerous post-grant proceedings before the USPTO across various technologies. He previously practiced patent litigation for nearly a decade at Baker Botts L.L.P..
• Jordan M. Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. He has extensive experience as an intellectual property litigator, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission (ITC), district courts, and the Federal Circuit in diverse technology fields. Prior to joining Unified Patents, he practiced at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings.
• Kelly R. Hughes
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Note: Handles PTAB filings, including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations. She previously worked as a patent litigator at Erise IP, focusing on software and electronics.

Outside Counsel (Erise IP, P.A.):

• Jason R. Mudd
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas or Greenwood Village, Colorado)
  • Note: Focuses on complex intellectual property disputes, particularly patent litigation in federal district courts, the USITC, and post-grant proceedings at the USPTO. He successfully represented the petitioner in the first-ever IPR conducted under the America Invents Act and has been recognized as an "IP Trailblazer and Pioneer" and an "IP MVP." He has significant experience litigating all phases of patent cases and has been involved in over 50 IPRs.
• Eric A. Buresh
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (Founding Member/Partner)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas or Greenwood Village, Colorado)
  • Note: A patent litigator with a strong record in district courts and at the Federal Circuit, including securing defense verdicts. He has filed over 115 IPR proceedings at the PTAB and is recognized for his patent defense work and litigation capabilities.

It is important to note that while these attorneys frequently represent Unified Patents in IPR proceedings, a specific docket entry confirming their appearance for IPR2026-00027 was not found in the available public search results. Unified Patents' organizational structure indicates that it is a deterrence entity, not a law firm, and works independently of its members, often utilizing both in-house legal staff and outside counsel for its administrative patent reviews.

Unfortunately, the web search results did not directly identify the counsel of record representing Netskope, Inc. in the specific IPR2026-00027 case. The provided information includes Netskope's counsel in other patent litigation matters, such as:

• Meghan Bright of Perkins Coie in IPR2023-00030, Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc..
• Bryan Collins, Colin Kemp, and Christopher Dorsey of Pillsbury in a 2015 patent infringement lawsuit brought by Protegrity USA.

Given that IPR2026-00027 was not instituted on procedural grounds, it's possible that Netskope, Inc. had a limited appearance or that the public docket information regarding their counsel is not readily available through general web searches. Without direct access to the PTAB docket for IPR2026-00027, the specific counsel of record for Netskope, Inc. in Unified Patents v. Netskope, Inc. cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings for this specific IPR would need to be reviewed to confirm appearances.