Unified Patents v. Qomplx Inc.

Unified Patents has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Qomplx Inc. before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of US Patent 12218934. Unified Patents is a membership-based organization focused on deterring Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as patent trolls, from asserting what it deems low-quality or invalid patents. It achieves this by funding and filing IPRs to challenge patent validity, thereby reducing the costs and risks of patent litigation for its members, which include both large and small operating companies. Qomplx Inc., founded in 2015 and based in Reston, VA, is an operating company that provides cloud-based underwriting and risk management platforms for the insurance industry, leveraging AI technology, and also offers cybersecurity and data analytics solutions. Qomplx possesses a substantial patent portfolio, with over 56 issued or pending patents as of 2019. Notably, Qomplx LLC recently commenced patent infringement litigation in August 2025, asserting patents related to data analysis and network security against major technology companies like Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks, which suggests a strategic shift toward aggressive patent monetization.

The patent at issue in this IPR is US Patent 12218934, titled "Contextual and Risk-Based Multi-Factor Authentication." This patent generally describes systems and methods for implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) that assess whether to require additional verification steps for a user's access request. It achieves this by analyzing historical login data to detect anomalous activity or potential brute-force attack attempts. While there is no "accused product" in an IPR, Unified Patents' challenge likely stems from Qomplx Inc.'s assertion of this patent, or related patents, in its ongoing district court infringement campaigns against operating companies whose products and services involve multi-factor authentication or cybersecurity solutions.

This case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as IPR2026-00182. The PTAB is an administrative tribunal within the USPTO that conducts IPR proceedings, providing a streamlined and often less costly avenue than district court litigation to challenge the validity of issued patents based on prior art. This venue is crucial for Unified Patents as it aligns with its core mission to deter patent assertions by invalidating patents it believes are unpatentable. The case is particularly notable because it highlights Unified Patents' ongoing efforts to counter patent assertion campaigns, especially from entities that, while operating companies, appear to be actively enforcing their patent portfolios against broader industry players. By challenging Qomplx's patent at the PTAB, Unified Patents aims to mitigate potential infringement risks for its members in the cybersecurity and data analytics sectors.

I'll research this now. Note upfront: this is a PTAB IPR docket, not a district court litigation, and the prior sections already flagged a party discrepancy (Microsoft v. Qomplx LLC vs. Unified Patents v. Qomplx Inc.). I'll verify both the IPR docket and the parallel district court cases.

Good — significant findings. Let me dig into the IPR docket status and the district court docket.

Threshold correction before the chronology

Two things must be flagged before answering, because they change what "this litigation" means:

1. The case metadata appears to be wrong on the petitioner. Every source I could locate identifies IPR2026-00182 as Microsoft Corporation v. Qomplx LLC (U.S. Patent 12,218,934) — petition filed 2025-12-30, Tech Center 2400. See the attorney docket index at ai-lab.exparte.com (Andrew M. Mason) (listing "IPR2026-00182 | 2400 Software, Security | Microsoft Corp v. Qomplx LLC | 12/30/25"); ipverse/greyb (same filing-date convention for the companion petitions); and the Arctic Invent case page for IPR2026-00182. I found no evidence of a Unified Patents petition against Qomplx on the '934 patent. The earlier "Defendant representatives" section's note of the same discrepancy is confirmed and should be treated as authoritative going forward.
2. IPR2026-00182 is not an infringement litigation — it is a PTAB trial. The corresponding infringement action is Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:25-cv-01383-ADA (W.D. Tex., Austin Div., Judge Andrew B. Davis), filed 2025-08-28. I cover both below, because the '934 IPR's entire strategic significance is a function of that district court case.

Also note the patent owner is Qomplx LLC (a New York corporation, principal place of business Reston, VA), not "Qomplx Inc." Its real parties-in-interest in these IPRs are identified as Qomplx LLC and QPX Holdings LLC.

---

Present posture (as of 2026-10-17)

There is no final disposition, no settlement, no dismissal, and no appeal in either matter. Both tracks remain live.

---

Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings (district court)

• 2025-08-28 — Qomplx LLC files the Qomplx v. Microsoft complaint in W.D. Tex. (D.I. 1). Six asserted patents: '424, '934, '426, '627, '628, and '663. Jury trial demanded. The complaint's venue/personal-jurisdiction allegations lean heavily on Microsoft's Texas data centers (5150/5200 Rogers Road and 3823 Wiseman Blvd., San Antonio; 3555 Westover Link; 2995 U.S. Hwy 90 W, Castroville; "15000 Block Lambda Drive") and Austin/San Antonio offices — a notably Tex-centric venue pitch, presumably anticipating a § 1400(b) challenge. Complaint text reproduced as PAN Exhibit 1020 in IPR2026-00364 (docketalarm).
• Microsoft's answer and counterclaims are not visible in the docket excerpts I could retrieve; the docket index shows only a party/attorney list through D.I. 72 (PACER Monitor). I could not confirm the answer date or whether Microsoft pleaded declaratory-judgment counterclaims of invalidity/non-infringement. Treat as unsourced.
• No motion to dismiss or motion to transfer appears in the retrievable docket excerpts — and the substantial claim-construction activity described below is inconsistent with a successful transfer or dismissal. If a § 1406/1404(a) motion was filed, it did not disrupt the schedule.

2. Scheduling and the PTAB petitions (parallel tracks converge)

• 2025-11-24 — Qomplx serves Preliminary Infringement Contentions (cited as IPR exhibits 1011 in IPR2026-00326 and in Qomplx's claim-construction disclosure).
• 2025-12-30 — Microsoft files IPR2026-00182 ('934) and IPR2026-00184 ('426). Per the Arctic Invent summary, the '934 petition challenges all 30 claims under § 103: Kirti (U.S. Pat. 10,063,654) alone and/or in combination with the Coffin textbook Expert Oracle and Java Security; claims 10 and 25 add Vemulapalli (U.S. Pat. 9,448,852) for virtual-machine functionality. No objective indicia argument. (Secondary-source summary — the petition itself was not retrievable; treat the ground mapping as needing verification against the petition.)
• 2026-01-13/14 — Microsoft files IPR2026-00183 ('663) (date sources split: [greyb says Jan 13, 2026](https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-d

Unified Patents primarily uses in-house counsel for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. While specific counsel for IPR2026-00182 against Qomplx Inc. concerning US Patent 12218934 have not been explicitly identified in publicly available information, Unified Patents' team includes several experienced patent attorneys who regularly handle such matters.

Based on their typical operations and publicly listed legal teams, the following individuals and their roles are representative of Unified Patents' counsel for IPRs:

• Jonathan Stroud - Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents (San Jose, California). Stroud has extensive experience in patent law and is a frequent speaker on patent-related topics, including IPRs and patent quality.
• Jenn Bisk - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Kyla Bulter - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Elaine Chow - Director of Patent Analytics, Unified Patents.
• Jennifer Gallagher - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Alyssa Holtslander - In-house counsel, Unified Patents. She has been noted as representing Unified Patents in other IPR proceedings.
• Roshan Mansinghani - Legal Head - NPE, Unified Patents. Mansinghani is experienced in challenges against Non-Practicing Entity patents.
• Jessica L.A. Marks - SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel, Unified Patents. Marks has been a speaker on topics related to patent counsel.

Unified Patents states that it acts independently in filing IPRs and its decisions are made without input, assistance, or approval from its members. Unified Patents also bears all expenses for the preparation, filing, and prosecution of any post-grant proceeding. While Unified Patents sometimes utilizes outside counsel for IPRs, its in-house team is significantly involved in managing these proceedings.

As of the current date, specific docket entries detailing the appearance of counsel for IPR2026-00182 against Qomplx Inc. were not publicly available through web search. Therefore, the information above reflects the general practice and likely individuals involved from Unified Patents.

There is a significant discrepancy between the provided case metadata and the information found through web searches regarding IPR2026-00182. The initial case summary states the petitioner as Unified Patents. However, multiple search results for IPR2026-00182 consistently identify the petitioner as Microsoft Corporation and the patent owner (defendant) as Qomplx LLC (not Qomplx Inc.).

Therefore, for the purpose of identifying the defendant's counsel in IPR2026-00182, the relevant party is Qomplx LLC, defending against a petition filed by Microsoft Corporation.

Based on available information, the following counsel represents Qomplx LLC in IPR2026-00182:

• Colette Woo (Backup Counsel)
  • Ms. Woo is listed as concurrently applying for pro hac vice admission as backup counsel for Qomplx LLC in IPR2026-00182, as well as IPR2026-00183 and IPR2026-00184, which are also Microsoft Corp. v. Qomplx LLC cases.
  • Firm and Office Location: The search results do not explicitly state her firm or office location in the context of this IPR. However, the document indicates she has previously been designated a provisionally recognized pro hac vice PTAB attorney in numerous other IPRs for various patent owners.
  • Experience: Ms. Woo has experience representing patent owners in numerous IPR proceedings before the PTAB.

While direct lead counsel for Qomplx LLC in IPR2026-00182 is not explicitly identified in the provided snippets, Qomplx LLC has been represented by other firms and attorneys in related patent matters:

• Irell & Manella LLP (Firm representing Qomplx LLC as plaintiff in district court litigation)

  • In the related district court case Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (1:25-cv-01383), Irell & Manella LLP is listed as Plaintiff's Counsel for Qomplx LLC. It is common for firms handling district court litigation to also manage related IPRs.
  • Aron Berger (Attorney, pro hac vice in district court)
    • Mr. Berger was granted pro hac vice admission for Qomplx LLC in Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (1:25-cv-01383). His firm and office location are not specified in the context of this entry, but his role suggests he is part of Qomplx's litigation team.
  • Firm and Office Location (Irell & Manella LLP): Irell & Manella LLP has offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Irell & Manella LLP is a prominent firm known for its extensive intellectual property and patent litigation practice.

• Ian Robert Washburn (Attorney in Charge in another district court case)

  • In Qomplx LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (2:2025cv00913), Ian Robert Washburn was designated as Attorney in Charge for Qomplx LLC.
  • Firm and Office Location: The firm and office location for Mr. Washburn in relation to Qomplx are not specified in the search results for this IPR.
  • Experience: Mr. Washburn has experience representing Qomplx LLC in patent infringement litigation.