Unified Patents v. Qomplx Inc. et al.

This case, Unified Patents v. Qomplx Inc. et al. (IPR2026-00298), involves a challenge to the validity of a patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a member-based organization focused on deterring "frivolous patent litigation" and reducing assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) in specific technology areas through various means, including filing inter partes reviews (IPRs). The patent owners, Qomplx Inc., QPX LLC, and QOMPLX LLC, are associated with Qomplx Inc., an operating company founded in 2015 that specializes in cloud-based underwriting, risk management platforms for the insurance industry, and cybersecurity. Despite its operating company status, QOMPLX LLC (formerly QPX LLC) has recently initiated patent litigation against major technology companies like Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks, targeting features related to "very large data analysis systems" and "network security," suggesting an active patent assertion strategy.

The patent at issue is US Patent No. 12,143,424, titled "Rapid Predictive Analysis of Very Large Data Sets Using the Distributed Computational Graph." This patent describes a system for the predictive analysis of large datasets utilizing a distributed computational graph, encompassing processes like data receipt, formalization, batch event analysis, and aggregation for a message handler. Issued on November 12, 2024, the patent's technology is classified under "Computer Networks, Multiplex communication, Video Distribution, and Security." In parallel district court litigation, specifically Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (1:25-cv-01383) and Qomplx LLC v. Palo Alto Networks Inc. (2:25-cv-00913), this patent, among others, has been asserted against defendants' products involving distributed computing clusters and computational graphs for data flow in large data analysis systems and network security.

This IPR is currently pending before the PTAB, a specialized administrative tribunal within the USPTO tasked with reviewing the patentability of issued claims. The PTAB provides an alternative forum to district courts for challenging patent validity, often favored for its streamlined process and generally lower costs, particularly when responding to assertions by patent monetization entities. This case is notable due to the involvement of Unified Patents, whose mission is to combat what they perceive as low-quality patent assertions. Their challenge against Qomplx is significant because Qomplx, an operating company, has recently entered the patent litigation arena as an enforcer of its patent portfolio, leading to multiple IPRs being filed against its patents by various petitioners, including Unified Patents.

The IPR case, Unified Patents v. Qomplx Inc. et al. (IPR2026-00298), concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Below is a chronological summary of key legal developments, acknowledging that while the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the petitioner, public records for IPR2026-00298 indicate Microsoft Corp. as the petitioner.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• IPR Petition Filed (2026-03-18): Unified Patents, as the petitioner according to the case metadata, filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424. The official filing date for IPR2026-00298 was March 18, 2026.
• Patent Owner: The patent owner is Qomplx Inc., along with QPX LLC and QOMPLX LLC. U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424 B1 is titled "Rapid predictive analysis of very large data sets using the distributed computational graph."
• Last Docket Activity (2026-03-20): As of the latest available information, the last docket activity for IPR2026-00298 was on March 20, 2026.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• As of May 30, 2026, the PTAB has not yet issued a decision on whether to institute the inter partes review. An institution decision is typically made within six months of the petition filing date.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• In IPR proceedings, the PTAB construes claims. For U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424 B1, which was granted on December 19, 2023, the PTAB would apply the Phillips standard for claim construction. No specific claim construction outcomes have been issued at this pre-institution stage.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Discovery in IPRs is generally limited compared to district court litigation. No significant discovery milestones have been reported for IPR2026-00298.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• No trial events or verdicts have occurred, as the case remains in the early, pre-institution phase.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case is currently pending before the PTAB. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or final judgment.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and Their Effect on the Litigation

• Other IPRs on Patent 12,143,424:
  • Another IPR, IPR2026-00364, was filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424 by Palo Alto Networks Inc. against Qomplx LLC on May 15, 2026.
• Related District Court Litigation:
  • The filing of IPR2026-00298 is likely connected to a broader patent infringement dispute. Qomplx LLC is currently litigating against Microsoft Corp. in the district court case Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (Case No. 1:25-cv-01383), filed on August 28, 2025, in the Western District of Texas. This litigation involves Qomplx LLC asserting patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424 B1, against Microsoft Corp.
  • A Markman hearing in the district court case is scheduled for June 1, 2026.
  • Microsoft Corp. has initiated several other IPRs challenging Qomplx LLC's patents, such as IPR2026-00325 (challenging US 12,301,627 B2) and IPR2026-00326 (challenging US 12,301,628 B2), indicating a comprehensive challenge to Qomplx's patent portfolio.

Unified Patents typically employs a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for its inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. As of the current date, specific external counsel for IPR2026-00298, where Unified Patents is listed as the plaintiff (petitioner) against Qomplx Inc. et al., has not been definitively identified in publicly available docket information. However, general information regarding Unified Patents' legal team and frequently used firms for IPRs can be provided.

Unified Patents In-House Counsel (roles often involve overseeing and collaborating with outside counsel):

• Jonathan Stroud
  • Role: Chief IP Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (San Jose, California)
  • Note: Has represented Unified Patents in IPR proceedings, including appeals to the Federal Circuit.
• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Legal Head - NPE
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (San Jose, California)
  • Note: Has represented Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.
• Jordan Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (San Jose, California)
  • Note: Involved in Unified Patents' legal strategy and patent challenges.
• Michelle Aspen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (San Jose, California)
  • Note: Participates in Unified Patents' webinars and discussions on PTAB practice.
• Jung Hahm
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (San Jose, California)
  • Note: Involved in discussions related to patentability and prior art strategies.

External Law Firms Known to Represent Unified Patents in IPRs (and likely candidates for this case, although specific counsel for IPR2026-00298 is not yet public):

Unified Patents is not a law firm itself and retains outside counsel for its IPR filings. Historically, Unified Patents has engaged various law firms to represent them in IPR proceedings. One prominent firm that has represented Unified Patents in IPRs, including those that have proceeded to the Federal Circuit, is:

• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • Role: Lead Counsel (common for IPR petitioners)
  • Office Locations: Multiple, including Washington D.C., Atlanta, Boston, London, Munich, Palo Alto, Reston, Seoul, Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo. (Specific office for a particular IPR would depend on the assigned attorney)
  • Note: Finnegan is a leading IP law firm and has represented Unified Patents in successful IPRs, such as the IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent that was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2020. Their attorneys frequently appear before the PTAB.

Other firms listed on Unified Patents' own analytics portal as frequent petitioner law firms with high institutional success rates that could potentially represent Unified Patents include White & Case LLP, Duane Morris LLP, and Haynes & Boone LLP.

As of the current date, detailed docket information for IPR2026-00298 specifically naming the petitioner's outside counsel is not readily available through public search channels. The existence of IPR2026-00298 is confirmed by the USPTO Open Data Portal.

In the inter partes review case IPR2026-00298, Qomplx Inc., QPX LLC, and QOMPLX LLC are represented by NK Patent Law as the firm of record. The PTAB docket indicates that NK Patent Law has a Power of Attorney for the Patent Owner, Qomplx LLC, in this proceeding. The firm's office is located in Raleigh, NC.

Based on their stated expertise and roles at NK Patent Law, the following attorneys are likely involved in representing Qomplx LLC:

• Douglas Meier (Managing Partner, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: NK Patent Law, Raleigh, NC
  • Experience: Mr. Meier is an experienced patent attorney and managing partner with a background in electrical engineering and in-depth experience practicing patent law, allowing him to understand complex electrical, computer, and software technologies. He is a key contact for the firm's intellectual property practice.

• Randy (Patent & Trademark Attorney, Lead or Of Counsel)

  • Firm: NK Patent Law, Raleigh, NC
  • Experience: Randy has extensive patent prosecution experience, including appeals before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). His experience also includes enforcing and protecting clients' intellectual property rights through federal court and administrative proceedings.

• Drew (Patent Attorney, Of Counsel)

  • Firm: NK Patent Law, Raleigh, NC
  • Experience: Drawing on his engineering, inventor, and business partner experience, Drew offers comprehensive patent counsel, including patent strategy and portfolio development, and litigation and dispute strategy support.

• Ani Agrawal (Patent & Trademark Attorney, Of Counsel)

  • Firm: NK Patent Law, Raleigh, NC
  • Experience: Mr. Agrawal is an experienced patent attorney focusing on IP strategy and patent and trademark prosecution, with a diverse background including technology-focused clients in computer technology. He has also spent six years in intellectual property litigation work.

While direct docket entries for specific attorneys in IPR2026-00298 are not publicly available through web search, the identification of NK Patent Law as counsel with a Power of Attorney and the firm's listed attorneys with relevant PTAB and technology experience provide strong indications of the likely counsel.