Unified Patents v. Rj Technology LLC

This case, IPR2024-00597, involves a challenge by Unified Patents against a patent owned by Rj Technology LLC. Unified Patents is a member-based organization that aims to deter unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, primarily by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), through various strategies, including filing inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Rj Technology LLC, on the other hand, appears to be a patent owner that has asserted its patent in district court litigation. While some sources initially label Rj Technology LLC as an "Operating Company" in the context of a district court case, its pattern of litigation and being a target of Unified Patents' IPRs suggest it operates more like an NPE, or at least a company that extensively asserts patents rather than primarily making and selling products.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641, titled "Secondary lithium ion cell or battery, and protecting circuit, electronic device, and charging device of the same." The patent broadly describes a method for improving the capacity, average operating voltage, and specific energy of a secondary lithium ion cell or battery by adjusting the ratio between positive and negative materials and increasing the charge cut-off voltage. This patent has been asserted in district court against companies like [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), implying the "accused technology" would likely be related to lithium-ion batteries used in electronic devices.

The procedural posture of this case is an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This IPR, IPR2024-00597, has reached a Final Written Decision. The PTAB serves as an administrative tribunal that reviews the patentability of claims in an issued patent, and IPRs are a common mechanism for challenging patent validity outside of district court. The PTAB's decision to issue a Final Written Decision indicates that the Board has completed its review and issued a final ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims. This case is notable due to Unified Patents' consistent strategy of challenging patents held by alleged NPEs to reduce patent assertion activities. The involvement of major technology companies like Samsung and Apple in parallel litigation concerning the same patent also highlights the industry impact of patent 7,749,641, particularly in the electronics and battery technology sectors.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for US Patent 7,749,641

This summary details the legal developments surrounding US Patent 7,749,641, focusing on the Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by Unified Patents (IPR2024-00597) and its impact on related patent infringement litigation.

Patent Infringement Litigation Filings

• October 13, 2022: RJ Technology LLC initiated patent infringement lawsuits against multiple defendants asserting US Patent 7,749,641. These include:
  • RJ Technology LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-00401) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • RJ Technology LLC v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 8:22-cv-01874) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Several IPR proceedings were filed against US Patent 7,749,641, with significant implications for the ongoing district court litigation.

• July 21, 2023: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed an IPR petition, IPR2023-01183, challenging the patentability of US Patent 7,749,641.
• August 23, 2023: Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition, IPR2023-01350, also challenging US Patent 7,749,641.
• January 22, 2024: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted IPR2023-01183.
• February 22, 2024: Unified Patents filed its IPR petition, IPR2024-00597, challenging US Patent 7,749,641.
• February 23, 2024: The PTAB instituted IPR2023-01350.
• August 20, 2024: The PTAB instituted IPR2024-00597, the case at hand.
• January 17, 2025: The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00597, finding the challenged claims of US Patent 7,749,641 to be "Unpatentable."
• February 18, 2025: The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2023-01350, also finding the challenged claims of US Patent 7,749,641 "Unpatentable." This decision was subsequently appealed.
• April 25, 2025: RJ Technology LLC appealed the IPR2023-01350 decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1695).
• May 20, 2025: RJ Technology LLC appealed a related decision to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1794) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• May 28, 2025: The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2023-01183, finding the challenged claims of US Patent 7,749,641 "Unpatentable."
• June 2, 2025: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an appeal at the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1824) against RJ Technology LLC.

Outcome

The PTAB's Final Written Decisions in IPR2024-00597, IPR2023-01183, and IPR2023-01350 have all resulted in the challenged claims of US Patent 7,749,641 being found unpatentable. These findings significantly undermine the asserted patent in the parallel district court infringement cases. RJ Technology LLC has appealed at least one of these IPR outcomes to the Federal Circuit.

The provided case information states that the plaintiff in IPR2024-00597 is Unified Patents. However, searches for IPR2024-00597 consistently show that Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd are listed as the petitioners (challengers) in this case against patent owner RJ Technology LLC. This contradicts the premise of Unified Patents being the plaintiff in IPR2024-00597.

Therefore, specific counsel of record for Unified Patents in IPR2024-00597 cannot be definitively identified from public records, as Unified Patents does not appear to be the named petitioner in this particular IPR.

However, based on general information regarding Unified Patents' frequent involvement in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), their legal team typically consists of in-house counsel, often supplemented by external law firms.

Below is a list of counsel frequently associated with Unified Patents in their IPR and post-grant challenges, noting that their involvement in IPR2024-00597 is not confirmed due to the conflicting petitioner information:

Unified Patents In-House Counsel (typically act as lead or co-counsel):

• Jonathan Stroud (COO & Chief Legal Officer / Chief IP Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc., Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Oversees legal strategy for Unified Patents, frequently involved in amicus briefs and policy discussions related to patent litigation and PTAB practice.
• Ellyar Barazesh (Senior Legal Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents; previously practiced at WilmerHale and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner.
• Jordan Rossen (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents; previously practiced at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings.
• David Seastrunk (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents.
• Michelle Callaghan (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents.
• T.J. Murphy (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Has represented Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings.
• Roshan Mansinghani (Head of Operations / Legal Head-NPE)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc., Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Involved in overall operations and has represented Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings.
• Jessica L.A. Marks (SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Has represented Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings and focuses on standard-essential patents.
• Jason Wejnert (Senior Patent Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Has represented Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings.
• Alyssa Holtslander (Trademark Managing Counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents Inc.
  • Experience: Has represented Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination proceedings, primarily focusing on trademark matters.

External Law Firms (frequently engaged by Unified Patents for IPRs and related matters):

• Baker Botts, L.L.P.
  • Attorney Example: Brian W. Oaks (Partner)
  • Office Location Example: Austin, TX
  • Experience Note: Brian Oaks was listed as counsel for Unified Patents Inc. in IPR2019-00670.
• Polsinelli
  • Attorney Examples: Chad Landmon, Kendall Gurule
  • Experience Note: Represented Unified Patents in filing amicus briefs in federal circuit cases.
• Duane Morris LLP
  • Experience Note: Ranked as a top firm representing petitioners before the PTAB, according to Unified Patents' institutional success index.

Identifying counsel of record for the defendant, Rj Technology LLC, in IPR2024-00597 requires looking at PTAB dockets and related case information. While direct counsel information for this specific IPR can be challenging to locate instantly through general web searches, cross-referencing with other IPRs involving Rj Technology LLC and the same patent can provide strong indicators.

Based on publicly available information, including PTAB case lists, Carmichael IP appears to represent Rj Technology LLC in IPR proceedings concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641. For instance, in IPR2023-01350, Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLC, which also involves patent 7,749,641 and has reached a Final Written Decision that was appealed, Carmichael IP is listed as representing Rj Technology LLC (the Respondent).

Here are the details for the attorneys identified from Carmichael IP:

• Minghui Yang

  • Role: Attorney for Patent Owner (Respondent)
  • Firm: Carmichael IP
  • Note: Appears as counsel of record for Rj Technology LLC in related IPR proceedings involving the same patent.

• James T. Carmichael

  • Role: Attorney for Patent Owner (Respondent)
  • Firm: Carmichael IP
  • Note: Appears as counsel of record for Rj Technology LLC in related IPR proceedings involving the same patent.

• Stephen McBride

  • Role: Attorney for Patent Owner (Respondent)
  • Firm: Carmichael IP
  • Note: Appears as counsel of record for Rj Technology LLC in related IPR proceedings involving the same patent.

It's important to note that while these attorneys are listed for a related IPR concerning the same patent, they are highly likely to be the counsel for Rj Technology LLC in IPR2024-00597 as well, given the consistency in representation for patent owners in IPRs by specialized firms. Direct docket access to IPR2024-00597 would confirm their specific roles and any other appearing counsel.