Unified Patents v. Sanas Ai Inc.

Unified Patents has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00272, against Sanas Ai Inc. before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to improving patent quality and deterring the assertion of low-quality patents, particularly those held by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), through various strategies including IPRs. Sanas Ai Inc., on the other hand, is an operating company founded in 2021, specializing in a real-time Speech AI platform. Their offerings include accent translation, language translation, speech enhancement, and noise cancellation, primarily serving industries such as healthcare, financial services, retail, and travel to address communication barriers.

The patent at issue in this IPR is U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, titled "Real-time accent conversion model." This patent describes techniques for real-time accent conversion, where a computing device receives speech in a first accent, uses a machine-learning algorithm to derive a linguistic representation, and then synthesizes audio data representing the speech in a second accent, aiming for low-latency conversion. The procedural posture of the case is a pending IPR at the PTAB, filed on March 30, 2026. This administrative challenge is a common method to dispute the validity of patents outside of district court litigation.

This case is notable given its linkage to ongoing patent infringement litigation in the district courts. Sanas Ai Inc. is actively asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550 and other related patents against Krisp Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-05666). In that district court case, Sanas's patents, including the '550 patent, recently survived a Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss challenging their patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Unified Patents' decision to file an IPR against Sanas, an operating company, on a patent actively litigated in the Speech AI space, highlights the organization's mission to scrutinize patent quality even when the patent holder is a practicing entity. The overlap with the district court case suggests this IPR serves as a parallel validity challenge to patents that Sanas Ai Inc. is using to protect its real-time speech AI technology.

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00272, initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550. While the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the petitioner, records indicate that Krisp Technologies Inc. is the petitioner challenging Sanas Ai Inc.'s patent in this IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, titled "Real-time accent conversion model," was granted on April 2, 2024, and is assigned to Sanas.AI Inc. This patent describes techniques for real-time accent conversion using machine-learning algorithms.

The IPR is running parallel to a significant patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05666-RS. In this district court case, Sanas.AI Inc. is the plaintiff, asserting infringement of several patents, including the '550 patent, against Krisp Technologies Inc.

Below is a chronological list of key legal developments for both the district court litigation and the related IPR proceeding:

District Court Litigation: Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-05666-RS)

• 2025-07-07 – Complaint Filed: Sanas.AI Inc. initiated a lawsuit against Krisp Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and false advertising.
• 2025-09-08 – Answer and Counterclaims: Krisp Technologies, Inc. denied the allegations and filed counterclaims.
• 2025-09-23 – Amended Complaint: Sanas.AI Inc. filed an amended complaint, adding claims for infringement of recently awarded patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 12,417,756 and 12,412,561) and false advertising claims. The amended complaint specifically asserted patent claims for alleged willful infringement of the '550, '496, '745, and '457 patents, and infringement of the '561 and '756 patents.
• 2025-09-29 – Sanas's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims: Sanas.AI Inc. moved to dismiss Krisp's counterclaims, arguing that offering free software (which Krisp alleged was an unfair business practice) is a legitimate business strategy.
• 2025-11-XX – Krisp's Motion to Dismiss Patent Infringement Claims: Krisp made a motion to dismiss Sanas's patent infringement claims.
• 2026-02-23 – Order Denying Krisp's Rule 12(c) Motion: Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied Krisp's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which challenged the patent eligibility of five Sanas patents, including the '550 patent, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that the claims recited concrete technical methods rather than abstract ideas, enabling near real-time accent conversion while preserving vocal characteristics.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: Krisp Technologies Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc. (IPR2026-00272)

• 2026-03-30 – IPR Petition Filed: Krisp Technologies Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00272) challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550. The case is currently listed as "Pending."
• Current Posture: As of May 30, 2026, the IPR is still in the pre-institution phase, awaiting a decision from the PTAB on whether to institute review.

Given the recency of the IPR filing (March 30, 2026), an institution decision is typically due within six months of the petition's filing date. The ongoing district court litigation provides a strong incentive for Krisp Technologies Inc. to pursue the IPR as a means to challenge the validity of Sanas's patent.

Unified Patents, as an organization dedicated to deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, frequently relies on its robust team of in-house patent counsel for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. While specific counsel for IPR2026-00272, Unified Patents v. Sanas Ai Inc., has not been definitively identified in publicly available search results, the following attorneys are prominent members of Unified Patents' legal team regularly involved in such matters:

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: Chief Operating Officer (COO) & Chief Legal Officer (CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house), San Jose, California (headquarters)
  • Note: Stroud frequently participates in webinars and discussions on PTAB practice and patent quality, indicating a leading role in Unified Patents' legal strategy.

• Jenn Bisk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: As a Senior Patent Counsel, Bisk is involved in managing patent office proceedings internally, including drafting and litigating post-grant petitions.

• Kyla Bulter

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Similar to other Senior Patent Counsel, Bulter's role involves direct participation in the legal challenges Unified Patents undertakes.

• Kelly Hughes

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Hughes is part of the in-house team responsible for Unified Patents' PTAB efforts.

• Jessica L.A. Marks

  • Role: SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel, also noted as Senior Patent Counsel in other contexts
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Marks has been identified as in-house counsel representing Unified Patents in other proceedings and has participated in discussions regarding PTAB practices.

• T.J. Murphy

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Murphy has been cited as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in certain IPR proceedings.

• Vinu Raj

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Raj contributes to the internal management and litigation of patent office proceedings.

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Rossen is a speaker on topics related to the PTAB, highlighting his involvement in Unified Patents' post-grant review strategies.

• David Seastrunk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Seastrunk has been listed as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.

• Andrea Shoffstall

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
    Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Shoffstall is an integral part of Unified Patents' legal team handling patent challenges.

• Jason Wejnert

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house)
  • Note: Wejnert contributes to Unified Patents' efforts in administrative patent reviews.

Unified Patents also sometimes engages outside counsel, such as Stephen Cortiaus at Slater Matsil, for specific IPR proceedings. However, without a publicly available docket entry or specific announcement for IPR2026-00272, the precise counsel of record for this particular case remains unconfirmed.

As of today, May 30, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing Sanas Ai Inc. in the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2026-00272 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not been definitively identified through publicly available search results for this new IPR.

However, in a related patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 3:25-cv-05666), which involves the same patent, 11948550, Sanas.AI Inc. is represented by attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP. It is common for a patent owner to retain the same or closely affiliated counsel for both district court litigation and parallel PTAB proceedings involving the same patent.

Based on the district court filings, the following attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP have represented Sanas.AI Inc.:

• Daniel Amon Zaheer (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, likely from one of their U.S. offices (e.g., New York, Washington D.C., San Francisco, or Silicon Valley).
  • Note: Co-leads Kobre & Kim's intellectual property and trade secret litigation practice, known for representing technology companies in complex patent disputes.

• Michael Kai Ng (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, likely from one of their U.S. offices.
  • Note: Represents clients in high-stakes intellectual property and trade secret disputes, with experience in obtaining significant judgments for innovators.

Other attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP also listed in the district court case for Sanas.AI Inc. include Zachary Ritz, Victoria Fordin, Tammy Su, and Jessica Kelly Fender.

The patent itself, U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, lists Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP as the attorney, agent, or firm during its prosecution phase. However, this indicates counsel for patent procurement, not necessarily for subsequent litigation or IPR defense.