Unified Patents v. Skysong Innovations LLC

Case Overview: Unified Patents v. Skysong Innovations LLC (IPR2025-01170)

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where Unified Patents challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,892,897, owned by Skysong Innovations LLC. The petition for IPR was not instituted on procedural grounds.

Unified Patents is a prominent member-based organization focused on deterring what it considers frivolous patent litigation and reducing assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) across various technology sectors. Skysong Innovations LLC, on the other hand, is the exclusive intellectual property management and technology transfer arm for Arizona State University (ASU). As such, Skysong Innovations functions as a university-linked PAE, responsible for commercializing inventions made by ASU researchers by licensing and, when necessary, asserting their patents.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,892,897, titled "Predicting Software Vulnerability Exploitation," describes systems and methods for forecasting the likelihood of software vulnerabilities being exploited. This involves using machine learning models that analyze features derived from various data sources, including online discussions such as hacker communications on "dark web" forums. This patent is part of a portfolio that Skysong Innovations has actively asserted in district court litigation. Specifically, Patent No. 11,892,897, along with several other related patents, has been asserted in patent infringement lawsuits against cybersecurity companies, including CrowdStrike (Western District of Texas, case 7:25-cv-00040) and Fortinet (Eastern District of Texas, case 2:25-cv-00098), targeting their respective cybersecurity platforms like the CrowdStrike Falcon Platform and the Fortinet Security Fabric.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the PTAB, assigned case number IPR2025-01170. The petition was ultimately "Not Instituted - Procedural." This status indicates that the PTAB, under the authority of the USPTO Director, declined to proceed with the full review on the merits, likely based on discretionary factors rather than the substance of Unified Patents' invalidity arguments. The denial of institution on procedural grounds is particularly notable in light of recent shifts in PTAB policy, where the USPTO Director, John Squires, has taken personal control over institution decisions and has frequently issued summary notices without detailed explanations, leading to a rise in discretionary denials in 2025 and 2026. This case is significant as it highlights the ongoing tension between NPEs/PAEs (like university tech transfer offices such as Skysong Innovations) seeking to monetize intellectual property and organizations like Unified Patents, which aim to curb what they perceive as problematic patent assertions through IPR challenges, particularly within the cybersecurity industry. The procedural denial underscores the current challenges faced by petitioners at the PTAB due to these stricter institution policies.

Skysong Innovations LLC has asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,892,897 in at least two district court cases against cybersecurity companies: Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., case 7:25-cv-00040) and Skysong Innovations, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., case 2:25-cv-00098). These lawsuits were filed on January 31, 2025. The patent, along with three others (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,313,385; 11,275,900; and 11,775,831), was transferred from the Arizona Board of Regents to Skysong Innovations just two days prior to the filing of these complaints. The complaints allege infringement by the defendants' respective cybersecurity platforms, the CrowdStrike Falcon Platform and the Fortinet Security Fabric.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01170, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,892,897. The petition was filed on July 25, 2025, and challenged all 20 claims of the patent. Unified Patents argued that the claims were unpatentable as obvious over prior art, specifically citing a reference that teaches a "Twitter-based exploit detector" and contending that the patent's focus on "dark web" data was not adequately reflected in the broad claims. Additional obviousness challenges were asserted based on combinations of references.

The IPR petition was ultimately "Not Instituted - Procedural." This aligns with a broader trend in 2025 and 2026 where the USPTO Director, John Squires, has taken personal control over institution decisions for IPRs and Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), often issuing summary notices without detailed explanations. This shift has led to a significant increase in discretionary denials, particularly against Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) like Skysong Innovations. Several factors contribute to these discretionary denials, including the existence of parallel district court litigation, the stage of such litigation, and the concept of "settled expectations" for older patents.

Another IPR, IPR2025-01397, was filed by CrowdStrike, Inc. against Skysong Innovations, LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,313,385, another patent asserted in the parallel district court litigation. This IPR was filed on August 15, 2025, and was terminated on December 11, 2025, with a "Discretionary Denial" status. Skysong Innovations, as the patent owner in IPR2025-01397, submitted a Discretionary Denial Brief on October 20, 2025, referencing the civil dockets and scheduling orders from its parallel district court cases against CrowdStrike and Fortinet.

District Court Litigation Status (as of current information):

• Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040): The complaint was filed on January 31, 2025. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing some of Skysong's claims related to pre-suit inducement and willful infringement. CrowdStrike has also filed for an IPR of the patent (presumably referring to IPR2025-01397, though the exact patent number isn't specified in that particular search result). A motion to transfer venue was filed on October 9, 2025.
• Skysong Innovations, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098): The complaint was filed on January 31, 2025. On March 11, 2025, an order was issued granting an unopposed motion for an extension of time for Fortinet to file its answer. A joint claim construction and prehearing statement was filed pursuant to a docket control order.

The procedural denial of IPR2025-01170, and IPR2025-01397 by CrowdStrike, highlights the PTAB's current approach of increasing discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation, especially when a trial date is set in district court. This trend affects petitioners like Unified Patents, who aim to use IPRs to challenge patents asserted in litigation. The lack of detailed reasoning in many of these summary denials by the Director also makes it challenging to understand the specific procedural grounds for non-institution.

Unified Patents, as an organization dedicated to deterring assertions of what it considers poor quality patents, often uses a combination of in-house counsel and outside law firms for its PTAB challenges. While Unified Patents itself is not a law firm, its team includes experienced patent attorneys.

For IPR2025-01170, the publicly available information does not explicitly name the specific counsel of record who signed the petition for Unified Patents. However, based on general practices and other IPRs filed by Unified Patents, the following can be inferred and is a common representation structure for them in PTAB proceedings:

Likely Counsel for Unified Patents (Petitioner):

• In-house Counsel (Lead/Support Counsel): Unified Patents employs several Senior Patent Counsel who frequently manage and draft IPR petitions. These individuals would likely serve as lead or significant support counsel. Examples of in-house counsel mentioned in other Unified Patents' filings and news include:

  • Michelle Aspen: Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents. She has been listed as counsel in other Unified Patents' reexamination and IPR proceedings.
  • Jessica L.A. Marks: Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents. Also listed as counsel in various Unified Patents' proceedings.
  • Kyla Butler: Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents. Recently noted as in-house counsel for ex parte reexamination proceedings.
  • T.J. Murphy: In-house counsel at Unified Patents, also noted for ex parte reexamination proceedings.
  • Jonathan Stroud: COO & CLO (Chief Legal Officer) of Unified Patents, overseeing the administrative challenges. While he likely oversees the legal strategy, he may not be directly signing petitions as lead counsel.
  • Jenn Bisk: Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents.
  • Elaine Chow: Director of Patent Analytics at Unified Patents.
  • Jennifer Gallagher: While often associated with news and content, she is also part of the Unified Patents team.

• Outside Counsel (When utilized): Unified Patents also partners with outside law firms for PTAB proceedings. For instance, in other matters, they have been represented by attorneys from firms such as Erise IP (Eric Buresh and Nick Apel). While no specific outside firm is consistently named across all Unified Patents' IPRs, it's possible an external firm was involved in the drafting or prosecution of this specific petition, particularly given the technical nature of the patent in question.

To confirm the specific attorneys who appeared in IPR2025-01170, a direct review of the PTAB's docket for this specific case would be necessary. However, without direct docket access, the above outlines the typical structure of Unified Patents' legal representation in IPR proceedings.

Skysong Innovations LLC, as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01170, typically leverages a combination of in-house legal expertise and specialized outside counsel for its patent defense and litigation matters, including before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While direct counsel information for IPR2025-01170 specifically is not explicitly detailed in publicly available search snippets, the following attorneys and firms have appeared for Skysong Innovations in closely related patent litigation and IPR proceedings, making their involvement in IPR2025-01170 highly probable.

In-house Counsel (Skysong Innovations LLC, Scottsdale, Arizona):

• Augustine V. Cheng
  • Role: CEO & Chief Legal Officer.
  • Firm: Skysong Innovations LLC.
  • Note: Oversees all legal affairs, including patent protection, licensing programs, and litigation. Previously founded and served as chief counsel of the Patent & Licensing Group at Columbia University.
• Todd Glenn
  • Role: General Counsel.
  • Firm: Skysong Innovations LLC.
  • Note: Responsible for contractual, litigation, intellectual property, corporate governance, and compliance matters. Experienced in intellectual property litigation and licensing.
• Kyle N. Siegal
  • Role: Executive Director & Chief Patent Counsel.
  • Firm: Skysong Innovations LLC.
  • Note: A registered patent attorney focused on legal protection for ASU innovation in life sciences, previously working at a leading law firm on various IP rights.
• Mason McCarty
  • Role: Assistant General Counsel.
  • Firm: Skysong Innovations LLC.
  • Note: Handles licensing and technology transactions, litigation, and general corporate counseling. Possesses an intellectual property emphasis from law school and was a named inventor on five U.S. patents prior to his current role.

Outside Counsel (Likely based on related proceedings):

Skysong Innovations explicitly states it "contract[s] with outside patent counsel for IP protection". Attorneys from the following firms have represented Skysong Innovations in parallel district court cases and other IPRs involving the same patent portfolio, indicating their likely representation in IPR2025-01170:

• Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York, NY; Washington D.C.)

  • Christopher Campbell
    • Role: Attorney of Record (appeared for Skysong in Skysong Innovations, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098) and Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040)).
  • Britton F. Davis
    • Role: Attorney of Record (appeared for Skysong in Skysong Innovations, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098) and Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040)).
  • Alfonso Garcia Chan
    • Role: Attorney of Record (appeared for Skysong in Skysong Innovations, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098) and Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040)).
  • Matthew David Wood
    • Role: Attorney of Record (appeared for Skysong in Skysong Innovations, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098) and Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040)).
  • Halima Shukri Ndai
    • Role: Attorney of Record (appeared for Skysong in Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040) and Skysong Innovations, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098)).
  • Lindsey Michelle Gellar
    • Role: Pro Hac Vice (appeared for Skysong in Skysong Innovations, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098)).

• Key Kesan Dallmann PLLC (Washington D.C.)

  • Cecil E. Key
    • Role: Attorney of Record (filed complaints for Skysong in district court cases and appeared in Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040) and Skysong Innovations, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00098)).
  • Jay P. Kesan
    • Role: Attorney of Record (appeared for Skysong in Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00040)).

Note on IPR2025-01170 Specificity:
While the above attorneys and firms have actively represented Skysong Innovations LLC in related patent disputes, a direct review of the PTAB's docket for IPR2025-01170 would be necessary to confirm the exact counsel of record who filed appearances or submitted documents on behalf of Skysong Innovations LLC in this particular IPR. The provided search results for IPR2025-01170 identify Skysong Innovations LLC as the Patent Owner but do not explicitly list their specific counsel in that filing. However, given their consistent representation in parallel cases, it is highly probable that a combination of these in-house and outside counsel handled the defense for Skysong Innovations in IPR2025-01170.