Unified Patents v. Surrozen Operating Inc

Case Overview and Background

This case, Unified Patents v. Surrozen Operating Inc, is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, designated PGR2026-00027, currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner is Unified Patents, an organization dedicated to deterring the assertion of low-quality patents by non-practicing entities (NPEs) and improving patent quality through various strategies, including filing post-grant challenges. Unified Patents operates as a membership-based organization, funded by annual fees, and asserts its challenges independently, though its actions can benefit its members. The patent owner, Surrozen Operating Inc, is a clinical-stage biotechnology company based in South San Francisco, California. Surrozen focuses on discovering and developing drug candidates that selectively modulate the Wnt pathway for tissue repair and regeneration, particularly for severe ophthalmic diseases such as diabetic macular edema (DME) and wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Their pipeline includes therapeutic candidates like SZN-8141, SZN-8143, and SZN-413.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 12,297,278, titled "Wnt surrogate molecules and uses thereof." This patent, granted to Surrozen Operating Inc on May 13, 2025, specifically covers their SWAP™ technology for creating multi-specific Wnt surrogate molecules. Technically, it describes tetravalent antibodies designed to bind to Frizzled (Fzd) receptors and LRP5/6, which are crucial components for efficient Wnt signaling, a pathway essential for cell growth and regeneration. While PGRs primarily challenge patent validity rather than direct infringement, the patent protects Surrozen's core technology, and the accused technology, by extension, refers to the inventions claimed in the patent that underpin Surrozen's Wnt pathway modulation therapeutics.

The PGR was filed on February 12, 2026, placing it within the nine-month window allowed for filing a Post-Grant Review after a patent's grant date. The case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, operating under Technology Center 1600, which handles Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry. This venue is significant as PGRs are a powerful tool for challenging the validity of newly issued patents, and the PTAB has indicated that PGR petitions hold a "favored" position in its discretionary denial calculus. The case is notable because it involves a challenge to recently issued intellectual property central to a clinical-stage biotechnology company's therapeutic development, highlighting the ongoing scrutiny of patent quality in the high-stakes biotechnology sector. Although the case caption identifies Unified Patents as the plaintiff, some public records from the Unified Patents' own portal list "Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC" as the petitioner for PGR2026-00027, indicating a potential real party in interest or a different reporting mechanism for this specific filing. For the purpose of this overview, the information provided in the case metadata naming Unified Patents as the plaintiff is adhered to.

This case is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. As such, the procedural steps differ from those typically found in an infringement lawsuit. Here's a summary of the key legal developments for PGR2026-00027 based on its current status.

Case Caption: Unified Patents v. Surrozen Operating Inc
Case Number: PGR2026-00027
Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Status: Pending
Patents at Issue: 12297278

Key Legal Developments:

1. PGR Petition Filing (2025-10-25): Unified Patents filed a petition for Post-Grant Review (PGR) against Surrozen Operating Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,297,278.
2. Institution Decision (Pending): As of May 29, 2026, the PTAB has not yet issued a decision on whether to institute the PGR. The PTAB typically has up to six months from the filing of the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (POPR) or the due date for the POPR to make an institution decision.
   • The Patent Owner's Preliminary Response was filed on 2026-01-23.
   • This means the institution decision is expected by approximately July 23, 2026.

Current Posture: The PGR is currently in the pre-institution phase, awaiting the PTAB's decision on whether to institute the review.

Parallel Proceedings: This specific PGR (PGR2026-00027) is the primary public record of a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 12,297,278 before the PTAB at this time. There is no information available to indicate other parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings or related district court patent infringement litigation involving this specific patent.

The specific counsel of record representing Unified Patents in PGR2026-00027 against Surrozen Operating Inc has not been identified in the available public records.

Unified Patents typically employs in-house counsel for its Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings and other administrative patent challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While Unified Patents has a team of in-house legal professionals, their specific assignment to individual PGR cases like PGR2026-00027 is not always publicly detailed in general news or hiring announcements. For instance, Andrea Shoffstall is noted as a Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents, participating in webinars discussing PGR trials, indicating their involvement in such proceedings generally. Other team members include Kevin Jakel, Shawn Ambwani, Mary Malone, Jonathan Stroud, Jenn Bisk, Kyla Butler, Elaine Chow, and Jennifer Gallagher. However, the role and specific case assignments for these individuals in PGR2026-00027 are not specified in the search results.

It is worth noting that some public records from the USPTO and Unified Patents' own portal list "Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC" as the petitioner in PGR2026-00027, with Surrozen Operating Inc. as the patent owner represented by Cooley LLP. However, per the authoritative case metadata provided, Unified Patents is the plaintiff. Despite extensive searching, no specific counsel for Unified Patents in this particular case (PGR2026-00027) could be found.

Cooley LLP represents Surrozen Operating Inc. in the Post-Grant Review case PGR2026-00027. The firm is listed as having a Power of Attorney for Surrozen Operating Inc., with an office in Washington, DC. Cooley LLP has a robust Intellectual Property practice with significant experience in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, having handled over 300 inter partes review and covered business method review proceedings.

The following attorneys at Cooley LLP are likely involved, given their expertise in patent litigation, PTAB proceedings, and life sciences:

• Sanya Sukduang (Partner)

  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC office.
  • Experience: Sanya Sukduang is a leading advisor for patent disputes, particularly to clients in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device industries. His experience aligns well with the biotechnology and organic chemistry nature of the patent at issue (12297278).

• Phillip Morton (Partner)

  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC office.
  • Experience: Phillip Morton's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent litigation in district courts, the International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He also has significant experience in "rocket docket" jurisdictions such as the Eastern District of Virginia. His experience encompasses Hatch-Waxman litigation and life sciences IP litigation.

• Stephen Smith (Partner)

  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC office.
  • Experience: Stephen Smith chairs Cooley's patent litigation department and is recognized as a leading advisor to technology companies in competitor cases across various litigation venues. While his profile emphasizes technology, Cooley's IP practice also covers life sciences and healthcare, and Smith oversees the department which handles such matters.