Litigation

Unified Patents v. THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) Co Ltd et al.

Pending - Instituted

IPR2025-01327

Patents at issue (1)

Defender signal. Patent 9727655 has had claims invalidated at PTAB. Those final written decisions are public record and a ready-made § 102 / § 103 ground in district court. See IPR estoppel for what carries over.

9727655PTAB: claims invalidated

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Unified Patents filed an inter partes review petition (IPR2025-01327) challenging US patent 9727655, which has been instituted by the PTAB.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01327, pits Unified Patents against THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) Co Ltd and THROUGHTEK CO Ltd before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents is an international organization that seeks to deter abusive patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs) by challenging the validity of patents in various technology areas, often through IPR proceedings. THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) Co Ltd and THROUGHTEK CO Ltd (collectively, "Throughtek") are operating companies based in Taiwan and China, respectively, specializing in cloud-based solutions for IoT, smart homes, and surveillance, including peer-to-peer (P2P) connectivity and video streaming technology. While the IPR itself does not involve an "accused product," it challenges the validity of a patent that Throughtek has asserted in underlying district court litigation against various technology companies.

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,727,655, titled "Peer-to-Peer System and Method for Connecting Network Devices." This patent generally describes a system and method for establishing a peer-to-peer connection between network devices, such as cameras and client devices, facilitating data transmission even when devices are behind firewalls or NATs. Unified Patents filed the IPR petition to challenge claims of the '655 patent, and the PTAB subsequently instituted the review, indicating that Unified Patents successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.

The case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The procedural posture of an instituted IPR means that the PTAB will now proceed to a full trial on the merits of the challenged claims. This venue is critical because IPRs offer an alternative, often faster, and less expensive pathway than district court litigation to challenge patent validity, particularly for entities facing infringement allegations. This IPR is notable as it aligns with Unified Patents' strategy of targeting patents asserted by both NPEs and operating companies in district court, providing a defensive measure for the broader technology industry against patents they believe are invalid. The outcome of this IPR could therefore impact ongoing or future district court litigations involving the '655 patent and similar P2P networking technologies.

Citations:
Unified Patents website, "About Us", unifiedpatents.com. (Accessed May 21, 2026).
PTAB Litigation, IPR2025-01327, Unified Patents v. Throughtek Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd, et al., Order Instituting Inter Partes Review. (Accessed via web search).
Unified Patents website, "Our Mission", unifiedpatents.com. (Accessed May 21, 2026).
Unified Patents website, "Throughtek Technologies", unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/throughtek-technologies. (Accessed May 21, 2026).
THRU Technology Co., Ltd. (THROUGHTEK) website, "About Us", www.throughtek.com/about_us. (Accessed May 21, 2026).
THRU Technology Co., Ltd. (THROUGHTEK) website, "IoT Solution", www.throughtek.com/solution_iot. (Accessed May 21, 2026).
THRU Technology Co., Ltd. (THROUGHTEK) website, "Surveillance", www.throughtek.com/solution_surveillance. (Accessed May 21, 2026).
USPTO Patent Full Text and Image Database, US Patent 9,727,655, "Peer-to-Peer System and Method for Connecting Network Devices." (Accessed via web search).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

This IPR case, IPR2025-01327, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been instituted. As an Inter Partes Review, the procedural steps differ from a typical district court patent infringement litigation. The '655 patent at issue has been asserted by Throughtek in underlying district court litigation against various technology companies.

Here's a breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes within the IPR and its related district court context:

1. IPR Filing & Institution:

  • IPR Petition Filing: Unified Patents filed the inter partes review petition IPR2025-01327 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,727,655. The exact filing date is not immediately available through the search results, but the case number indicates it was filed in the 2025 fiscal year.
  • Institution of IPR: The PTAB instituted the review, meaning Unified Patents successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of the '655 patent is unpatentable. The date of institution is also not explicitly found in the provided snippets. The current status of the IPR is "Pending - Instituted."

2. Claim Construction in IPR:

  • In IPR proceedings for petitions filed on or after July 1, 2018, the PTAB applies the Phillips claim construction standard, consistent with that used in district courts. The petition for IPR2025-01327, filed in 2025, would therefore be subject to the Phillips standard. This differs from the "broadest reasonable interpretation" (BRI) standard applied to older IPR petitions.

3. Discovery in IPR:

  • Discovery in IPRs is generally more limited than in district court litigation, focusing on mandatory initial disclosures and additional discovery only upon a showing of good cause.

4. Parallel District Court Litigation & Stays:

  • Throughtek has actively asserted its P2P patents, including the '655 patent, in various U.S. patent litigation cases.
  • ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. v. Amcrest Technologies, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:23-cv-00035): Throughtek filed this suit on January 27, 2023, asserting reissue patent USRE047842E (a related patent to '655, also covering P2P technology) against Amcrest Technologies and several major retailers including Amazon, Walmart, and Target. This case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on February 21, 2024, after approximately 391 days before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas. Throughtek's infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, while Amcrest's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.
  • THROUGHTEK Co., LTD., et al. v. Reolink Innovation Inc., et al. (D. Del. Case No. 1:24-cv-01027): This case was filed in the District of Delaware on September 12, 2024, by Throughtek Technology Shenzhen Co. Ltd. against Reolink Innovation Inc. and other defendants, including Costco Wholesale Corp. and eBay Inc. The specific patents asserted in this case are not explicitly mentioned in the snippet, but the context suggests they are related to Throughtek's P2P technology.
  • The initiation of an IPR often leads defendants in parallel district court cases to seek a stay of the litigation pending the PTAB's decision. Courts generally consider factors like the stage of the district court proceedings, whether a stay will simplify the issues, and potential prejudice to the non-moving party when deciding on a stay. A stay is particularly justified when the PTAB proceeding is likely to assist the court in determining patent validity or eliminate the need for an infringement trial. As of the current date, specific motions to stay related to IPR2025-01327 in any active district court cases involving the '655 patent are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

5. IPR Outcome (Pending):

  • The IPR2025-01327 case is currently "Pending - Instituted," meaning the PTAB trial is ongoing. A Final Written Decision (FWD) has not yet been issued.
  • Upon issuance, an FWD would determine the patentability of the challenged claims of the '655 patent. If claims are found unpatentable, they are cancelled and can no longer be enforced in district court. An FWD can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the petitioner's counsel of record in IPR2025-01327.

Bottom line

I could not confirm counsel of record for the petitioner in IPR2025-01327 from a primary PTAB filing (petition, mandatory notices, or power of attorney). What the public record shows is a direct conflict with the case metadata on who the petitioner is — and therefore on whose counsel you'd be looking for. Flagging that first, because it changes the answer.

⚠️ Discrepancy with case metadata (must be resolved before relying on any counsel list)

Field Case metadata (authoritative per instructions) Public PTAB aggregators
Petitioner ("plaintiff") Unified Patents Reolink Innovation Inc. et al.
Patent Owner ("defendant") ThroughTek Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.; ThroughTek Co. Ltd. ThroughTek Co. Ltd.
Filed FY2025 (no date given) July 18, 2025
Institution decision Instituted (no date given) December 12, 2025
Status Pending – Instituted Terminated – Adverse Judgment (May 19, 2026)

Sources: GreyB/IPVerse case page for IPR2025-01327 (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01327) and the Arctic Invent PTAB case database entry for the same proceeding (https://cases.arcticinvent.com/us/patent/us/decision-granting-institution-of-inter-partes-review-35-usc-314/ipr2025-01327/), which describes the institution decision as granting review of claims 1–19 of U.S. 9,727,655 over Schwan/Lee/Strickland.

Two possible reconciliations, both unverified:

  1. Metadata is right on party identity, aggregators are wrong or stale — i.e., Unified Patents is the petitioner and the Reolink attribution is a database error.
  2. There are two (or more) parallel IPRs against the '655 patent by different petitioners (Reolink and Unified Patents), and the metadata's party name and the aggregator's proceeding number have been cross-wired. This is plausible: Reolink and Unified Patents are structurally different petitioners, and Reolink is a defendant in the underlying D. Del. case on the same patent (ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. v. Reolink Innovation Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01027 (D. Del.), see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69157776/throughtek-co-ltd-v-reolink-innovation-inc/).

Note also that the aggregator's status line (adverse judgment in May 2026) is inconsistent with the metadata's "Pending – Instituted," but is chronologically after the institution date it reports, so it is internally coherent as a sequence; the metadata appears not to have been updated past institution.

Counsel identified

Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. (petitioner per public PTAB aggregator)

Name Role Firm / office Note
Michael T. Hawkins (Reg. No. 57,867) Listed as petitioner counsel (the aggregator renders the entry as "Hawkins, Michael et al.," implying additional counsel not individually itemized) Reported as Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN — firm attribution is inferred, not confirmed from a document in this proceeding Very experienced PTAB practitioner; his registration number appears on PTAB powers of attorney for major corporate petitioners (e.g., Huawei — see the Docket Alarm POA filings in IPR2020-01141 and IPR2020-01117). A PTAB attorney-docket record lists "Fish & Richardson LLP (representing Reolink)" for "IPR Petition … Reolink Innovation Inc. … v Throughtek, Co., Ltd.," attorney docket 52472‑0005IP1.

The GreyB entry also shows a "Respondent Counsel" row with no name populated — i.e., the aggregator has no recorded counsel for ThroughTek in IPR2025-01327. That is consistent with the earlier "Defendant representatives" section, which likewise could not identify anyone.

Unified Patents (petitioner per case metadata)

No counselor entry for a Unified Patents IPR2025-01327 filing was found. If the metadata is correct and Unified Patents is the petitioner, then based on Unified's consistent practice in its other IPRs it would almost certainly be represented in-house, with no outside or local counsel, from its Chevy Chase, MD office. For illustration only — these names are from a different proceeding (IPR2022-01500, Unified Patents v. Torchlight Technologies) and are NOT verified for IPR2025-01327 — Unified's mandatory notices there designated:

  • Timothy J. Murphy (Reg. No. 62,585) — Lead Counsel, Unified Patents, LLC, 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD
  • David C. Seastrunk (Reg. No. 73,723) — Back-up Counsel, same address
  • Ashraf Fawzy (Reg. No. 67,914) — Back-up Counsel, same address

(Source: Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2022-01500, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1550261](/patent/1550261)/download-documents). Other Unified in-house PTAB attorneys who appear across its docket include Jonathan Stroud and Roshan Mansinghani. I am not asserting any of these individuals appear in IPR2025-01327.

What I could not verify, and how to close the gap

  • No primary document obtained. I did not retrieve the IPR2025-01327 petition, its mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), or any power of attorney. The identification above rests on a secondary aggregator plus a same-firm representation in the related IPR2024-01192 (Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v. ThroughTek Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01192, which lists the same "Hawkins, Michael et al." petitioner-counsel entry).
  • PACER is not the right source. IPR proceedings are not on PACER. Confirm via PTAB E2E / P-TACTS (ptacts.uspto.gov) — the petition and mandatory notices are public in an instituted case — or the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End system docket, or commercial PTAB dockets (Docket Alarm, Lex Machina, Docket Navigator).
  • No local counsel: there is no local-counsel requirement in an IPR, so a "local counsel" row will be empty regardless.
  • Sealing: petitioner/patent-owner counsel designations are not themselves sealable, so if the docket shows no counsel, that means no appearance has been recorded — not that filings are sealed.

One framing caveat

In an IPR there is no "plaintiff"; the petitioner is the functional plaintiff, and the patent owner (ThroughTek) is the functional defendant — which is the reverse of the district court alignment, where ThroughTek is the plaintiff suing Reolink and the retailers (D. Del. 1:24-cv-01027; earlier E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00035 against Amcrest/Amazon/Walmart/Target, dismissed with prejudice Feb. 21, 2024). If your actual target was ThroughTek's district court plaintiff-side counsel rather than the IPR petitioner's counsel, that is a separate list that I have not verified here and should not be guessed at; say the word and I'll pull it from the D. Del. docket.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll search for the Patent Owner's counsel of record in this IPR.

The first results surface a significant discrepancy with the case metadata. Let me dig deeper.

Now let me find the Patent Owner's (ThroughTek's) PTAB counsel specifically.

⚠️ Threshold flag: petitioner identity and case status contradict the case metadata

Before addressing counsel, two search results directly contradict the authoritative case metadata, and both matter for identifying "defense" counsel:

  1. Petitioner. Multiple third-party PTAB trackers identify the petitioner in IPR2025-01327 as Reolink Innovation Inc. et al., not Unified Patents:

    Per the operating rules I treat the metadata ("Plaintiff: Unified Patents") as controlling for party naming, but the discrepancy is material: if Reolink is the petitioner, the "defendant"/respondent is still ThroughTek, so the answer below is unchanged in substance — ThroughTek is the responding party and its PTAB team is the relevant counsel of record.

  2. Case status. The same trackers report IPR2025-01327 as "Terminated – Adverse Judgment" with an institution decision dated Dec 12, 2025 and a termination date of May 19, 2026 (IP Verse). That conflicts with the metadata's "Pending – Instituted." These aggregator sites are not primary sources and show inconsistent/aggregated data (e.g., mixed petitioner naming, verbatim copy errors), so I would not rely on them for status without checking the PTAB docket directly.

Counsel of record for the responding party (ThroughTek)

Important sourcing caveat: I was unable to retrieve an actual Entry of Appearance, Power of Attorney, or Mandatory Notice filed in IPR2025-01327 itself. The specific PTAB filings that would establish counsel of record in this proceeding were not surfaced. The counsel identified below are drawn from (a) the PTAB tracker entry for the directly parallel Reolink v. ThroughTek IPR involving the same patent family, and (b) court records and a published opinion in ThroughTek's district court enforcement campaigns. Treat these as strongly indicated but not confirmed for IPR2025-01327.

Confirmed from the parallel PTAB proceeding (IPR2024-01192, Reolink v. Through Tek Technology (Shenzhen))

  • Justin I. King — indicated lead counsel (PTAB).
    • Firm: WPAT, P.C. — 8230 Boone Blvd., Suite 405, Vienna, VA 22182.
    • The IP Verse case page for IPR2024-01192 lists "Respondent Counsel | KING, JUSTIN et al." — https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01192. That proceeding involved the same parties (Reolink as petitioner; Through Tek Technology (Shenzhen) as respondent) and a sibling P2P patent (U.S. 9,774,916).
    • Experience note: Mr. King is ThroughTek's principal U.S. patent counsel of record across its enforcement campaign, including the Federal Circuit appeal ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. v. Reolink Innovation Inc., No. 24-1773 (Fed. Cir., docketed May 3, 2024), where he filed the entry of appearance and corrected entry of appearance for the appellant — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-ap1-casegk44f6cb4ad74c-[240135](/patent/240135).

Also part of the ThroughTek IP litigation team (district court / Federal Circuit; PTAB appearance not confirmed)

For cross-reference — petitioner-side counsel (not the "defense" team, but relevant to the parallel proceedings)

What I could not verify (no fabrication)

  • No IPR2025-01327-specific Entry of Appearance / Mandatory Notice was located. The identification of King (and Aitken) rests on the tracker entry for IPR2024-01192 and on the district court/Federal Circuit record, both involving the same parties and the same P2P patent family ('655 and '916 patents).
  • No in-house counsel for ThroughTek appeared in any source. ThroughTek is a Taiwan/Shenzhen operating company (TWSE-listed, ticker 6565) and its filings are handled by outside counsel (WPAT primarily), so an in-house appearance would be unexpected.
  • No filings are indicated as sealed, and the PTAB trackers show a blank "Respondent Counsel" field for IPR2025-01327 itself — which is more consistent with a data gap than with a sealing order.
  • Status conflict (Pending-Instituted vs. Terminated-Adverse Judgment) is unresolved; the aggregator data should be checked against the PTAB docket and the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / USPTO API before relying on it.

Bottom line: The responding party's PTAB team in this proceeding — as best the public record supports — is Justin I. King of WPAT, P.C. (Vienna, VA) as lead, likely with Andrew C. Aitken of Aitken Law Offices (Wheaton, MD), the same pair that has litigated the ThroughTek P2P portfolio against Reolink in district court and at the Federal Circuit. Gerard M. O'Rourke (O'Kelly & O'Rourke, Wilmington, DE) is ThroughTek's Delaware local counsel in the co-pending D. Del. cases but has not been linked to the PTAB proceeding.