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

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).

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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents IPR2025-01327 counsel", "Unified Patents v. THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) Co Ltd et al. IPR2025-01327 counsel", "Unified Patents attorneys for IPRs", "Unified Patents IPR counsel", "Unified Patents legal team"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for Unified Patents in IPR2025-01327. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney. I will use web search with specific queries to find this information, looking for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.Unified Patents, the petitioner in IPR2025-01327, is represented by a combination of in-house counsel and, often, outside law firms in its inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. While the exact counsel of record for IPR2025-01327 is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, Unified Patents' general practice and past representations offer insight into their legal team structure.

Unified Patents itself is not a law firm and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its members. Instead, it acts independently to challenge patents it believes are invalid, utilizing both its internal legal team and external counsel.

Based on general information about Unified Patents' legal operations and previous IPR filings, the following types of counsel are typically involved:

• In-house Counsel (Unified Patents): Unified Patents maintains a team of in-house senior patent counsel. For example, individuals like Kelly Hughes and Alyssa Holtslander have been noted as in-house counsel in other IPR proceedings. Other members of their legal team include Jenn Bisk, Kyla Bulter, Jessica L.A. Marks, T.J. Murphy, Vinu Raj, Jordan Rossen, Andrea Shoffstall, David Seastrunk, and Jason Wejnert. Jonathan Stroud also serves as COO & CLO. These in-house attorneys often play a significant role in the strategy and execution of IPR petitions.
• External Law Firms: Unified Patents frequently engages outside law firms to represent them in IPR proceedings. For instance, in a different IPR, Unified Patents was represented by attorneys Jon Bowser, Angela Oliver, Michael McCarty, and Matt Beck (now at Unified Patents) of Haynes and Boone. While Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP is listed as counsel for Unified Patents in other IPRs, including some filed in 2025, there is no direct confirmation of their involvement in IPR2025-01327 in the provided information.

To identify the precise counsel of record for IPR2025-01327, a direct review of the official docket for that specific case at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) would be necessary. The provided search results do not contain the specific attorney appearance information for IPR2025-01327.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01327 THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY counsel of record", "IPR2025-01327 THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY attorneys", "Unified Patents v. THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) Co Ltd et al. IPR2025-01327 counsel", "IPR2025-01327 PTAB docket"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) (THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) Co Ltd and THROUGHTEK CO Ltd) in the IPR case IPR2025-01327. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience. I will use web search with the provided case number and party names to look for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Since this is an IPR, the "defendant" is technically the Patent Owner.

Let's refine the search to specifically look for "Patent Owner counsel" or "attorneys for Throughtek IPR2025-01327".Based on the available web search results, the counsel of record representing THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) Co Ltd and THROUGHTEK CO Ltd (the Patent Owner/defendant(s)) in IPR2025-01327 could not be definitively identified. While general information regarding PTAB proceedings and examples of counsel for other IPR cases were found, no specific docket entry or official listing of attorneys for THROUGHTEK TECHNOLOGY in IPR2025-01327 was present in the provided snippets. Access to the full PTAB docket for IPR2025-01327 would be necessary to identify the counsel of record.