Unified Patents v. Treace Medical Concepts Inc.

Unified Patents has initiated a Post-Grant Review (PGR) against US patent 12268428, owned by Treace Medical Concepts Inc., before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number PGR2026-00020. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring "patent trolls" (Non-Practicing Entities or NPEs) and improving patent quality by challenging questionable patents, often through IPRs and PGRs at the PTAB. While primarily focused on NPEs, Unified Patents also files challenges against operating companies, such as Treace Medical Concepts. Treace Medical Concepts Inc. is a commercial-stage orthopaedic medical device company based in Florida, specializing in foot and ankle surgical devices. Their flagship product is the Lapiplasty 3D Bunion Correction System, which includes instruments, implants, and surgical methods designed to correct bunion deformities in three dimensions.

The PGR is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This venue is significant because PTAB proceedings, particularly PGRs, offer a specialized and often more efficient avenue than district court litigation for challenging patent validity, especially for patents filed under the America Invents Act (AIA) and challenged within nine months of grant or reissue. PGRs can result in claims being canceled or amended, potentially impacting the patent owner's ability to assert the patent in future infringement actions. While the specific accused product or technology in a PGR is the patent itself, Treace's core business in 3D bunion correction systems suggests that US patent 12268428 likely pertains to aspects of these surgical methods, instruments, or implants. A one-line technical sketch of US patent 12268428 is not readily available from general web searches, and the patent number format appears unusual, making specific details difficult to retrieve without direct access to the patent document. However, the patent number is confirmed in Unified Patents' PTAB case list.

This case is notable due to Unified Patents' role as an anti-NPE advocacy group challenging an operating company in the specialized medical device sector. Treace Medical Concepts is a key player in the bunion correction market, with its Lapiplasty system representing a significant advancement in treating these deformities. A successful challenge to this patent could impact the competitive landscape within the foot and ankle surgery market. The current PTAB climate, characterized by increased discretionary denials and fluctuating institution rates—where institution rates against operating companies are generally higher than against NPEs but still face scrutiny—adds a layer of complexity and notability to this pending PGR.

The Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2026-00020, filed by Unified Patents against Treace Medical Concepts Inc. concerning US patent 12268428, is currently pending. Due to its pending status, there are no final outcomes or definitive legal developments beyond the initial filing.

However, based on general PTAB procedures and recent trends in PGRs, the following key legal developments are anticipated or have likely occurred:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Petition for PGR):

• Unified Patents filed a petition for Post-Grant Review (PGR) against US Patent 12268428. The case number PGR2026-00020 indicates a filing in the 2026 fiscal year. While the exact filing date for this specific case is not readily available, other PGRs in the 2026 series show filing dates as early as November 4, 2025 (PGR2026-00010) and February 20, 2026 (PGR2026-00026), suggesting a filing within this timeframe.

2. Preliminary Response and Discretionary Denial Briefs:

• Following the petition, Treace Medical Concepts Inc. (the patent owner) would have the opportunity to file a preliminary response arguing why the review should not be instituted.
• Patent owners can also file a brief requesting discretionary denial of the PGR, to which Unified Patents can file an opposition brief. This typically occurs within two to three months of the petition's accorded filing date.
• The PTAB, and particularly the USPTO Director, has been increasingly exercising discretionary denial in IPRs and PGRs, with significant procedural changes implemented in late 2025 and early 2026. These changes include a focus on "settled expectations" for older patents, the Director assuming personal responsibility for institution decisions, and a new "domestic industry" factor which considers U.S. manufacturing activity of both the patent owner and challenger.
• PGR petitions, however, are generally "favored" because they must be filed within nine months of the patent grant, which is considered close in time to examination and before patent rights are strongly settled. This could weigh against discretionary denial in this case.

3. Institution Decision:

• The most significant upcoming milestone for this PGR is the institution decision. The PTAB will determine whether to institute a formal review of the challenged patent claims. The institution rate for PTAB petitions has seen a downward trend, with institution rates against operating companies at 40.5% in Q1 2026, compared to 81.6% in Q1 2025.
• If instituted, the PGR proceeds to the trial phase where the parties present arguments and evidence regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. If denied, the PGR proceeding concludes.

4. Potential for Parallel Proceedings:

• Treace Medical Concepts has been active in patent litigation, filing infringement suits against competitors like Stryker Corporation (October 2024) and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (June 2025) concerning its Lapiplasty® 3D Bunion Correction® technologies, and previously settled a lawsuit with Fusion Orthopedics in April 2023. While the specific patent 12268428 has not been explicitly linked to these district court cases in available search results, the existence of such parallel litigation could potentially be a factor considered by the PTAB in discretionary denial, although PGRs are often favored even with co-pending litigation.

As the case is still pending, further details regarding specific motions, claim construction, discovery, or a final disposition are not yet available. The outcome of the institution decision will be the next critical legal development.

Unified Patents, as an organization focused on challenging patents, often utilizes in-house counsel and sometimes engages outside law firms for their PTAB proceedings. While Unified Patents is not a law firm itself, it employs a team of experienced patent attorneys.

Based on available information for Unified Patents' general practices and its listed team members:

In-house Counsel (Unified Patents):

• Jonathan Stroud (COO & CLO, Unified Patents): As Chief Legal Officer, Jonathan Stroud likely oversees all legal challenges, including PGRs. Unified Patents often advertises for experienced patent attorneys with significant PTAB experience, suggesting their in-house team handles substantial aspects of these cases.
• Jenn Bisk (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): Jenn Bisk is listed as Senior Patent Counsel and is likely involved in the drafting and litigation of patent office proceedings.
• Kyla Bulter (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): Kyla Bulter also holds the role of Senior Patent Counsel within Unified Patents and would likely contribute to the legal strategy and execution in PGR cases.
• Kelly Hughes (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): Kelly Hughes is listed as Senior Patent Counsel.
• T.J. Murphy (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): T.J. Murphy is listed as Senior Patent Counsel.
• Jessica L.A. Marks (SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel, Unified Patents): Jessica Marks is listed as SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel and has moderated panels on patent administrative law.
• Vinu Raj (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): Vinu Raj is listed as Senior Patent Counsel.
• Jordan Rossen (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): Jordan Rossen is listed as Senior Patent Counsel.
• Andrea Shoffstall (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): Andrea Shoffstall is listed as Senior Patent Counsel.
• David Seastrunk (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): David Seastrunk is listed as Senior Patent Counsel.
• Jason Wejnert (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents): Jason Wejnert is listed as Senior Patent Counsel.

Unified Patents frequently works with outside counsel as well, and firms like Duane Morris LLP have been recognized for representing petitioners before the PTAB, including Unified Patents. However, without direct access to the docket for PGR2026-00020, it is not possible to definitively name any specific outside counsel for this particular case. Filings for PTAB cases are typically accessible via the PTAB End-to-End system or the Unified Patents Portal.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["PGR2026-00020 counsel of record", "PTAB PGR2026-00020 Treace Medical Concepts Inc. counsel", "Treace Medical Concepts patent litigation counsel", "Fish & Richardson Treace Medical Concepts", "Marshall Gerstein & Borun Treace Medical Concepts"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Treace Medical Concepts Inc. in the PGR2026-00020 case. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for these attorneys.

I will use web search to look for this information, specifically targeting PTAB dockets, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Given the existing case summary and the fact that the petition was filed on December 23, 2025, and the current date is May 29, 2026, the patent owner (Treace Medical Concepts) would have had the opportunity to file a preliminary response and would have counsel of record by now.

I will focus my search on "PGR2026-00020 counsel of record" and "PTAB PGR2026-00020 Treace Medical Concepts Inc. counsel". I will also broaden my search to "Treace Medical Concepts patent litigation counsel" to see if there are any recurring firms or attorneys for their patent cases, as they are actively involved in other patent litigation as mentioned in the "Key legal developments & outcome" section.As of the current date, specific counsel of record for Treace Medical Concepts Inc. in the Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2026-00020 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cannot be definitively identified through publicly available direct docket searches. PTAB docket entries detailing specific attorney appearances for this particular case are not readily accessible via general web search.

However, based on Treace Medical Concepts Inc.'s past patent litigation activities and the specializations of intellectual property firms, the following can be inferred as potential or likely representatives:

In-house Counsel:

• Lisa O. Taylor, Deputy Chief Counsel, Assistant Corporate Secretary, Treace Medical Concepts Inc.
  • Note: As Deputy Chief Counsel, Ms. Taylor would likely be involved in overseeing and coordinating the company's legal strategy, including PTAB proceedings, by engaging and working with external law firms.

External Counsel (Likely based on past representation and firm specialization):

• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note on relevant experience: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in medical device patent litigation and a leading practice before the PTAB, having handled more post-grant proceedings than any other firm. They have a history of representing Treace Medical Concepts in patent litigation, as evidenced by a 2022 document noting "Fish & Richardson P.C., the same firm representing Treace Medical in this present action" in a patent infringement case against Fusion Orthopedics, LLC. This strong and ongoing relationship, coupled with their specialization in medical device IP and PTAB expertise, makes them highly likely to represent Treace in PGR2026-00020.
• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
  • Michael J. Flynn, Attorney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Delaware Office)
    • Note on relevant experience: Michael J. Flynn is listed as an attorney for Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. in a parallel district court case, Stryker European Operations Holdings LLC et al v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (D. Del., Case No. 1:25-cv-00637-GBW). He focuses on intellectual property litigation, representing clients as lead or Delaware counsel primarily in the District of Delaware. While his involvement in district court patent litigation for Treace is confirmed, his or his firm's specific role in Treace's PTAB proceedings for PGR2026-00020 is not explicitly stated in the available search results.

Without direct access to the PTAB docket for PGR2026-00020, the precise counsel of record remains unconfirmed.