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.

I'll search for the docket and counsel information for this PGR.

Important: the docket results contradict the case metadata. Let me dig into the actual docket documents to confirm parties and counsel.

Now let me verify PGR2026-00020-specific filings and check the Unified Patents discrepancy, plus counsel backgrounds.

⚠️ Threshold correction before the counsel list

The case metadata in this assignment does not match the docket. PGR2026-00020 is not Unified Patents v. Treace Medical Concepts. Every source I found — Docket Alarm, the PTAB docket tracker, GreyB/IPverse, and the parties' own filings served in the related proceedings — captions the case:

Paragon 28, Inc. v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc., PGR2026-00020 (P.T.A.B.), filed December 23, 2025, on U.S. Patent No. 12,268,428 ("Tarsal-metatarsal joint procedure utilizing fulcrum," issued Apr. 8, 2025).

I found no evidence of any Unified Patents involvement in PGR2026-00020 (or in any Treace-related PTAB filing). The earlier-generated "Plaintiff representatives" section — which lists Unified Patents in-house counsel such as Jonathan Stroud, Jenn Bisk, etc. — appears to be inapplicable to this docket and should be corrected or struck. Per your operating rules I am flagging rather than silently overriding; but you should treat the petitioner identification as an error in the metadata.

Also note the task framing: this is a PTAB post-grant review, not a district-court infringement case. The "defendant" in the PGR sense is the patent owner/respondent, Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. I cover that team first, then briefly note the district-court defendants' counsel (Zimmer Biomet / Paragon 28) for completeness, since there is a live infringement suit involving this patent.

---

Counsel of record for Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (Patent Owner / respondent)

Treace's PTAB team is led by a solo practitioner, Richard McCaulley, with backup from Van Hoven PC and Fredrikson & Byron, plus in-house counsel. The composition is confirmed by (i) Treace's Power of Attorney filed in PGR2026-00020 on Feb. 9, 2026 (Paper 4) and Mandatory Notice (Paper 5); (ii) Treace's identical POAs/mandatory notices in the companion matters (PGR2026-00017, -00022, -00031); and (iii) petitioner Paragon 28's certificates of service, which list the same four counsel as "counsel for Patent Owner" (e.g., Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices in IPR2026-00194, Apr. 13, 2026).

No "local counsel" designation exists at the PTAB — the Board has no local-counsel requirement, so the four-firm structure above (lead + three backups, one in-house) is the complete appearance.

Sourcing caveats

• I confirmed the paper numbers and dates for the POA (Paper 4), Mandatory Notice (Paper 5), PO Discretionary Denial Brief (Paper 6), POPR (Paper 7), and Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 9) from Docket Alarm's PGR2026-00020 docket index. I could not open the text of Paper 4 itself in the freely accessible index; the identity of the counsel is corroborated by the identical Feb. 9, 2026 POA in PGR2026-00017 (same date, same signature block, same case caption format) and by the Apr. 13, 2026 service list in IPR2026-00194.
• Nothing appears sealed, but the POPR's substantive arguments are not fully reproduced in public indexes.
• I have no independent biographical/experience data for McCaulley, Van Hoven, Plenzler, LaVanway or Arrubla beyond their filings in this Treace matter; I am not asserting prior-case histories I could not verify.

---

Petitioner's counsel (Paragon 28, Inc.) — for contrast

Not asked for, but useful because it's the party your metadata mislabels as "Unified Patents":

• Ali S. Razai (Reg. No. 60,771) — lead counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; signed the PGR petitions (Dec. 19–23, 2025) on behalf of Paragon 28.
• Jacob L. Peterson (Reg. No. 65,096); Brandon G. Smith (provisionally recognized PTAB attorney); Zachary B. Messick (Reg. No. 77,839) — all Morgan Lewis, Costa Mesa.

If you actually meant the district-court infringement defendants

The co-pending infringement case is Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. and Paragon 28, Inc., C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00592-GBW (D. Del.), in which the '428 patent is one of the asserted patents (per Paragon 28's Apr. 13, 2026 mandatory notices in IPR2026-00194). Defendants Zimmer Biomet and Paragon 28 are represented by Morgan Lewis:

• Ali Razai and Brandon G. Smith (pro hac vice), Costa Mesa, CA; Krista Vink Venegas (pro hac vice), Chicago; Jack Hendershott (pro hac vice), New York;
• John V. Gorman (DE Bar No. 6599) and Amy M. Dudash (DE Bar No. 5741), Morgan Lewis, 1201 N. Market St., Suite 2201, Wilmington, DE 19801 — i.e., the Delaware/local counsel.

---

Two status points that affect the counsel picture

1. Institution status is unresolved in the sources I could reach. Docket Alarm shows a Board paper dated May 15, 2026 captioned "Director Discretionary Decision: Refer," and PGR2026-00020 appears in a May 2026 PTAB order listing proceedings to be "reviewed for merits and non-discretionary considerations" (alongside PGR2026-00017, -00022, IPR2026-00183, -00194, etc.). Companion PGR2026-00017 was instituted on June 12, 2026 per GreyB's tracker. I could not confirm a merits-institution decision specific to the '428 patent, so treat "instituted" as unverified for PGR2026-00020.
2. Treace filed a statutory disclaimer of claims in the '428 patent (Patent Owner Ex. 2025, "12,268,428 Disclaimer," filed with the Apr. 6, 2026 POPR) — relevant to whether any counsel appearance becomes moot.

Bottom line: for PGR2026-00020, the defendant/patent-owner side is Richard McCaulley (McCaulley Law Group, lead), with Joshua Van Hoven and Jeremy Plenzler (Van Hoven PC), Paul LaVanway (Fredrikson & Byron), and Andres Arrubla (Treace, in-house) as backup. The petitioner is Paragon 28, Inc., not Unified Patents — please correct the case caption and the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section.