Unified Patents v. Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01043 involves Unified Patents as the petitioner challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035, owned by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to improving patent quality and deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, particularly by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), often referred to as patent trolls, across various technology sectors. On the other side, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. is a South Korea-based research and development company focusing on next-generation standards in wireless communications and multimedia technology, including Wi-Fi 6. Notably, Wilus has been identified as a patent asserter and is listed in an NPE litigation database, actively pursuing standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement actions against implementers like Samsung Electronics and Askey Computer Corporation in relation to Wi-Fi 6 technology.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035, generally relates to wireless communication methods and devices. While an IPR does not involve an "accused product" in the traditional sense of a district court infringement suit, the proceeding directly challenges the patentability of the claims within the '035 patent. The case is currently before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and has reached the "Instituted" status, meaning the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the patent is unpatentable. Administrative Patent Judge Daniel J. Galligan is assigned to the panel for this IPR. The PTAB serves as a specialized venue for patent validity challenges, offering an alternative to more protracted and costly district court litigation.

This IPR is notable as it exemplifies Unified Patents' strategy of proactive invalidation against patents held by entities identified as patent asserters. The challenge concerns a patent in the wireless communication, specifically Wi-Fi 6, arena, a field ripe with standard-essential patent (SEP) assertions. The outcome of such challenges can have broader implications for the industry, particularly for companies implementing Wi-Fi 6 standards, by influencing the landscape of asserted patents and potential licensing demands.

The IPR case IPR2025-01043, Unified Patents v. Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., involves U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035 (the '035 patent). This patent, related to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) technology, has been asserted by Wilus in parallel district court litigation.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Parallel District Court Litigation - Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-09-11 (approximate): Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. initiated its first U.S. patent litigation, filing complaints in the Eastern District of Texas against multiple implementers of Wi-Fi 6 technology, including Samsung (Case No. 2:24-cv-00746), HP (Case No. 2:24-cv-00752), and ASUSTek (Askey Computer) (Case No. 2:24-cv-00753). Six wireless communication patents were asserted across these cases, including U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035, in overlapping subsets.
• Specifically, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035. The accused products are Wi-Fi 6 enabled devices. Wilus alleged willful infringement and sought damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
• 2026-03-06: In the consolidated pre-trial proceedings for its district court litigations, Wilus brought a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the defendants' (Samsung and Askey) alleged bad-faith negotiations justified suspending Wilus's RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) obligations.
• 2026-04-10: Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. filed a new patent case against TP-Link Corporation PTE Limited et al. in the Eastern District of Texas District Court.
• 2026-04-16: Samsung opposed Wilus's motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) obligations remain binding irrespective of negotiation conduct. Askey also challenged the motion on procedural grounds, contending that bad faith and FRAND suspension were not adequately pleaded or relevant for summary judgment.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• 2025 (circa): Unified Patents filed IPR2025-01043 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035. Unified Patents frequently files IPR petitions against patents it believes are unpatentable or invalid, often representing members who are facing infringement assertions.
• Status: Instituted. The PTAB has instituted the IPR proceeding for IPR2025-01043. As of the current date, the case is listed as "Pending - Instituted."
• 2025-10-17: A significant procedural change occurred at the PTAB when Director John Squires announced he would personally make all IPR and PGR institution decisions, effective October 20, 2025. Routine institution decisions would be issued as summary notices without detailed explanations. This indicates that the institution decision for IPR2025-01043 would have fallen under this new centralized review process.

Outcome:
As of the current date (May 18, 2026), IPR2025-01043 is listed as "Pending - Instituted." This means the trial phase of the IPR is underway. A Final Written Decision has not yet been issued, or at least has not been publicly reported as such in the available search results for this specific IPR. The typical timeframe for a Final Written Decision in an IPR is 12-18 months after institution.### Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01043

The case, Unified Patents v. Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. (IPR2025-01043), involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035, filed by Unified Patents against Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. The '035 patent is related to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) technology. This IPR runs parallel to district court patent infringement litigation initiated by Wilus.

Parallel District Court Litigation:

• September 2024 (approximate): Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. initiated its first U.S. patent infringement lawsuits, filing multiple complaints in the Eastern District of Texas. These complaints targeted implementers of Wi-Fi 6 technology, including Samsung (Case No. 2:24-cv-00746), HP (Case No. 2:24-cv-00752), and ASUSTek (Askey Computer) (Case No. 2:24-cv-00753). U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035 was among the six wireless communication patents asserted across these cases.
• The complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. specifically alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035, among others, by Wi-Fi 6 enabled devices. Wilus claimed willful infringement and sought damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
• 2026-03-06: In the district court proceedings, which were consolidated for pre-trial purposes, Wilus filed a motion for partial summary judgment. This motion argued that alleged "bad-faith" negotiations by Samsung and Askey justified suspending Wilus's RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) obligations related to its standard-essential patents.
• 2026-04-10: Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. filed another patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas, this time against TP-Link Corporation PTE Limited et al.
• 2026-04-16: Samsung opposed Wilus's motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that FRAND obligations remain binding regardless of negotiation conduct. Askey also challenged the motion on procedural grounds, contending that the issues of bad faith and FRAND suspension were not appropriately pleaded or suitable for summary judgment.

PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2025-01043):

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: Unified Patents filed the petition for IPR2025-01043 against U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035. Unified Patents is known for filing IPR petitions to challenge patents it deems unpatentable or invalid, often on behalf of its members facing infringement allegations. The exact filing date of the petition for IPR2025-01043 is not explicitly stated in the provided search results, but the "IPR2025-" prefix indicates it was filed in 2025.
• Institution Decision: The PTAB has instituted the IPR, meaning a trial has been authorized for the challenged claims. The precise date of the institution decision is not available in the provided snippets. However, a significant change in PTAB practice occurred on 2025-10-17, when USPTO Director John Squires announced he would personally handle all IPR and PGR institution decisions, effective 2025-10-20. Under this new process, routine institution decisions are issued as summary notices without detailed written explanations, while complex issues may receive a detailed decision. It is likely that the institution decision for IPR2025-01043 fell under this new centralized review process.
• Current Status: As of today, 2026-05-18, IPR2025-01043 is listed as "Pending - Instituted" on the Unified Patents portal, indicating that the IPR trial is ongoing.

Outcome:
A Final Written Decision for IPR2025-01043 has not yet been publicly reported. IPRs typically conclude with a Final Written Decision within 12 to 18 months of institution.

This report addresses the counsel of record for the plaintiff in Unified Patents v. Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., IPR2025-01043.

Discrepancy in Named Plaintiff/Petitioner:

It is important to note a discrepancy between the provided case metadata and information found in public records. The case metadata identifies "Unified Patents" as the plaintiff(s). However, according to the Unified Patents Portal, which tracks PTAB cases, the petitioner for IPR2025-01043 against Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. for patent 11116035 is listed as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. Unified Patents is a membership organization that frequently files IPR petitions on behalf of its members, which include companies like Samsung. Therefore, while Samsung is the named petitioner, Unified Patents may be facilitating the challenge.

Counsel of Record for IPR2025-01043:

Despite comprehensive searches of public PTAB dockets and legal news sources, the specific counsel of record (individual attorneys) representing the petitioner (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as listed for this IPR) in IPR2025-01043 could not be definitively identified from the available public information.

While Unified Patents often works with various law firms and has in-house counsel for its IPR activities, and specific attorneys have been identified representing Unified Patents in related ex parte reexamination proceedings against Wilus Institute of Standards & Technology Inc. (e.g., Alexander Stein of Morgan Lewis, Michael Jones and Jake Rosvold of Rothwell Figg, and in-house counsel Jessica L.A. Marks, Michelle Aspen, and Vinu Raj), these individuals have not been explicitly named as counsel for IPR2025-01043 in the search results.

As such, without direct docket entries or official filings explicitly naming counsel for IPR2025-01043, specific attorney details cannot be provided at this time. Filings for PTAB proceedings are public, so counsel will appear on the docket as the case progresses.

Counsel of Record for Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01043, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. is represented by attorneys from Russ August & Kabat. While specific counsel for IPR2025-01043 was not explicitly named in a direct docket entry, related IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-00935), which are often handled by the same legal team for a given patent owner, list the following attorneys as counsel for Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc..

The identified attorneys and their details are:

• Neil A. Rubin

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rubin is a registered patent attorney. His firm, Russ August & Kabat, handles complex intellectual property litigation matters.

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Mirzaie is a registered patent attorney with Russ August & Kabat, a firm known for its patent litigation practice.

• James A. Milkey

  • Role: Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Milkey is a registered patent attorney at Russ August & Kabat, involved in patent matters.

• Philip X. Wang

  • Role: Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wang is a registered patent attorney with Russ August & Kabat.

• Linjun Xu

  • Role: Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Ms. Xu is a registered patent attorney practicing with Russ August & Kabat.

These attorneys have provided updated mandatory notices in a closely related IPR (IPR2025-00935) on behalf of Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., indicating their representation of the patent owner in interconnected PTAB proceedings. The search results did not explicitly identify "in-house" or "local counsel" roles for Wilus; the listed attorneys appear to be external counsel. Information on specific notable past cases for each attorney directly within the context of patent litigation was not immediately available through the provided search snippets.