Veroscan Inc. v. Unified Patents LLC

This active appeal, Veroscan Inc. v. Unified Patents LLC, was filed by Veroscan Inc. against Unified Patents LLC in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 24, 2024. This case is an appeal from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Unified Patents LLC is a member-based organization whose primary goal is to deter frivolous patent litigation and reduce the number of patent assertions by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), also known as patent trolls or Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), in specific technology areas. Unified Patents achieves this by directly challenging the validity of patents owned by NPEs, frequently through inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB. Given Unified Patents' established role and consistent strategy, it is strongly inferred that Veroscan Inc., as the appellant and patent owner in this context, operates as a Non-Practicing Entity or Patent Assertion Entity.

The central issue of this appeal revolves around U.S. Patent 9,646,182, titled "System and method for image conversion." The patent generally describes systems and methods for converting images, specifically focusing on generating a "stylized output image" from an input image using predefined style parameters and image analysis. The appeal's procedural posture is an Article III challenge to a PTAB decision, meaning Veroscan Inc. is appealing the PTAB's findings regarding the patentability of claims from the '182 patent, likely after Unified Patents successfully challenged those claims in an IPR. The Federal Circuit holds exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals, making this court the necessary venue for reviewing the PTAB's decision.

This case is notable as it exemplifies Unified Patents' strategic use of inter partes review to invalidate patents asserted by NPEs, thereby aiming to reduce patent litigation and improve patent quality across various technology sectors. The outcome of this appeal will either uphold the PTAB's determination on the patentability of the '182 patent's claims or reverse it, directly impacting Veroscan's ability to assert the patent in future enforcement efforts. The specific PTAB IPR case number leading to this Federal Circuit appeal is not readily available through public search.

Veroscan Inc. filed an appeal against Unified Patents LLC in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 24, 2024, concerning patent 9646182 (Case number: 24-1732). The current status of this case is active.

As of the current date, detailed information regarding the underlying district court litigation or specific Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings that led to this Federal Circuit appeal is not publicly available through general web searches. Unified Patents LLC is known for frequently initiating inter partes reviews (IPRs) and other post-grant proceedings at the PTAB to challenge the validity of patents, often those held by non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, a specific PTAB case number (IPR or PGR) related to patent 9646182 with Veroscan Inc. as the patent owner and Unified Patents LLC as the petitioner could not be identified through the conducted searches.

Without the originating district court or PTAB case number, specific details on the following key legal developments cannot be ascertained:

• Filing & initial pleadings: The details of any complaint, answer, or counterclaims.
• Pre-trial motions of substance: Information on motions to dismiss, transfer, stay, or for summary judgment.
• Claim construction (Markman) outcomes: Whether the case reached this stage and its results.
• Discovery milestones: Any strategically significant discovery events.
• Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions: Details of any trial, jury verdict, or motions such as JMOL, new trial, or fees.
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment: The final disposition in the lower tribunal that precipitated the appeal.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings: Specifics of any IPR/PGR proceedings on patent 9646182 and their direct effect on the litigation.

The posture of the case is currently an active appeal at the Federal Circuit. Further information would require access to the sealed or less publicly accessible docket information of the originating court or agency.

Despite extensive web searches for "Federal Circuit docket 24-1732 Veroscan Inc. v. Unified Patents LLC," "Veroscan Inc. CAFC 24-1732 counsel appearance," and related terms across various legal news platforms and court information sites, the specific counsel of record representing Veroscan Inc. in this patent infringement appeal could not be definitively identified.

Information regarding attorney appearances for active cases in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is typically available through the court's official docket, which often requires a PACER account for access. Publicly available general search results did not yield the detailed docket entries or news reports explicitly naming the attorneys who have entered an appearance for Veroscan Inc. in case number 24-1732. Therefore, without direct PACER access, the counsel of record for the plaintiff cannot be provided at this time.

Unified Patents LLC is often represented by a combination of in-house counsel and outside law firms in its Federal Circuit proceedings. While direct docket entries for Veroscan Inc. v. Unified Patents LLC, Case No. 24-1732, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit were not immediately accessible to identify the specific counsel of record in this particular case, based on other Federal Circuit cases involving Unified Patents, the following in-house attorneys frequently appear for Unified Patents:

• Jonathan Stroud

  • Role: COO & Chief Legal Officer (in-house counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience: Jonathan Stroud has represented Unified Patents in various capacities, including filing amicus briefs and appearing as counsel in Federal Circuit matters. He has expertise in the evolving business models and practices of patent assertion entities.

• Jordan Rossen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience: Jordan Rossen prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents and has represented clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and Federal Circuit in previous roles at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings. He has worked on cases across various industries, including computer hardware and software, medical devices, and semiconductors. Rossen has been noted as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in Federal Circuit affirmances of PTAB decisions.

• Michelle Aspen

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience: Michelle Aspen has been listed as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in Federal Circuit matters, including amicus filings and appeals.

• David Seastrunk

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel (in-house counsel)
  • Firm: Unified Patents LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience: David Seastrunk prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, he practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he was involved in post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and International Trade Commission investigations. He has also been listed as counsel for Unified Patents in Federal Circuit amicus briefs.

Unified Patents also frequently engages outside counsel from firms such as Haynes and Boone, LLP for Federal Circuit arguments. For example, Laura Vu of Haynes and Boone handled a Federal Circuit argument for Unified Patents in one case, and Angela M. Oliver of Haynes and Boone has also argued for Unified Patents in Federal Circuit appeals.

As the specific docket entries for Veroscan Inc. v. Unified Patents LLC, Case No. 24-1732, were not directly available through public web searches, the definitively identified counsel of record for this precise case cannot be provided at this time. It is possible that filings are not yet publicly detailed or specific appearances have not been logged in a publicly accessible manner through the search tools used.