Congruent Media app security patent challenged

On April 3, 2026, Unified filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 9,135,418, owned and asserted by Congruent Media Resourcing LLC, an NPE. The ‘418 patent generally relates to a method of operating secure applications on an enterprise mobile device. It has been asserted against Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, PreEmptive Solutions, and Trend Micro Inc.

View district court litigations by Congruent Media. Unified is represented by Ellyar Barazesh at Baker Botts, and by in-house counsel, Jordan Rossen, Jenn Bisk, and Andrea Shoffstall.

Patent Dispute Report: Q1 2026

PTAB petitions dropped 64.2% year-over-year to a historic low of 131 in Q1 2026, driven by a surge in discretionary denials that began in 2025 and continued into the new year. Inter partes review (IPR) petitions, in particular, plummeted 66.3%. Potential petitioners are clearly deterred by the stricter procedural changes initiated by Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart and Director John Squires, as highlighted in previous Unified Patents reports. This caution was likely compounded by the Federal Circuit’s November 2025 decision in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., which suggests that the USPTO Director’s discretionary authority to institute or de-institute inter partes review (IPR) can be shielded from judicial oversight, even when Sotera stipulations are filed.

For the second consecutive quarter, requests for ex parte reexamination outpaced new PTAB petitions. These requests have already reached nearly a third of 2025’s total and are currently on pace to surpass last year’s record. 

PTAB institution rates against non-practicing entities (NPEs) remained low at 24.6% in Q1 2026, well below the 40.5% institution rate against operating companies–a trend noted in the 2025 Unified Patents report. 

While PTAB denials remained at their third-highest level in history in Q1 2026, ex parte reexamination requests surged 157.1% compared to Q1 2025. However, the future impact of this shift remains uncertain, due to the USPTO’s April 2026 announcement of a new “pre-order” procedure allowing patent owners to submit a 30-page, fee-free paper within 30 days of service of an ex parte reexamination request to argue against the finding of a Substantial New Question of patentability (SNQ). 

Other takeaways from the first quarter of 2026:

  • Compared to Q1 2025, district court filings decreased by 21.6%. 

  • The E.D.Tex. remains the most popular venue for plaintiffs, especially NPEs.

  • More than 63% of all NPE filings were in one of the four district courts in Texas.

Procedural Denials and Pending Petitions in PTAB Decline: In the first quarter of 2026, PTAB procedural denials dropped 25% over the fourth quarter of 2025 to 159, while pending petitions plummeted to a 12-year low of 815 in March 2026. Compared to Q1 2025, PTAB procedural denials surged 622.7% in Q1 2026.

PTAB Rate of Institution Against NPEs Remain Below Rate Against Operating Companies: As noted in last year’s Q3 and year-end reports, the institution rate for petitions against NPEs is now lower than the institution rate against operating companies. The institution rate is (the number of institutions during the 12-month sliding window period) / (the total number of both institutions & denials during that same period).

In the first quarter of 2026, the institution rate for PTAB petitions against NPEs was more than 15% lower than the institution rate against operating companies. In Q4 2025, the institution rate was 33.6% against NPEs and 53.2% against operating companies. Year over year, the Q1 2026 institution rate is significantly lower than it was in Q1 2025, where the institution rate was 64.6% against NPEs and 81.6% against operating companies.

PTAB Procedural Denials vs. Requests for Ex Parte Reexaminations: Driven by elevated PTAB discretionary denials, Q1 2026 recorded the second-highest volume of ex parte reexamination requests, trailing only the all-time high set in Q4 2025. Although PTAB denials dipped 25% from Q4 2025, they remained the third-highest in history. Comparing Q1 2026 to Q1 2025, PTAB denials increased 622.7% and requests for reexamination increased 157.1%.

District Court, PTAB and Reexam Filings year over year:  Compared to Q1 2025, in Q1 2026 district court filings decreased 21.6% and PTAB petitions decreased 64.2% while requests for ex parte reexaminations increased 157.1%. Between Q4 2025 and Q1 2026, district court filings decreased 17.1%, PTAB petitions dropped 32.5% and requests for ex parte reexaminations decreased 21.2%.

The top district courts for patent litigation filings in Q1 2026: More than 37% of all patent cases were filed in the E.D.Tex. or the W.D.Tex. Other top venues included D.Del., N.D.Ill. and D.N.J.

The top district courts for NPE filings in Q1 2026: More than 57% of all NPE cases were filed in the E.D.Tex. or the W.D.Tex. Other top venues included D.Del., S.D.N.Y. and N.D.Cal.

Post-Grant Proceedings: In Q1 2026, IPR petitions decreased 66.3% compared to Q1 2025, while requests for ex parte reexaminations increased 157.1% and petitions for post grant review decreased 26.3% for the same time period. Compared to Q4 2025, IPR petitions decreased 35.4%, while requests for ex parte reexaminations decreased 21.2%. Petitions for post grant review increased 7.7% over Q4 2025.

Q1 2026 indicates a continued decline in the attractiveness of AIA reviews compared to both the previous quarter (Q4 2025) and the same period last year. While Q1 2026 saw IPRs decrease 35.4% and reexams fall 21.2% against Q4 2025 levels, the year-over-year comparison reveals a 66.3% plunge in IPRs alongside a 157.1% increase in reexamination requests, highlighting a significant shift toward alternative patent challenges.

Top 10 District Court Plaintiffs: Eight of the top 10 district court plaintiffs in the first quarter of 2026 were NPEs.

Top 10 PTAB Patent Owners: In the first quarter of 2026, Bulletproof Property Management LLC, an NPE, was the top patent owner in the PTAB. Six of the top 10 patent owners were NPEs.

Top 10 District Court Defendants: In the first quarter of 2026, Apple was the top defendant in district court that was not a Schedule A defendant. Schedule A defendants appear frequently in district court filings for design patent infringement.

Top 10 PTAB Petitioners: Google was the top petitioner at the PTAB in the first quarter of 2026.

Requests for Ex Parte Reexaminations: Ex parte reexamination requests in Q1 2026 surged by 157.1% compared to the same period in 2025.

Based on ex parte reexamination data since 2020, Unified Patents boasts the highest success rate among top-volume requestors with at least 20 decisions against utility patents, with success defined as at least one claim being canceled.

Filing Trends in District Court by Entity: NPEs filed 53.2% of the patent cases in district court in the first quarter of 2026, while operating companies filed 44.1%. By comparison, in Q4 2025, NPEs filed 52.5% of patent cases in district court, while operating companies filed 45.7%, and in Q1 2025, NPEs filed 60.0% of patent cases in district court, while operating companies filed 37.0%.

Filing Trends in High Tech in District Court by Entity Type: In Q1 2026, NPEs were responsible for 90.3% of high-tech patent litigation.

Filing Trends in PTAB by Entity Type over Time: NPEs were patent owners on 52.7% of the PTAB petitions in the first quarter of 2026, while operating companies were patent owners on 46.6%. In Q4 2025, NPEs were patent owners on 60.0% of the PTAB petitions, while operating companies were patent owners on 39.7%. For further comparison, in Q1 2025, NPEs were patent owners on 44.0% of the PTAB petitions while operating companies were patent owners on 53.6%.

Filing Trends in High Tech at the PTAB by Entity Type: In the first quarter of 2026, NPEs were the target of 70.5% of high-tech PTAB challenges.

Definitions

Sectors

High-Tech = Technologies relating to Software, Hardware, and Networking

Medical = Technologies relating to Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Health Related Technologies

Other = Technologies relating to Mechanical, Packaged Goods, Sporting Equipment and any other area outside of high-tech and medical patents.

Entities

Non Practicing Entity (NPE) = Company which derives the majority of its total revenue from Patent Licensing activities.

Operating Company or Op. Co. = Company which derives most of its total revenue from Product Sales or Services. Could be an SME or a large company.

Other Entity = Universities / Non-Profits / Government / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

NPE (Patent Assertion Entities) = Entity whose primary activity is licensing patents and acquired most of its patents from another entity

NPE (Small Company) = Entity whose original activity was providing products and services, but now is primarily focused on monetizing its own patent portfolio.

NPE (Individual) = Entity owned or controlled by an individual inventor who is primarily focused on monetizing inventions patents by that individual inventor.

NPE Aggregator = Entity that has control or ownership over two or more entities. 

Litigation Investment Entities = Evidence of any third party with a financial interest, other than the assertors.

Venues

CACD = Central District of California

CAND = Northern District of California

DED = Delaware

Methodology

This report includes all District Court, PTAB, Reexam, and UPC cases between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2026.

The total number of reported cases can vary based on what is included. Unified made its best attempt to eliminate mistaken, duplicative, or changes in venue filings, hence the totals may vary slightly compared to other reporting entities. Statistics include litigations initiated by NPEs or Declaratory Judgments (DJs) initiated by operating companies against NPEs.

Unified strives to accurately identify NPEs through all available means, such as court filings, public documents, and product documentation.

$2,000 for AIIA 3D imaging patent prior art

Unified Patents added a new PATROLL contest, with a $2,000 cash prize, seeking prior art on at least claim 17 of U.S. Patent 10,979,693, owned by the Artificial Intelligence Imaging Association Inc., an NPE and entity of R. Hewen & Co., LLC. The '693 patent relates to a stereoscopic imaging device for capturing 3D images and video with a wide field of view. The disclosed system is designed to support virtual reality use by immersing a user in a simulated environment created from the captured 3D content. The patent has been in a complaint seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability filed by Plus One Robotics.

The contest will expire on June 1, 2026. Please visit PATROLL for more information and to submit an entry for the contest. PATROLL researchers are required to use Pearl to generate claim charts. Submitted invalidity charts must address every limitation of the challenged claim. This may require using more than one prior art reference. Each PATROLL researcher can generate up to 30 invalidity claim charts per month using Pearl. These charts can be downloaded then submitted to PATROLL.

,

Wyoming Technology vehicle patent campaign - invalidity charts coming soon

,

The team at Unified IP Services is using Pearl to identify and chart prior art against claim 33 of U.S. Patent 7,482,916, owned by Wyoming Technology Licensing, LLC, an NPE and entity of Leigh M. Rothschild. The ‘916 patent relates to an automatic vehicle turn-signal system. The patent has been asserted against General Motors and Toyota.

Another Wilus Wi-Fi patent challenge instituted

On March 10, 2026, five weeks after Unified filed an ex parte reexamination, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 11,284,475, owned by Wilus Institute of Standards & Technology, Inc., an entity of Good Day to Invent, Inc.. The ‘475 patent is generally related to setting a Basic Service Set (BSS) color in a responsive Wi-Fi Physical Layer Protocol Data Units (PPDU) when a received PPDU does or does not include a trigger frame that indicates the BSS color. The '475 patent has not been asserted, but it is related to patents being used in litigation.

View district court litigations by Wilus. Unified is represented by Michael Jones and Jake Rosvold of Rothwell Figg and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Vinu Raj, in these proceedings.

To view the reexamination request, visit Unified’s Portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90015943