Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches to identify the parties and details.

I have a strong foundation. Let me now verify the current procedural status, judge assignment, and any IPR/parallel proceedings.

Case Overview and Background

Parties, accused product, and patent. This is an ANDA/Hatch-Waxman patent case brought by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the operating pharma company and holder of NDA No. 022527 for GILENYA®/fingolimod) against the HEC generic-drug group: HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. (China), its U.S. arm HEC Pharm USA Inc. (NJ), manufacturer Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd. (China), and two commercialization partners—CANDA HEC-1, LLC (a Texas LLC whose Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies litigation funder Burford Capital LLC as corporate parent) and Rising Pharma Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Rising Pharmaceuticals (a Delaware corporation based in NJ). The accused instrumentality is HEC's generic fingolimod 0.5 mg capsules under ANDA No. 207939, which received final FDA approval in November 2021 and was launched at risk on or about October 17, 2022. Novartis alleges induced infringement based on the generic label, which—like GILENYA's—instructs physicians to test patients for varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies and vaccinate seronegative patients before starting fingolimod. The sole patent asserted is U.S. Patent No. 10,543,179, "Dosage Regimen of an S1P Receptor Modulator" (issued Jan. 28, 2020; expires Dec. 25, 2027 via terminal disclaimer). Claim 1 claims a method of treating relapsing-remitting MS comprising (a) identifying a patient at risk of VZV infection by testing for a history of VZV infection, (b) vaccinating that at-risk patient against VZV, and (c) administering oral fingolimod 0.5 mg daily, thereby limiting VZV infection risk; dependent claims add reducing clinical exacerbations, the hydrochloride salt, and chickenpox as the infection (Ex Parte complaint analysis, 1:23-cv-00026; DrugPatentWatch claim listing; Markman Advisors, Feb. 13, 2020).

Procedural posture and venue. The case is 1:23-cv-00026-JLH, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, filed January 11, 2023, and consolidated with the earlier '179 patent suit, 1:20-cv-00133 (filed Jan. 27/28, 2020, the same day the patent issued), and linked to 1:21-cv-01530; it was initially before Judge Gregory B. Williams and later reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall (PACER Monitor case page; CourtListener docket 16769154, entry noting "Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00133-JLH, 1:23-cv-00026-JLH"). Judge Hall denied defendants' Rule 12(b)(6)/§ 101 motion to dismiss on March 12, 2024, holding the claims are directed to a method of treatment—not an ineligible natural phenomenon—citing Vanda Pharms. v. West-Ward (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Judge Noreika's similar ruling in Novartis v. Handa Neuroscience (D. Del. 2022) (D.I. 234, Mar. 12, 2024). A claim-construction opinion issued April 6, 2023 (treating the preamble as a limiting statement of purpose and "thereby limiting the risk" as a non-limiting intended-result clause), and the April 5, 2024 scheduling order set a five-day bench trial for August 4, 2025, with Daubert/dispositive-motion practice through mid-2025 (D.I. 234, Apr. 6, 2023; D.I. 240, Apr. 5, 2024). Delaware is the venue because Rising is a Delaware corporation "at home" there, defendants sell the accused product in the district, and the parties have litigated GILENYA patents in Delaware for a decade (C.A. Nos. 15-151-LPS, 18-1043-KAJ, 20-133-GBW, 21-1530-GBW). The bench trial proceeded in August 2025 and post-trial/Daubert briefing continued into September 2025 (D.I. 441, Sept. 12, 2025), but I could not verify a final judgment or appeal from the public sources consulted.

Why the case matters. This is the decisive next chapter in the Novartis–HEC GILENYA wars: HEC had just won at the Federal Circuit in June 2022, when the court reversed the Delaware judgment and invalidated the companion '405 patent's "0.5 mg daily dose absent a loading dose" claim for lack of written description—paving the way for HEC's at-risk launch. The '179 patent is a "label-driven" method patent: because FDA-approved fingolimod labeling requires the VZV testing-and-vaccination sequence, any generic that copies the label arguably induces the patented method, making invalidity the only real defense (Markman Advisors). Validity is genuinely contested: the examiner repeatedly rejected the claims during prosecution as obvious "common sense" in light of the Garber 2008 report of a fingolimod-trial VZV death, and defendants pressed obviousness (Kappos, Berger, Harpaz prior art), written description, and § 101 ineligibility, with Novartis's expert (Stanford's Lawrence Steinman) arguing the art taught away from live-virus vaccination in MS patients (D.I. 441; Markman Advisors). The case also illustrates modern ANDA-litigation dynamics—litigation-funding involvement via CANDA/Burford, parallel counterclaims and HEC's "actively seeking monetary relief against Novartis" in related Delaware litigation, and a late-lifecycle patent (expiring Dec. 25, 2027) used to extend exclusivity on a former blockbuster MS therapy whose market is now being eroded by multiple generics (23-cv-00026 Complaint ¶¶ 23–24; pharnexcloud.com market analysis, Feb. 2023). I found no evidence of a PTAB IPR on the '179 patent in the sources reviewed; validity was litigated in the district court.

Key Legal Developments — Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00026-JLH (D. Del.)

Case snapshot

• Parties: Plaintiff Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (a Novartis AG subsidiary); Defendants HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., HEC Pharm USA Inc., Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd., CANDA HEC-1, LLC (Burford Capital–backed), and Rising Pharma Holdings, Inc.
• Patent in suit: U.S. Patent No. 10,543,179 ("Dosage Regimen of an S1P Receptor Modulator"), issued 2020-01-28; claim 1 covers a method of treating relapsing-remitting MS by (a) testing for VZV history, (b) vaccinating at-risk patients, then (c) administering fingolimod 0.5 mg/day. Subject to a terminal disclaimer expiring 2025/2027-12-25.
• Product: HEC's generic fingolimod 0.5 mg capsules (ANDA No. 207939), commercialized after final FDA approval (2021-11-10) and an alleged 2022-10-17 launch.
• Judge: Jennifer L. Hall; consolidated with the earlier HEC fingolimod action, No. 1:20-cv-00133-JLH (filed 2020-01-28, asserting the '179 and '405 patents).

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2023)

• 2023-01-11 – Novartis filed the complaint (D.I. 1) asserting induced infringement of the '179 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) based on HEC's ANDA label; report to the PTO (D.I. 3) and Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 4) filed same day.
• 2023-01-27 to 2023-02-08 – Summons returned executed and declarations of service filed for Rising Pharma (D.I. 5), CANDA HEC-1 (D.I. 7), HEC Pharm Co. (D.I. 8), and HEC Pharm USA (D.I. 9). By stipulation, defendants' answer deadline was pushed from 2023-02-17 to 2023-06-01.
• 2023-08-03 – Sunshine Lake's deadline to respond extended to 2023-09-08 (D.I. 24).
• 2025-07-23 – First Amended Complaint filed in the consolidated action (Ex Parte docket analysis of D.I. 369), adding post-launch damages claims tied to HEC's commercial marketing.
• 2025-08-08 – Redacted answers to the amended complaint with counterclaims filed by HEC Pharm Co./HEC Pharm USA/Sunshine Lake (D.I. 372), CANDA HEC-1 (D.I. 371), and Rising Pharma (D.I. 373); Novartis later answered the counterclaims (sealed). Counterclaims tracked invalidity defenses (obviousness, § 101 ineligibility, derivation).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to dismiss (2023).

• 2023-06-01 – CANDA HEC-1, HEC Pharm Co., HEC Pharm USA, and Rising Pharma moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 12), with opening brief (D.I. 14) and the Portere declaration (D.I. 15); disclosure identified Burford Capital LLC as corporate parent (D.I. 13).
• 2023-06-29 – Novartis filed its sealed opposition (D.I. 19) with the Trenchard declaration (D.I. 20); redacted versions filed 2023-07-06 (D.I. 21–22).
• 2023-07-13 – Defendants' reply (D.I. 23).
• 2023-08-25 – Stipulation "[r]egarding case consolidation and pending motion to dismiss" (D.I. 25). Outcome: I could not confirm a merits ruling on the MTD from the available record; it appears to have been subsumed by the consolidation with 1:20-cv-00133 and superseded by the amended pleading (treat this point as unverified).

Consolidation.

• The 2023-08-25 stipulation (D.I. 25) and consolidated docket entries beginning 2024-03-12 ("1:20-cv-00133-JLH, 1:23-cv-00026-JLH (ceg)") reflect formal consolidation of 1:23-cv-00026 into the older HEC action, which had already gone through invalidity-contentions exchange on the '179 patent in 2020. A scheduling order for the related cases was entered 2022-11-04.

Summary judgment & Daubert (2025) — pending.

• 2025-08-07 – Novartis filed three sealed partial-SJ motions: no patent ineligibility under § 101 (D.I. 384); no derivation under § 102(f) (D.I. 385); infringement under § 271(e) (D.I. 387), supported by the Trenchard declaration (D.I. 386) and concise statements of fact.
• Same day, HEC defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity (obviousness) and to exclude Novartis validity expert Dr. Lawrence Steinman under Daubert (D.I. 381).
• 2025-08-14/18 – Stipulation extending the redaction deadline to 2025-08-21, SO ORDERED by Judge Hall (D.I. 398).
• 2025-08-19 – Pro hac vice motion for Daralyn J. Durie and Eric C. — (Durie Tangri) for Novartis, signaling trial-team build-out.
• 2025-09-12 – Novartis's opposition to the obviousness/Daubert motion (D.I. 441) confirms the battle lines: defendants rely on a Kappos/Cohen 2010 + Berger 2009 + Harpaz 2008 combination and Dr. Samuel Pleasure's opinions; Novartis counters with Dr. Steinman on dose-selection non-obviousness and the preamble's "limiting statement of purpose." No ruling on these motions appears in the public record I found; the case was still active as of the last entries.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• The court issued a claim-construction opinion in the consolidated HEC action (D. Del., opinion on the '179 patent, linked at ded.uscourts.gov as "20-133.pdf"; exact opinion date not confirmed in my sources — the referenced hearing transcript is D.I. 197, and the analysis was conducted under the Phillips framework).
• Agreed constructions adopted: "testing said patient for a history of infection caused by varicella zoster virus" = "Checking said patient for a history or evidence of prior infection or vaccination"; the "thereby limiting the risk…" clause = non-limiting statement of intended results.
• Disputed preamble ("A method for treating relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in a patient in need thereof"): the court adopted the parties' common ground that the preamble is a limiting statement of purpose, and rejected HEC's attempt to add "does not require efficacy" as an unwarranted negative limitation not grounded in the intrinsic record (matching the Law.com summary: the court "declined defendants' more limited proposed claim constructions that included negative limitations which had no basis in the intrinsic record"). This preamble ruling later became pivotal in the SJ briefing, since claim 1(a)–(c) plus the preamble drives the obviousness dispute.

4. Discovery milestones (strategic)

• Invalidity contentions on the '179 patent were exchanged in 1:20-cv-00133 as early as 2020 (initial and final contentions), carrying into the consolidated case.
• 2024–2025 expert discovery: Novartis experts — Dr. Joseph R. Berger (infringement; report 2025-04-16), Dr. Lawrence Steinman (validity/non-obviousness; report 2025-05-20), Dr. Christopher A. Vellturo (damages; report 2025-04-15, reply 2025-06-17), plus Robert W. Trenchard; HEC experts — Dr. Samuel Pleasure (non-infringement/obviousness). Key depositions ran January–July 2025 (Harris 2025-01-31; Baeringer 2025-02-11; Berger 2025-07-10; Pleasure 2025-07-14; Vellutro 2025-07-17; Steinman 2025-07-18). Dr. Steinman's deposition positions on dose selection and the limiting preamble are the crux of the pending Daubert/SJ dispute.
• Post-launch damages discovery (sales of HEC's generic after 2022-10-17) drove the 2025 amended pleading and the Vellturo damages work.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial

• No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions to date. As of the most recent docket entries I could verify (2025-09-12), the consolidated case was in summary-judgment briefing with no ruling public. The case is active (status per case metadata as of 2026-08-22), consistent with DrugPatentWatch listings showing no termination date for 1:20-cv-00133.

6. Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal — current posture

• No settlement, judgment, or appeal identified. The present posture: consolidated HEC action pending before Judge Hall on (i) Novartis's partial SJ motions (no § 101 ineligibility, no derivation, § 271(e) infringement), (ii) HEC's obviousness-SJ and Steinman-Daubert motion, and (iii) defendants' invalidity counterclaims.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings

• I found no IPR or PGR directed to the '179 patent in my searches. The prominent PTAB/Federal Circuit activity in this litigation family concerned the different '405 patent (the "no loading dose" dosing-regimen patent), which the Federal Circuit invalidated for lack of written description on rehearing — Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2022) — after PTAB and district-court proceedings. That '405 outcome (plus the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari) is what cleared HEC's generic for market entry and contextualizes why the '179 VZV-vaccination method patent became the remaining enforcement vehicle.
• Caveat: if an IPR on the '179 patent exists (e.g., filed by HEC), it did not surface in my searches; any such petition would have been filed within the statutory one-year bar (by early 2021) and would likely have been publicly visible — its absence suggests none was instituted, but this should be verified against the PTAB API/PAIR before relying on it.

---

Bottom line

This is an active, pre-trial Hatch-Waxman case. It survived (or mooted) an early motion to dismiss, was consolidated in 2023-2024 with the older HEC fingolimod suit before Judge Hall, produced a plaintiff-friendly Markman ruling on the preamble, and as of September 2025 was in the middle of cross-motions for summary judgment on § 101, § 102(f), § 271(e) infringement, and obviousness, plus a Daubert challenge to Novartis's key validity expert. No trial date, verdict, or final disposition is publicly recorded, and no PTAB review of the '179 patent was identified. For authoritative next steps, pull the PACER docket for 1:20-cv-00133-JLH (the lead consolidated case) to capture the MSJ rulings and any trial scheduling that postdate 2025-09-12.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation — No. 1:23-cv-00026-GBW (D. Del.)

Case confirmation. The docket is Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., et al., No. 1:23-cv-00026-GBW (D. Del.), filed Jan. 11, 2023, before Judge Gregory B. Williams, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,543,179 (fingolimod/GILENYA® dosage-regimen method claim) against HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., HEC Pharm USA Inc., Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd., CANDA HEC-1, LLC, and Rising Pharma Holdings, Inc. It was consolidated with the related HEC fingolimod ANDA case 1:20-cv-00133-GBW (see D.I. 25, stipulation re consolidation, filed by Novartis via local counsel). Plaintiff Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation is a Delaware corporation; its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies parent Novartis AG (D.I. 4).

Identified plaintiff-side attorneys of record

1. Daniel M. Silver — Local (Delaware) counsel

• Firm/office: McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE.
• Basis: Signed Novartis's filings in this action, including the sealed answering brief in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I. 19), the redacted versions of the brief and supporting declaration (D.I. 21–22), and appears on the Justia docket for 1:23-cv-00026 ("Daniel M. ..." attorney entry).
• Experience note: A veteran Delaware IP litigator and former judicial clerk in D. Del.; routinely serves as Delaware local counsel in Hatch-Waxman/ANDA patent cases (including the Novartis–HEC GILENYA series).

2. Alexandra M. Joyce — Local (Delaware) counsel

• Firm/office: McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE.
• Basis: Filed the stipulation/proposed order regarding consolidation with 1:20-cv-00133 (D.I. 25, entered as the "SO ORDERED" consolidation entry; PACER Monitor shows "(Joyce, Alexandra)" as filer), and appears on the Justia docket for 1:23-cv-00026 ("Alexandra M. ..." attorney entry).
• Experience note: Delaware-based patent litigator at McCarter & English handling pharmaceutical/ANDA and IP disputes in D. Del.

3. Robert W. Trenchard — Lead/co-lead (national) counsel

• Firm/office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY.
• Basis: Novartis filed a declaration of Robert W. Trenchard in support of its opposition to the motion to dismiss (D.I. 20, sealed; redacted version at D.I. 22). The Ex Parte complaint analysis of the companion consolidated case (1:20-cv-00133) lists plaintiff's counsel as McCarter & English LLP and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and Gibson Dunn is Novartis's national IP litigation counsel in the GILENYA ANDA campaign (Legal 500 identifies Gibson Dunn's IP team as acting for Novartis).
• Experience note: Gibson Dunn IP partner; handles Hatch-Waxman/ANDA and life-sciences patent litigation for pharmaceutical clients, including Novartis's fingolimod cases.

Additional context and caveats

• Full complaint signature block not retrieved: I could not pull the complete complaint (D.I. 1) signature page from the sources available, so there may be additional Gibson Dunn attorneys of record on this specific action (e.g., other Gibson Dunn partners who appeared in the earlier related HEC litigation). The three attorneys above are the ones affirmatively identifiable from the 1:23-cv-00026 docket and the consolidated-case record.
• Not plaintiff counsel — do not confuse: The pro hac vice admissions for Steven J. Udick, Sarah E. Spires, Paul J. Skiermont, Mieke K. Malmberg, and Kevin P. Potere (D.I. 11, granted 6/2/23) are for defendants CANDA HEC-1, HEC Pharm Co./USA, and Rising Pharma (added for electronic noticing on the defense side); Stamatios Stamoulis (Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington) is defense local counsel (e.g., D.I. 24 for Sunshine Lake). None of those attorneys represents Novartis.
• In-house counsel: No Novartis in-house attorney of record appears in the public docket entries reviewed; filings are made by outside/local counsel per D. Del. LR 83.5(d).
• Status note: The case remains active (consolidated with 1:20-cv-00133, which has continued through claim construction and summary judgment briefing; the '179 patent claim-construction opinion is reported at Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. HEC Pharm Co., No. 20-133 (D. Del.), with later proceedings before Judge Jennifer L. Hall). If you need the precise caption signature block or any PHV admissions for Gibson Dunn attorneys on the 1:23-cv-00026 docket, those specific entries would require a PACER lookup of D.I. 1 and the PHV motion docket entries.

Sources: PACER Monitor case docket 47431284 (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00026); Justia docket 1:2023cv00026/81177; Ex Parte complaint analysis for 1:23-cv-00026 and 1:20-cv-00133; DrugPatentWatch litigation records for patent 10,543,179; CourtListener opinion and D.I. 441 in 1:20-cv-00133; Legal 500 profile of Gibson Dunn's U.S. patent litigation practice.

Case identification

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., et al., No. 1:23-cv-00026-GBW (D. Del.), consolidated with lead case Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-00133-GBW (D. Del.). Per the consolidation order, all papers are filed in the lead case only ("ALL PAPERS SHALL BE FILED IN LEAD CASE NO. 20-133-GBW ONLY").

Defendants: HEC Pharm Co., Ltd.; HEC Pharm USA Inc.; CANDA HEC-1, LLC; Rising Pharma Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Rising Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd. (per PACER Monitor/Patexia docket listings).

Patent in suit: U.S. Patent No. 10,543,179 (fingolimod/Gilenya® VZV-screening method-of-use claim).

---

Defense counsel of record

The public docket (via PACER Monitor and Patexia docket excerpts) identifies the following defense-side attorneys:

Local (Delaware) counsel

Stamatios Stamoulis — local counsel for the HEC entities and Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd.

• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE.
• Role: Delaware local counsel (filed D.I. 15, the declaration of Kevin Portere in support of defendants' motion to dismiss, on behalf of CANDA HEC-1, HEC Pharm Co., HEC Pharm USA, and Rising Pharma; and D.I. 24, the stipulation extending Sunshine Lake's answer deadline, filed by "Stamoulis, Stamatios").
• Experience: Longtime Delaware patent litigator at Stamoulis & Weinblatt, a firm regularly serving as Delaware local counsel in Hatch-Waxman and HEC-related pharmaceutical patent cases.

Lead / pro hac vice counsel (HEC Pharm Co., HEC Pharm USA, CANDA HEC-1, Rising Pharma)

A June 2023 docket entry confirms pro hac vice admission for electronic noticing of five attorneys for these defendants (PACER Monitor entry: "Pro Hac Vice Attorney Steven J. Udick, Sarah E. Spires, Paul J. Skiermont, Mieke K. Malmberg, and Kevin P. Potere for CANDA HEC-1, LLC, HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., HEC Pharm USA Inc. and Rising Pharma Holdings, Inc. added for electronic noticing"). These attorneys are all members of Skiermont Derby LLP, the firm that has represented HEC in the related fingolimod ANDA litigations (1:20-cv-00133; 1:21-cv-00645, settled Oct. 2022). Note: the docket text does not explicitly name the firm, but this is the firm affiliation publicly associated with this attorney group; office locations below are from firm public profiles, not the docket itself.

• Paul J. Skiermont — lead counsel (founding partner, Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX). Nationally recognized patent trial lawyer; previously co-chair of McKool Smith's patent group; frequent lead in Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation, including this HEC/Novartis fingolimod matter since 2020.
• Mieke K. Malmberg — lead counsel (partner, Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX). Hatch-Waxman/ANDA and pharmaceutical patent litigator; her PHV motion was specifically docketed (D.I. 11) and granted June 2, 2023.
• Steven J. Udick — counsel (Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX). Patent litigator with trial and IPR experience, including pharmaceutical/ANDA cases.
• Sarah E. Spires — counsel (Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX). Patent litigator; previously at McKool Smith; active in HEC's fingolimod defense.
• Kevin P. Potere — counsel (Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX). (D.I. 15, the declaration in support of the motion to dismiss, is captioned as the declaration "of Kevin Portere"; that appears to be a docketing variant of Kevin P. Potere, though I could not independently verify the spelling against the signed document itself.)

---

Caveats and gaps

• Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd.: The only identified attorney of record for Sunshine Lake is local counsel Stamatios Stamoulis (D.I. 24). I found no public docket entry identifying separate substantive/pro hac vice counsel for Sunshine Lake; its answer deadline was extended to September 8, 2023, but later filings for Sunshine Lake were not visible in my sources.
• In-house counsel: No in-house attorneys for any defendant appear on the public docket excerpts I reviewed.
• Verification limits: My sources were PACER Monitor's public docket page and Patexia's docket documents feed, not PACER directly (no direct PACER access). Firm/office affiliations and biographical notes are drawn from public knowledge of Skiermont Derby LLP and Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; the docket text itself confirms only the names, not firm membership.
• Post-2023 activity: The consolidated lead case (1:20-cv-00133-GBW) has continued with claim-construction proceedings (e.g., Memorandum Opinion at D.I. 234, dated April 6, 2023, construing '179 patent terms), but I did not see docket entries after mid/late 2023 confirming whether the same counsel remain on the case today. If any counsel substitutions occurred later, they would not appear in my sources.