Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 0:24-cv-03118, is pending in the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff is Mark Henrik Sandstrom, an individual inventor who is representing himself in this action. The defendant is Charter Communications, Inc., a major operating company in the telecommunications and cable industry. Charter Communications is accused of infringing Sandstrom's patents through its products and services that allegedly utilize certain "network protocol standards," specifically including BIER, NETCONF, and xGPON standards.

The case asserts five U.S. patents: US8619769B2, US10848546B2, US10567474B2, US7333511B2, and US7558260B2. Patent US10567474B2, central to this inquiry, is part of an 11-member family with an estimated priority date in February 2002 and is broadly directed to real-time optimization of Wide Area Network (WAN) and Virtual Private Network (VPN) deployments, particularly in the context of Passive Optical Network ("xPON") standards. The procedural posture places the case before District Judge Eric C. Tostrud and Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster in the District of Minnesota. While the District of Minnesota does not employ specific local patent rules, it uses a form Scheduling Order to manage essential disclosures in patent litigation.

This case is notable as part of a broader patent assertion campaign by individual inventor Mark Henrik Sandstrom, who has filed similar declaratory judgment actions against other major telecommunications companies like AT&T, Ericsson, and Nokia in the same district. This multi-defendant campaign suggests an NPE (Non-Practicing Entity) or PAE (Patent Assertion Entity) pattern, though Sandstrom is proceeding pro se. Furthermore, some of the asserted patents, including the '474 patent, have a history of "circuitous assignment" through entities such as Intellectual Ventures LLC and Optimum Communications Services, Inc. (OCS), which has also leveraged these patents in separate litigation, including ITC complaints targeting products compliant with xPON standards. This intricate ownership and assertion history, coupled with the targeting of fundamental network protocol standards, underscores the case's significance within the telecommunications industry.

The patent infringement litigation for case 0:24-cv-03118, filed in the Minnesota District Court, involves plaintiff Mark Sandstrom and defendant Charter Communications. The patent at issue is 10,567,474. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud was assigned to preside over the case.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

   • Complaint Filed (August 1, 2024): Plaintiff Mark Sandstrom filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Charter Communications, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,567,474, among other patents. This case was part of a broader litigation campaign by Sandstrom, who also filed similar lawsuits against AT&T (0:24-cv-03053), Ericsson (0:24-cv-02796), and Nokia (0:24-cv-03117) around the same period, alleging infringement related to network protocol standards.
   • Details regarding Charter Communication's answer and any counterclaims are not publicly available in the search results but would have followed the complaint.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

   • No specific pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment for this particular case (0:24-cv-03118) were detailed in the public search results. However, Mark Sandstrom, representing himself as the named individual inventor, sought declaratory judgments against the various defendants.
   • In related litigation by ThroughPuter, Inc., another entity associated with Sandstrom, IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) led to a stay of a Microsoft case while appeals played out. This indicates a general pattern where IPRs could influence the pace or status of Sandstrom's related district court cases.

3. Claim Construction (Markman), Discovery, Trial Events, and Post-Trial Motions:

   • There is no public information available regarding Markman hearings, claim construction outcomes, significant discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions for this case. Given the relatively short duration between filing and dismissal, it is unlikely these stages were fully completed.

4. Final Disposition:

   • Dismissal (Before June 1, 2026): The case 0:24-cv-03118 was dismissed by the District Court of Minnesota. The exact date and nature of the dismissal (e.g., voluntary dismissal, settlement) are not specified in the public records, but a source from June 1, 2026, references "The dismissal" of the case.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

   • While the search results indicate that other litigation involving patents connected to Mark Sandstrom has seen "Cancellations through several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)", there is no specific public information available about IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings directly challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,567,474 at the USPTO PTAB for this specific case context. A direct search on the USPTO PTAB systems (P-TACTS) would be needed to confirm any such filings.

In Case No. 0:24-cv-03118 in the District of Minnesota, the plaintiff, Mark Henrik Sandstrom, is representing himself. He is listed as "Plaintiff counsel, Attorney, Counsel" in relation to the case, indicating he is proceeding pro se.

There is a direct contradiction regarding the status of Case No. 0:24-cv-03118. The provided case metadata in the prompt states the case is "Active." However, a search of legal intelligence platform RPX Empower indicates that Sandstrom v. Charter Communications, Inc. (0:24-cv-03118) in the District of Minnesota was "filed on 08/01/2024 and closed on 10/30/2024."

If the case is indeed closed as of October 30, 2024, there would be no active counsel of record to identify for ongoing proceedings.

Assuming, for the purpose of fulfilling the request and addressing the prompt's instruction to treat the metadata as authoritative regarding the case's active status, that the case is still active despite the RPX Empower information, public web searches (without direct PACER access) do not definitively identify the specific counsel of record who have appeared for Charter Communications, Inc. in this particular Minnesota case (0:24-cv-03118).

However, Charter Communications frequently engages prominent law firms for its patent litigation matters. Firms known to have represented Charter in other patent infringement cases include:

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: This firm has successfully represented Charter Communications in patent disputes, including obtaining early dismissals and summary judgments of non-infringement. Quinn Emanuel has a significant IP litigation practice.
• Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP: Arnold & Porter secured a defense verdict for Charter Communications in a patent lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP: This firm is listed as IP litigation counsel for Charter Communications and handles complex, high-stakes IP cases.

Jamal Haughton serves as Charter Communications' Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary, overseeing all legal functions for the company. While he is Charter's chief legal officer, he would typically manage outside counsel rather than appear directly as counsel of record in district court proceedings.

Without current docket access to 0:24-cv-03118 (D. Minn.), and given the conflicting information regarding the case's active status, specific counsel of record for Charter Communications in this case cannot be definitively identified at this time.