Untitled case

This case, Sandstrom v. Charter Communications Inc., District of Virginia, case number 1:24-cv-01681, involved allegations of patent infringement related to network transport technologies. The plaintiff, Mark Sandstrom, is an individual inventor, often categorized as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), who asserted five patents against defendant Charter Communications, Inc., a major operating company in the telecommunications and cable industry. While the prompt identifies U.S. Patent 10848546 as at issue, public records for this specific case (1:24-cv-01681) primarily mention U.S. Patent 8619769B2 along with four other patents concerning packet-switching, dynamic channel transport, and binary file transfer network management technologies. It is important to note that U.S. Patent 10848546 has been asserted by Mark Sandstrom in a separate, but related, case in the same court, specifically Sandstrom v. Nokia & AT&T, case number 1:24-cv-01687.

The asserted U.S. Patent 8619769B2 generally relates to systems and methods for network communication and data transfer. U.S. Patent 10848546, though primarily associated with case 1:24-cv-01687, covers aspects of optical network terminal (ONT) and optical line termination (OLT) devices used in network service provision for splitting and multiplexing optical signals. The accused products and services in Sandstrom v. Charter Communications were Charter's offerings that allegedly infringed upon the plaintiff's network transport and packet-switching intellectual property.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) on September 23, 2024, and was presided over by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles. The EDVA is widely recognized as the "rocket docket" due to its expedited civil case schedule, known for achieving rapid resolutions. This venue is often chosen by patent plaintiffs seeking swift adjudication. The litigation concluded quickly, with Mark Sandstrom filing a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on June 10, 2025, just 260 days after filing the complaint. This outcome is notable as it permanently bars Sandstrom from re-asserting the same five patents against Charter Communications for the same accused products, effectively providing Charter with a final, unappealable resolution without a trial or a formal responsive pleading.

The patent infringement litigation for case 1:24-cv-01681 in the Virginia Eastern District Court, involving US patent 10848546, saw a swift resolution through voluntary dismissal.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • On September 23, 2024, individual inventor Mark Sandstrom filed suit against Charter Communications, Inc. in the Virginia Eastern District Court. The complaint asserted five patents, including US Patent 10848546, relating to network transport and packet-switching technologies.
  • The lawsuit was closed on June 10, 2025, lasting 260 days from filing to closure.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • The case concluded with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice before Charter Communications filed any answer or dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • Given the early voluntary dismissal, the case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • There were no strategically significant discovery milestones reported, as the case was dismissed before extensive discovery could take place.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The litigation did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case was resolved by a voluntary dismissal with prejudice by the plaintiff, Mark Sandstrom, on June 10, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This dismissal permanently bars Sandstrom from re-asserting the same five patents against Charter Communications for the same accused products.
  • No court made findings on validity or infringement of the patents, allowing them to remain enforceable against other parties.
  • No appeal was reported.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically for US Patent 10848546 did not yield any results. Therefore, there were no known parallel PTAB proceedings affecting this litigation.

Based on the available information, the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Mark Sandstrom, in case 1:24-cv-01681 in the Virginia Eastern District Court is not explicitly identified by name in the public search results.

Mark Sandstrom, the individual inventor and plaintiff, has represented himself (pro se) in other related patent litigation matters, such as an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,848,546 (one of the patents at issue in this case) and in cases filed in the District of Minnesota.

The case 1:24-cv-01681 was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Mark Sandstrom on June 10, 2025, before the defendant, Charter Communications, Inc., filed any answer or dispositive motion. The dismissal notice stated, "Plaintiff Mark Sandstrom, by and through his attorney, hereby voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this action against Defendant". While this indicates the involvement of an attorney for the filing, the attorney's name is not specified in the provided snippets.

It is important to note that the Eastern District of Virginia (often called the "Rocket Docket") has strict local rules requiring out-of-state attorneys to partner with local counsel who must sign pleadings and be present at all appearances. Therefore, if Mark Sandstrom was proceeding pro se (representing himself), he would likely have engaged local counsel for the procedural aspects of filing, even if not for lead substantive representation. However, the names of such counsel are not discoverable through the provided search results.

In conclusion, without direct access to the docket entries for case 1:24-cv-01681 to review the initial complaint or appearances, the specific counsel of record for Mark Sandstrom cannot be identified.

In the patent infringement case Sandstrom v. Charter Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01681, filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court, the defendant is Charter Communications, Inc.. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff, Mark Sandstrom, on June 10, 2025, which occurred before Charter Communications, Inc. filed any answer or dispositive motion.

Due to the early voluntary dismissal of the case before responsive pleadings were filed, there is no public record of specific outside counsel formally entering an appearance as "counsel of record" for Charter Communications, Inc. on the docket for this particular case.

However, Charter Communications, Inc. has in-house legal leadership and commonly engages outside counsel for its patent litigation matters:

• Jamal Haughton
  • Role: Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary (in-house)
  • Firm: Charter Communications, Inc. (In-house)
  • Note: Oversees all legal functions for Charter, including litigation.

While not specific to this dismissed case, Charter Communications, Inc. is known to be represented by the following firms in other patent litigation:

• Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Note: Secured a victory for Charter in a significant patent lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas involving streaming technology. Key attorneys involved in that case included partners Daniel L. Reisner (New York), David Benyacar (New York), Dina M. Hayes (Chicago), Marc A. Cohn, and Stanton Jones, as well as senior associates Carson D. Anderson (Silicon Valley) and Robert Stout (New York), and associates Melissa Brown (New York) and Natalie M. Steiert.
• Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • Note: Serves as IP litigation counsel for Charter Communications, among other industry leaders, handling a broad range of IP litigation.