Untitled case

QOMPLX LLC, a company specializing in cloud-based underwriting, risk management, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence solutions, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against technology giant Microsoft Corporation. The case, 1:25-cv-01383, was initiated on August 28, 2025, in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and is presided over by Judge Ada E. Brown. Microsoft, a multinational corporation well-known for its software development, cloud services, and hardware manufacturing, is accused of infringing through its cloud data analytics and cybersecurity products, specifically Microsoft Fabric and Microsoft Entra ID. The alleged infringement centers on technologies related to large-scale data analysis, risk-based multi-factor authentication, and network threat correlation, particularly involving a "distributed computational graph" for dynamic data analysis.

The litigation asserts six U.S. patents held by QOMPLX, including patent 12143424, titled "Rapid Predictive Analysis of Very Large Data Sets Using the Distributed Computational Graph." This patent generally describes a system designed to overcome the rigidity and labor-intensive nature of prior art data analysis methods for large datasets by employing a distributed computational graph to enable dynamic and efficient processing of unpredictable data streams. The other five asserted patents, 11,539,663; 11,863,934; 11,895,426; 11,997,627; and 11,997,628, cover related areas such as securing enterprise networks using a midserver for data aggregation and risk-based multi-factor authentication systems.

The choice of the Western District of Texas as a venue for patent litigation is notable for its historically active patent docket, although much of the attention has often been on the Waco Division under Judge Alan Albright. While this case is in the Austin Division under Judge Ada E. Brown, the Western District of Texas generally remains a popular forum for patent plaintiffs, including non-practicing entities (NPEs), due to its expeditious scheduling orders and the court's stance on certain procedural matters. A significant point of contention early in the case has been Microsoft's alleged failure to comply with discovery orders, with QOMPLX claiming that Microsoft has not produced sufficient technical documents or source code to demonstrate the operation of the accused products. This discovery dispute has prejudiced QOMPLX in the claim construction process and highlights a procedural hurdle that could impact the case's trajectory. Microsoft has also filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging four of the six asserted patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for QOMPLX LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01383, is active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. The plaintiff is QOMPLX LLC, and the defendant is Microsoft Corporation. The primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424. The case is currently in the pre-trial phase, with significant upcoming milestones.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-08-28 – Complaint Filed: QOMPLX LLC filed its complaint against Microsoft Corporation, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424, among other patents. The complaint accuses Microsoft's cloud data analytics and cybersecurity products, including Microsoft Fabric and Microsoft Entra ID, of infringement. QOMPLX asserts independent claim 1 of the '424 patent.
• 2025-11-24 – Plaintiff's Preliminary Infringement Contentions: QOMPLX LLC submitted its preliminary infringement contentions.
• 2026-01-26 – Defendant's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions: Microsoft Corporation submitted its preliminary invalidity contentions, which QOMPLX noted lacked sufficient technical documents, including software or source code, to show the operation of the accused products.
• 2026-02-17 – Plaintiff's Preliminary Claim Constructions: QOMPLX LLC provided its preliminary proposed constructions for the claim terms. This filing also highlighted an ongoing discovery dispute, stating that Microsoft had failed to produce internal or non-public documents and source code for the accused software-based features, despite court orders and a stipulated protective order being in place.
• 2026-03-02 – Defendant's Preliminary Claim Constructions: Microsoft Corporation provided its preliminary proposed claim constructions.
• 2026-05-15 – IPR2026-00364 Filed: Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00364, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424, with Qomplx LLC as the Patent Owner. This IPR is currently pending institution at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• 2026-06-01 – Markman Hearing Scheduled: A claim construction (Markman) hearing is scheduled to take place before Judge Alan D. Albright.
• 2026-12-14 – Discovery Deadline: The deadline for discovery in the case is set.
• 2027-06-21 – Jury Trial Scheduled: A jury trial is scheduled to commence.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

In addition to the IPR filed by Palo Alto Networks Inc., Microsoft Corporation has also initiated at least one IPR related to the patents asserted in the district court litigation:

• IPR2026-00184 (Microsoft Corp. v. Qomplx LLC): Microsoft Corporation has filed an IPR petition against Qomplx LLC that specifically references Qomplx's preliminary infringement contentions in the district court case (1:25-cv-01383-ADA), indicating it challenges the asserted patent(s). As of today, the institution status of IPR2026-00184 is not explicitly available in the provided sources, but its mention in claim construction documents suggests it is active. The filing of this IPR could potentially lead to a motion to stay the district court litigation, although no ruling on such a motion has been identified.

Outcome/Present Posture:

The case remains active and is proceeding towards a Markman hearing and eventual jury trial. No settlements, dismissals, or judgments have been reported. The parallel IPR proceedings, particularly those filed by Microsoft against the asserted patents, could impact the litigation, especially if the PTAB institutes review. The USPTO's recent policy changes regarding IPR institution, which include considering U.S. manufacturing footprint and discouraging parallel challenges, could influence the outcomes of these IPRs.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel using docket records, firm announcements, and related QOMPLX litigation.

Let me dig into the docket's plaintiff-side entries and the complaint signature block.

Good — I have the complaint signature block. Now let me confirm each plaintiff-side attorney's firm and role.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — QOMPLX LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:25-cv-01383 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

QOMPLX's district-court team is a two-firm structure: Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles) as lead/merits counsel, with Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP (Austin) as local counsel. The complaint itself is signed by Ian R. Washburn (Irell) and by Paige Amstutz and Robby Earle (Scott Douglass). Three additional pro hac vice attorneys have been admitted for QOMPLX (Grossman, Shamsian, Linxwiler); their firms are not confirmed in the sources I could reach. QOMPLX's PTAB defense is handled by a separate firm, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, which is not counsel of record in the district court case.

---

Counsel of record

PTAB counsel (separate from district-court counsel of record): Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, Santa Monica, CA — Kenneth J. Weatherwax (Lead, Reg. No. 54,528), Parham Hendifar (First Back-Up, Reg. No. 71,470), with Nathan Lowenstein, Colette Woo, and Dennis J. Courtney as back-up. This is confirmed by QOMPLX's Mandatory Notices filed in IPR2026-00298 (Microsoft v. QOMPLX, '424 patent, Mar. 19, 2026). Firm announcement confirms L&W's QOMPLX IPR work.

---

Record support

• Complaint signature block (Dkt. 1, filed 08/28/25), reproduced in full in the exhibit filed in IPR2026-00364: "/s/ Ian R. Washburn … Paige Arnette Amstutz Texas Bar No. 00796136 … Robert Pierce 'Robby' Earle … SCOTT DOUGLASS McCONNICO LLP, 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400, Austin, TX 78701 … Alan J. Heinrich (pro hac vice) … Ian R. Washburn (pro hac vice) … IRELL & MANELLA LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067 … Attorneys for Plaintiff QOMPLX LLC." (docketalarm mirror of IPR2026-00364, Ex. 1020)
• Docket text for the pro hac vice orders: "ORDER GRANTING [70] Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Joshua William Grossman for QOMPLX LLC"; same for Shamsian (Dkt. 67) and Linxwiler (Dkt. 68) — PACER Monitor case page, case last updated 10/08/2026: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59835005/QOMPLX_LLC_v_Microsoft_Corporation
• E.D. Tex. parallel case docket (2:25-cv-00913) shows pro hac vice appearances "for QOMPLX LLC" by Ian Robert Washburn and Aron Berger, plus Charlotte J. Wen and Dominik Slusarczyk, and a "NOTICE of Designation of Attorney in Charge to Ian Robert Washburn on behalf of QOMPLX LLC" — confirming Washburn as the lead/attorney-in-charge across QOMPLX's campaign.

---

Discrepancies in the existing case sections — flagged

1. Assigned judge is inconsistent within the prior sections and with the record. The overview says Judge Ada E. Brown (who sits in N.D. Tex., not W.D. Tex.), while the "Key legal developments" section says Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint caption reads "1:25-cv-01383-ADA" (the "-ADA" suffix in W.D. Tex. is Albright's), but the pro hac vice orders captured on the PACER Monitor page are shown as "Signed by Judge Andrew B Davis." I could not resolve the current assignment; this should be verified against the live docket before relying on either prior statement.
2. Asserted-patent list in the prior sections is wrong. The complaint asserts: 12,143,424; 12,218,934; 12,231,426; 12,301,627; 12,301,628; and 11,539,663. The overview's list ("11,539,663; 11,863,934; 11,895,426; 11,997,627; 11,997,628") does not match the complaint.
3. Defendant-side counsel attribution is unreliable. The PACER Monitor "Represented By" list is not party-differentiated; it interleaves DLA Piper attorneys (Katsantonis, Padmanabhan, Guaragna, Duxbury, Whitesell, Loney, Lan, Fuehrer, Cunningham, Gibson, Buergi) with QOMPLX's Irell/Scott Douglass team and with Sullivan & Cromwell's Amy E. Proctor. Proctor's appearance is unverified as to side — I could not confirm whether she appears for QOMPLX, Microsoft, or a non-party, and I would not list her as plaintiff's counsel without checking the docket entry. Separately, the prior section's listing of Jonathan E. Singer / Fish & Richardson as Microsoft's lead counsel is not supported by anything in the docket text I found (Microsoft's filings are signed by DLA Piper).
4. IPR numbering. Prior sections cite "IPR2026-00364" as Palo Alto's '424 challenge; the PAN power of attorney I located for the '424 patent is captioned IPR2026-00363 (signed May 14, 2026), and IPR2026-00364 is a companion PAN petition also filed May 15, 2026. Microsoft's '424 challenge appears as IPR2026-00298 (QOMPLX mandatory notices dated Mar. 19, 2026), not only IPR2026-00184.

---

Not verified / open items

• Firm affiliations for Grossman, Shamsian, and Linxwiler — the pro hac vice motions were filed by local counsel and the orders name only the attorneys. These are very likely Irell & Manella attorneys, but I could not confirm and will not assert it.
• Whether any QOMPLX in-house counsel has entered an appearance — none appears on the docket text available to me.
• No indication that any plaintiff-side filing is sealed; the complaint and the pro hac vice papers are public.
• Individual case-history notes for Heinrich and Washburn beyond their appearance here and in the Palo Alto Networks case are my general impressions of the firm, not sourced findings, and are labeled as such above.

Here's an identification of the counsel of record representing Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in QOMPLX LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, case number 1:25-cv-01383 in the Texas Western District Court:

DLA Piper LLP (US)

• Tessa Duxbury
  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Century City, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Tessa Duxbury is an associate focusing on patent litigation with over 100 hours of in-court experience.
• Angela Whitesell
  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Angela Whitesell focuses on intellectual property litigation in both life science and technology matters and previously clerked for the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, drafting opinions in Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA litigation.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Jonathan E. Singer
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA.
  • Experience Note: Jonathan Singer is a renowned trial attorney, particularly in life sciences patent litigation, known for successfully reversing significant jury verdicts and leading complex pharmaceutical matters, including cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In-House Counsel (Microsoft Corporation)

• Lucky Vidmar
  • Role: Associate General Counsel and Head of IP Litigation
  • Firm & Office: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA (implied based on company headquarters).
  • Experience Note: Lucky Vidmar manages Microsoft's worldwide docket of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret cases.

While other attorneys and firms like Jackson Walker are identified as having experience before Judge Albright and with Microsoft, and some Microsoft job postings indicate a need for in-house patent counsel, the specific docket entries confirm the appearances of Tessa Duxbury and Angela Whitesell as lead counsel for Microsoft, and Jonathan E. Singer's prominence in Microsoft's patent litigation efforts suggests a lead role. Richard J. McCarthy Jr. appears to be a patent agent with no direct link to this specific litigation as counsel for Microsoft.