Untitled case

I'll verify the key facts before drafting the overview.

Let me verify the PTAB outcomes on the '574 and the case's ultimate disposition.

Case overview and background

Verification status: I have not opened PACER for this docket. Everything below is sourced to indexed docket mirrors, the complaint text as reproduced on RPX Insight, PNC's SEC filings, and PTAB papers. Nothing is attributed to a ruling I could not source, and gaps are flagged explicitly.

Parties. The caption is Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; PNC Bank, N.A.; and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., No. 2:14-cv-00832-AKS (W.D. Pa., Pittsburgh Div.), filed June 25, 2014, before Judge Arthur J. Schwab (Justia docket; Plainsite). The plaintiffs are patent-holding companies, not operating companies — the "Intellectual Ventures" entities are the Bellevue, Washington–based, Nathan Myhrvold-founded assertion vehicle; the Wall Street Journal/academic literature and IV's own litigation posture place them squarely in the NPE/PAE category, and the Ex Parte AI docket classifies this suit's sector as "Software, Security" (ai-lab.exparte.com). The defendants are the operating companies: PNC Financial Services Group, its bank subsidiary PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P. — one of the largest U.S. bank holding companies, headquartered in Pittsburgh itself (PNC 10-Q, Nov. 5, 2014). IV's Chief Litigation Counsel Melissa Finocchio announced the filing wave publicly, stating IV had "approached" PNC about licensing and that "these discussions were not productive" (GeekWire, May 29, 2013). Ownership was split between the two IV entities: IV I owned the '298 patent; IV II owned the '666, '574, '002 and '409 patents (complaint, ¶¶ 19–20).

Flags on the case metadata. The metadata in this prompt lists only U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,574. The complaint actually asserted five patents, so the metadata is incomplete — the '574 was one of five. Separately, the earlier section's statement that the '574 "was the one patent dismissed from IV 1 that was not subject to PTO review" is not supported by the complaint, which pleads all five patents as new claims in IV 2; treat that earlier inference as unsourced.

Accused technology. The accused products are PNC's online and mobile banking systems and services, expressly including the websites pnc.com, pncsites.com, and the Pogo payment portal (pnc.pogopayment.com), plus "other systems and services" delivered electronically (complaint ¶21). The infringement theories were platform- and standard-specific rather than product-identification-specific: for the '666 patent (claim 4), IV alleged PNC's use of IBM System z mainframe computers, including the zEnterprise System (¶23); for the '574 patent (claim 18), IV alleged systems and services "that comply with the PCI Data Security Standard for encrypting data during communication sessions," i.e., PNC's cardholder-data security infrastructure (¶27), and pleaded indirect infringement — inducement of PNC's own customers through website instructions and advertising for online banking and bill pay (¶¶ 28–32). IV sent PNC a pre-suit notice letter dated June 23, 2014 — two days before filing — which IV used to plead knowledge (¶24).

Patents asserted (technical sketch, one line each).

• U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,574 — "Security Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions" (1995 priority; issued Apr. 28, 1998): a multi-certification-authority public key infrastructure for managing certificates across open networks; only claim 18 was asserted (RPX complaint text; Unified Patents portal).
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,666 (claim 4) — asserted against mainframe-based banking processing.
• U.S. Pat. No. 6,314,409 — "System for Controlling Access and Distribution of Digital Property."
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,757,298 — "Method and Apparatus for Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files" (the patent PNC later CBM-challenged; see the PTAB denial write-up).
• The '002 patent — "System and Method for Implementing an Intelligent and Mobile Menu-Interface Agent" (issued Apr. 8, 2003 per the complaint; I did not independently confirm its full number).
• I could not source a technical description of the '666 patent's subject matter beyond its accused use; treat that sketch as thin.

Procedural posture and why venue matters. Filed in the Pittsburgh Division of the Western District of Pennsylvania before Judge Schwab, with jury demand by the plaintiffs; the docket index codes the cause of action as "35 U.S.C. § 145," an apparent docket-coding artifact (nature of suit 830, Patent). Venue is significant on three grounds: PNC is sued at home in its headquarters city; the plaintiffs are out-of-state, so W.D. Pa. required local Pittsburgh counsel alongside pro hac vice admissions (ECF 15–25, granted July 1–9, 2014); and Judge Schwab was already presiding over IV's first PNC action, No. 2:13-cv-00740, into which 2:14-cv-00832 was consolidated on August 12, 2014 — the same order also granted a stay (ECF 37: "ORDER granting 31 Motion to Consolidate Cases; granting 31 Motion to Stay"). IV II's own PTAB mandatory notices confirm the caption, filing date and consolidation (IPR2014-00672 Paper 15); the IPR2014-00724 petition states IV had asserted the '574 in nine separate lawsuits (PTAB petition paper).

Why the case is notable. It is a compact case study of the 2013–14 NPE campaign against the banking industry and of how the AIA's post-grant proceedings defused it. PNC counter-punched at the PTAB — it co-petitioned with Bank of America in CBM2014-00028/-00029/-00030/-00033 (the '137, '701, '382, '587 patents) and alone filed CBM2014-00032 against the '298 patent, which the Board denied to institute on May 22, 2014, holding that "the mere assertion of a patent in district court against a bank or other financial institution is not sufficient by itself to transform a patent into a 'covered business method patent'" (Nat'l Law Review summary of CBM2014-00032). The '574 itself drew three PTAB challenges — IBM IPR2014-00660 (filed Apr. 17, 2014; instituted Oct. 20, 2014; FWD Oct. 19, 2015; claims 18–31 challenged, i.e., including the sole claim asserted against PNC), Compass Bank IPR2014-00724 (filed May 1, 2014; instituted Nov. 6, 2014), and JPMC CBM2014-00160, instituted-denied Jan. 29, 2015 on the ground that the '574's claims had general application and were not limited to a financial application (Patexia; RPX). PNC's 10-Qs then record the attrition: the W.D. Pa. court stayed IV 2 pending PTO review and any appeals (Nov. 2014 filing); in October 2015 IV voluntarily dismissed without prejudice its claims on three patents invalidated in other suits, leaving two; IV's motion to deconsolidate and lift the stay was denied; and in the companion IV 1 action IV moved to dismiss its remaining claims with prejudice, which the court granted (PNC 10-Q Q3 2015). The market context explains the timing: the '574 has a December 1995 priority date, so its ~20-year term ran to roughly December 14, 2015 — the IPR2014-00660 and IPR2014-00724 final decisions landed in October and November 2015, weeks before expiration.

Open items I could not close: the outcome (which claims, if any, were cancelled) of the IPR2014-00660 final written decision; the identity of the two patents that remained asserted in IV 2 after October 2015; and the docket's formal termination date and any settlement terms — the aggregators show the case as "Closed" but give no terminating entry. A PACER pull of 2:14-cv-00832 (ECF 37 and the termination docket entry) and of the consolidated 2:13-cv-00740 docket is the required next step.

I'll research this case aggressively across the sources you named. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good leads. The patent is owned by Intellectual Ventures II LLC. Now let me pin down the specific W.D. Pa. case and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Verification status (read first)

I was unable to verify the caption or any docket event for W.D. Pa. No. 2:14-cv-00832 itself. The case metadata in this prompt — including the court, the case number, and the '574 patent — is the only source I have for that docket. Searches of PACER-adjacent aggregators, the Pittsburgh Legal Journal, and general web indices returned no docket entries, opinions, or press coverage tying parties to a W.D. Pa. action on U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,574. Every case caption and date below that I can source comes from other proceedings involving the '574 patent, not from 2:14-cv-00832. I have flagged each accordingly and have not attributed any ruling, counsel, or outcome to 2:14-cv-00832 that I could not source to that docket.

---

1. The patent

• U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,574, "Security Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions." Priority 1995-12-14; issued 1998-04-28. Originally assigned to Entegrity Solutions Corporation; now held by Intellectual Ventures II LLC. (Unified Patents patent portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-5745574-B1)
• Subject matter: a multi-certification-authority public key infrastructure (PKI) for managing public key certificates across an open network — a 1990s-era "authentication infrastructure" patent. This is a 1995-priority, late-1990s patent, which matters enormously below (term expiry and CBM eligibility).
• Because the application was filed 1995-12-14, the 20-year term ran to approximately 2015-12-14. That single fact explains much of the shape of the enforcement campaign.

2. Filing and initial pleadings in 2:14-cv-00832

No verified information. Filed 2014 (the "14" in the case number), Western District of Pennsylvania, Erie or Pittsburgh division ("2:" designation). I cannot confirm plaintiff, defendants, asserted claims, the complaint's filing date, any answer, or any counterclaim. I would not rely on any of this without pulling the PACER docket (W.D. Pa., 2:14-cv-00832) or the Google Patents litigation record referenced in the prior summary.

What I can establish is the enforcement context the '574 patent sat in during 2014, which is the strongest available inference about who was suing whom:

3. The '574 enforcement campaign — chronological, verified events

2013-06-12 — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-01106 (N.D. Ala.). One of the two NPE-litigation-database hits for the '574 patent; defendants include Compass Bank. (Stanford NPE Litigation Database, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/5745574) This is the case in which Compass Bank later became the IPR petitioner (see §5).

2013 — Intellectual Ventures v. JPMorgan Chase (S.D.N.Y. No. 13-cv-03777). IV asserted a package of patents including the '574 against JPMC. Verified events include a patent tutorial on 2013-10-29, a Markman hearing on 2014-03-05, and a Markman order dated 2014-03-18 (documents filed as IPR exhibits: "2014.03.18 JPMC Markman Order," "2014-03-05 IV-JPMC Claim Construction Hearing Transcript," "2013-10-29 Patent Tutorial Transcript Final"). (Patexia CBM2014-00160 document list, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/JP-Morgan-Chase-%26-Co-et-al-v-Intellectual-Ventures-II-LLC-id-63991/documents/sort_by/created/sort_dir/asc) A second, amended complaint against all defendants was filed 2014-03-24.

2013-10-07 / 2014 — IV II v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02454-WSD (N.D. Ga.). Stay opinion dated 2014-10-07; the court expressly noted it had not yet held a Markman hearing. (Casetext, http://g.casetext.com/case/intellectual-ventures-ii-llc-v-suntrust-banks)

2013-11 — IV II v. Huntington Bancshares Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-00785 (S.D. Ohio). Stipulated scheduling order (ECF 32); fact discovery to close 2014-12-31; no claim construction hearing held at the time of the stay ruling. (Justia, https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/2:2013cv00785/[165036](/patent/165036)/61) IV II v. Commerce Bancshares, No. 2:13-cv-04160-NKL (W.D. Mo.) was treated as a "Related Case" in the same campaign.

2014-06-25 — Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Citigroup, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y.). The second NPE-database hit for the '574 patent, naming Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. (Stanford NPE Litigation Database)

Pattern: By mid-2014 the '574 patent was one patent in a broad IV campaign against banks and financial-services companies, asserted alongside other IV financial-services patents (e.g., the '409, '666, and '694 patents discussed in the SunTrust and Huntington opinions).

4. Motion practice in the related cases (no verified 2:14-cv-00832 rulings)

The motion of substance across this campaign was the motion to stay pending IPR, not a motion to dismiss or transfer:

• SunTrust (N.D. Ga.): Defendants moved to stay 2014-06-06; IV opposed 2014-06-23; on 2014-08-18 the court held a telephone conference and stayed discovery pending the stay ruling; the court granted the stay (opinion 2014-10-07). At that point the PTAB had instituted IPR on the '666 patent and had denied IBM's petition on the '409 patent (2014-09-22) and instituted on claim 1 of the '694 patent (2014-09-24). Thirteen IPR petitions were pending overall. The court applied the standard three-factor test (procedural status / simplification / undue prejudice).
• Huntington (S.D. Ohio): The court granted the stay, finding all three factors favored defendants — early stage, fact discovery not closing until 2014-12-31, no Markman hearing yet, trial over a year off — and that a PTAB decision by mid-2015 would simplify or moot the validity counts.
• Commerce Bancshares (W.D. Mo., 2014-06-04): Same court granted a stay in a Related Case on the ground that "substantial time and resources may be conserved."

I found no motion-to-dismiss, transfer, or summary-judgment ruling in any '574 case, and no Markman ruling construing the '574 claims other than the JPMC Markman order of 2014-03-18 (which construed claims across the asserted patents, the '574 among them).

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '574 patent — verified

A. IPR2014-00724 — Compass Bank et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

• Filed 2014-05-01 (petitioner: Compass Bank et al.; patent owner: IV II; tech center 3600)
• Institution decision 2014-11-06
• Status: Final Written Decision; termination date 2015-11-05
• Petitioner counsel: Geoffrey Gavin; Patent Owner counsel: Brenton Babcock
  (IPVerse/ GreyB, https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2014-00724)

This is the single most consequential PTAB event for the '574 patent. Note the timing: the FWD landed 2015-11-05, roughly five weeks before the patent's ~2015-12-14 term expiry. Any claim cancellation would therefore have had little commercial effect, and any defense-side win came too late to be worth much in damages terms.

B. CBM2014-00160 — J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

• Petition filed 2014-07-18 ("Petition for CBMR of US Patent No 5745574")
• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response 2014-11-03
• Patent Owner's mandatory notice adding backup counsel 2014-12-18
• Decision denying institution under 37 C.F.R. § 42.208 — 2015-01-29
• Petitioner's request for refund 2015-06-30; Board notice of refund 2015-07-02
  (Patexia document list and Docket Alarm, https://www.docketalarm.com/search/PTAB/?f=tech_center_exact-3600&f=judge_exact-Jennifer+Bisk)

Why the CBM was denied (inference, not sourced to the decision text): The '574 patent has a 1995 priority date and pre-dates the AIA's CBM transitional window, and its issuance date means a CBM challenge faces both the § 18(d)(1) "financial product or service" requirement and the "technological invention" exception. The denial is consistent with the Board's treatment of pre-AIA PKI/encryption patents as technological inventions rather than covered business methods. I did not obtain the text of the denial, so treat the reasoning as unverified.

C. Related IV patents. The SunTrust opinion confirms the PTAB instituted IPR on all claims of the '666 patent on 2014-04-16 and on claim 1 of the '694 patent on 2014-09-24, and denied IBM's petition on the '409 patent on 2014-09-22. These family-adjacent rulings drove the stays discussed above.

6. Effect of the PTAB proceedings on the district court litigation

The mechanism is documented in the stay opinions: the PTAB's institution decisions gave district courts a concrete simplification rationale, and courts across the campaign (N.D. Ga., S.D. Ohio, W.D. Mo.) stayed the infringement actions in mid-to-late 2014 rather than press toward Markman and trial. For the '574 patent specifically, the IPR2014-00724 institution on 2014-11-06 fell neatly into the window those courts described, and Compass Bank — simultaneously a defendant in the N.D. Ala. action and the IPR petitioner — is the classic parallel-litigation petitioner posture.

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, appeal

None verified for any '574 patent case, and none verified for 2:14-cv-00832. I found no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial ruling, no § 285 fee award, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no announced settlement involving the '574 patent. The IPR2014-00724 FWD (2015-11-05) and the patent's ~December 2015 term expiry are the terminal events I can actually document for this patent's enforcement life. The practical disposition of the campaign was attrition: stays, then expiration.

---

Bottom line and recommended next steps

The '574 patent is a 1995-priority IV II asset that was asserted against banks/financial institutions in 2013–2014, challenged at the PTAB by Compass Bank (IPR2014-00724, instituted 2014-11-06, FWD 2015-11-05) and J.P. Morgan Chase (CBM2014-00160, institution denied 2015-01-29), and effectively neutered by term expiry around 2015-12-14. What I cannot do from open sources is confirm that 2:14-cv-00832 (W.D. Pa.) is part of that campaign, who the parties are, or what happened in it.

To close that gap, pull the actual record:

1. PACER, W.D. Pa., 2:14-cv-00832 — docket sheet (parties, filing date, ECF 1 complaint, any stay order, termination entry).
2. Google Patents litigation record for the '574 patent family — the listing that generated this case in the first place.
3. PTAB E2E / PTAB Portal for the full paper sets in IPR2014-00724 and CBM2014-00160, which may identify the W.D. Pa. action as a "Related Matter" and thereby supply the caption.
4. RECAP/CourtListener for any W.D. Pa. opinion text.

I'll start by researching this case and its docket.

The docket identifies this as Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Let me dig into the docket and counsel.

I've identified the case. Now let me pin down the exact counsel and their firms.

Case identification first

The docket number in the metadata maps to a real, identifiable case, and the summary in the existing case file ("parties could not be identified") can now be corrected:

Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., No. 2:14-cv-00832-AJS (W.D. Pa., Pittsburgh Div.) — filed June 25, 2014; patent infringement; assigned to Judge Arthur J. Schwab. U.S. Patent No. 5,745,574 ("Security Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions") was among the patents asserted. The case was consolidated into IV's earlier PNC action, No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS, on August 12, 2014 (PTAB petition paper describing the consolidation: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1459175](/patent/1459175)/download-documents; PNC's own 10-K describes "IV 2" at case no. 2:14-cv-00832). Mirror docket sheets: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2cczpfync/pennsylvania-western-district-court/intellectual-ventures-i-llc-et-al-v-pnc-financial-services-group-inc-et-al/ and https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/pawd/2:14-cv-00832/intellectual-ventures-i-llc-v-pnc-financial-services-group-inc. The docket is now closed.

Because W.D. Pa. requires local counsel for pro hac vice admission, plaintiffs' counsel split into an out-of-state trial team and Pittsburgh local counsel.

---

Counsel of record for the plaintiffs (Intellectual Ventures I LLC / Intellectual Ventures II LLC)

Out-of-state lead/trial counsel — Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP, Menlo Park, CA

All four were admitted pro hac vice in this case in early July 2014 by stipulation/order of Judge Schwab.

Firm identification for Feinberg/Malik/Thompson is corroborated by the signature block on IV's Federal Circuit brief: "FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI & THOMPSON LLP — Ian N. Feinberg, Margaret Elizabeth Day, David L. Alberti, Clayton Thompson, Marc Belloli, Yakov Zolotorev, Sal Lim, Jeremiah A. Armstrong, Nickolas Bohl, Vinay Malik, 1600 El Camino Real, Suite 280, Menlo Park, California 94025" (https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/61-APPELLEES%E2%80%99-BRIEFINTELLECTUAL-VENTURES-1.pdf).

Local counsel — Zimmer Kunz, PLLC, Pittsburgh, PA

In-house

• Melissa Finocchio, IV's Chief Litigation Counsel (Intellectual Ventures Management, Bellevue, WA), publicly announced this filing wave ("IV's Chief Litigation Counsel Melissa Finocchio," statement reported by GeekWire, May 29, 2013/2014 campaign coverage: https://www.geekwire.com/2013/nathan-myhrvolds-intellectual-ventures-banks-sues-pnc-national-bank-omaha/). I found no evidence that she entered an appearance on the 2:14-cv-00832 docket; she is identified here only as the client-side litigation executive, not as counsel of record.

---

Cautions and gaps

• PACER was not directly accessible for this analysis; the attorney roster above is reconstructed from docket mirrors (Plainsite, Justia, Ex Parte), PTAB papers, PNC's 10-K disclosure, and briefs/court documents in related cases. The pro hac vice entries (ECF 15–25) are the most reliable anchor because they are specific to 2:14-cv-00832.
• No sealed filings were identified that would hide counsel. However, in W.D. Pa. practice the pro hac vice attorney is the active litigator and the local counsel signature carries most filings, so a PACER pull of ECF 15–25 (and the consolidated 2:13-cv-00740 docket, which lists a longer attorney roster including Elizabeth Day, David Alberti, Sal Lim, Marc Belloli and Yakov Zolotorev for the IV side) is the recommended verification step.
• I could not confirm (a) who was formally designated "lead counsel" in the court's records — W.D. Pa. does not require a lead-counsel designation in the same way some districts do; (b) Peter Mikhail's firm; or (c) the full identity of the third local-counsel signatory.
• Post-2014 activity: consistent with the docket being closed, IV's claims in the consolidated matter were narrowed — PNC's 10-K reports that in October 2015 IV voluntarily dismissed without prejudice its claims as to three patents in IV 2, leaving two patents at issue, and the court declined to lift the stay or deconsolidate. Attorney appearances were not updated in the sources I could reach.

I'll research this aggressively. Let me start with several parallel searches to pin down the docket and any counsel appearances.

Major breakthrough: the docket is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Let me now pull the docket and counsel appearances.

Counsel of record for the defendant(s) — first, a caption correction

The prior sections of this case summary reported that the parties in 2:14-cv-00832 "could not be identified." That gap is now closed, and it changes the analysis in the earlier sections.

Verified caption: Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; PNC Bank NA; and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., No. 2:14-cv-00832 (W.D. Pa., Pittsburgh Div.), filed June 25, 2014, before Judge Arthur J. Schwab ("2:14-cv-00832-AKS").

• Justia docket index: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2014cv00832/[217293](/patent/217293)
• Plainsite docket index: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2cczpfync/pennsylvania-western-district-court/intellectual-ventures-i-llc-et-al-v-pnc-financial-services-group-inc-et-al/
• Ex Parte AI docket index (shows status "Closed"): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/pawd/2:14-cv-00832/intellectual-ventures-i-llc-v-pnc-financial-services-group-inc
• PNC's own SEC disclosure describing the suit and its "‑AKS" suffix: PNC Financial Services Group Form 10‑Q, "Patent Infringement Litigation" note (https://solutions.vwdservices.com/products/documents/ea2b0a6f-ed24-4ebe-8cbc-71327fbdea08/)

Two corrections to the earlier sections, flagged as required:

1. The '574 patent was asserted in W.D. Pa. — it is Claim 18 of the '574 patent that IV II asserted against PNC (Second Claim for Relief in the complaint, reproduced at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/[10800855](/patent/10800855)). The earlier sections implied the '574's only 2014 enforcement footprints were BBVA Compass, Citigroup, and JPMC.
2. IV II's own PTAB mandatory notices expressly cite this docket: "Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00832 (W.D. Pa.), filed June 25, 2014" (IV II Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2014-00672, Paper 15, http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2014-00672/.../Notice-15-Patent_Owners_Updated_Mandatory_Notices.pdf). This is the cleanest primary-source confirmation of the filing date and caption.

---

Verification status (read before relying on the names)

I could not open the PACER docket sheet or the actual ECF filings for 2:14-cv-00832. The names below come from (a) indexed docket-aggregator text for this case, (b) the indexed docket text for the companion case, Intellectual Ventures I & II v. PNC Financial Services Group, No. 2:13-cv-00740-AJS (same court, same judge, same parties in interest, consolidated with this case in August 2014 per PNC's 10-Q), and (c) PNC's SEC disclosures. Firm attributions are my own knowledge and are individually flagged as not confirmed from a filing where I could not verify them. Nothing here is sealed; nothing here is invented, but a PACER pull is required to certify the appearance list for this docket number.

---

Defendant-side counsel

On the 2:14-cv-00832 docket index (this case)

The remainder of the defendant-side "Represented By" block on the Justia index for 2:14-cv-00832 is truncated in the indexed text — I can see "Thomas L. [Allen]" and "Justin J. Kontul" on the defense side, and then the list runs into plaintiff-side names (Alberti, Belloli, Butcher, Day, Feinberg, Krauth, Lim, Malik, Mikhail, Quinn, Thompson). I cannot rule out additional defense appearances that the index cut off.

The rest of the PNC defense team, as documented on the companion docket (2:13-cv-00740)

These names are verified for the companion case and are the team PNC used for the same patents and the same consolidated proceeding. Because the two cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in August 2014, they are the most probable additional counsel here — but I am attributing them to 2:13-cv-00740, not certifying them on the 2:14-cv-00832 docket:

Source for all four: Justia docket index, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-00740 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2013cv00740/[210317](/patent/210317)).

In-house

No in-house PNC attorney is identified as of record in any source I could reach. PNC's outside-counsel posture in this campaign appears to have been entirely WilmerHale (national) + Reed Smith (Pittsburgh local). PNC's litigation decisions in the campaign were fronted publicly by outside/executive spokespeople, not by a named in-house attorney of record.

Not defense counsel — do not attribute to PNC

Daniel E. Krauth, Elizabeth Day, Marc Belloli, David Alberti, Sal Lim, Samantha Quinn, Ian N. Feinberg, Vinay K. Malik, Peter Mikhail, and Clayton W. Thompson, II are plaintiff-side (Intellectual Ventures) counsel who entered pro hac vice appearances; the Plainsite docket text shows their PHV motions. Separately, Lori A. Gordon (Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox) and Jonathan M. Strang were IV II's lead/backup PTAB counsel — PTAB counsel, not district-court defense counsel.

---

Practical significance for the case narrative

This identification matters more than a caption fix, because it explains the outcome recorded in the earlier section ("attrition: stays, then expiration"):

• PNC counter-petitioned at the PTAB: its 10-Q states that in November 2013 PNC filed CBM/PGR petitions seeking to invalidate all five patents of IV 1, that four were instituted in May 2014, and that the district court stayed the litigation pending those reviews.
• The '574 patent drew a third PTAB challenge the earlier section did not capture: IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00660 (filed 2014-04-17; institution 2014-10-20) — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/1217-international-business-machines-v-intellectual-ventures-ii-llc-ipr-of-574 — alongside Compass Bank IPR2014-00724 and JPMC CBM2014-00160.
• The '574 was carried into 2:14-cv-00832 precisely because it was the one patent dismissed from IV 1 that was not subject to PTO review, per PNC's 10-Q — i.e., IV refiled to keep it alive. The court then stayed IV 2 as well; in October 2015 IV voluntarily dismissed three of the five patents and its motion to lift the stay was denied.

So the answer to "who defended" is: WilmerHale (Washington, D.C.) as national/lead counsel, with Reed Smith (Pittsburgh) as local counsel — for PNC Financial Services Group, PNC Bank NA, and PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P. — with Thomas L. Allen and Justin J. Kontul the names actually indexed on the 2:14-cv-00832 docket.

---

Gaps and next steps (what I could not verify)

1. PACER docket, W.D. Pa. 2:14-cv-00832 — pull the ECF attorney-appearance list to certify exactly who entered an appearance on this docket, and whether the WilmerHale attorneys' PHV admissions were docketed in the 2013 or the 2014 case.
2. Firm attribution for Kontul and Hardt — confirm from their State Bar/firm-bio pages whether both were at Reed Smith during 2014–2016.
3. Any stipulated dismissal/mandate — the case is indexed as "Closed"; neither PNC's disclosures nor the aggregators I reached give a termination date or a settlement term, and no § 285 fee ruling surfaced.
4. Sealed filings — I found no indication of sealing in this case, but I could not inspect the docket itself, so I cannot affirmatively rule it out.