Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig into the final written decision and the related litigation campaign.

Let me verify the Federal Circuit appeal outcome and a few more details.

Case Overview: IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00682 (PTAB), U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084

The parties. The petitioner here is International Business Machines Corporation — an operating company, and, critically, not a defendant in any of the district court suits over this patent. IBM filed two parallel petitions on April 23, 2014 (IPR2014-00681 and IPR2014-00682), represented by Kenneth R. Adamo and Eugene Goryunov of Kirkland & Ellis. The patent owner is Intellectual Ventures II LLC ("IV II"), the patent-holding arm of Intellectual Ventures — the paradigm non-practicing entity/patent-assertion entity founded by Nathan Myhrvold. IV II is represented here by Lori A. Gordon, Jonathan M. Strang, and Michael D. Specht of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. By the time of the petition, IV (through IV I and IV II) had asserted the '084 patent in eight separate district court suits against financial institutions — JPMorgan Chase (S.D.N.Y.), Capital One (D. Md.), SunTrust (N.D. Ga.), U.S. Bancorp (D. Minn.), Commerce Bancshares (W.D. Mo.), BBVA Compass (N.D. Ala.), First National Bank of Omaha (D. Neb.), and Huntington Bancshares (S.D. Ohio). Neither IBM nor the accused banks were co-parties to the IPR; the three banks sued in their own cases (Commerce Bancshares, Compass Bank, First National Bank of Omaha) filed their own petitions (IPR2014-00793 and IPR2014-00801). IV unsuccessfully argued that IBM should have been named a real party-in-interest in the banks' petition because IBM had entered a "Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement" with the defense group — a real-party-in-interest theory the Board rejected for lack of evidence of funding, direction, or control.

The technology and the accused products. U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084, titled "Firewall System and Method via Feedback from Broad-Scope Monitoring for Intrusion Detection," issued March 30, 2004 to inventors Jeffrey A. Aaron and Thomas Anschutz (filed March 26, 2002) and is now assigned to IV II. In one line: it claims a network intrusion-detection architecture in which a central "data collection and processing center" (a computer with a firewall coupled to the network) monitors traffic entering multiple hosts, servers, and computer sites, detects an "anomaly," determines by pattern correlation which devices are "anticipated to be affected," and alerts those devices or adjusts their firewalls — i.e., a shared/aggregated anomaly-detection hub that feeds back to distributed firewalls, as opposed to conventional single-customer, on-premises intrusion-detection products. The accused instrumentalities were not a discrete product but the banks' own enterprise network-security/fraud-monitoring infrastructure (intrusion detection, firewall and centralized monitoring systems). The publicly available record on the precise accused systems is thin; Capital One's answer suggests IV's allegations against the '084 (and '409) patents were tied to the banks' PCI DSS compliance implementations, and Capital One raised a standards-essential/covenant-not-to-sue defense on that basis. (Caveat: a search hit referencing a DSS Technology Management v. TSMC/Samsung complaint also mentions an "'084 patent," but that is a different, semiconductor-lithography patent — not U.S. 6,715,084 — and should not be conflated with this case.)

Procedural posture. The docket at issue is the PTAB proceeding, not a district court case. IPR2014-00682 was filed April 23, 2014; the Board instituted review on October 30, 2014 only as to claims 26, 28, and 30–33 (Paper 11), declining the rest; the Final Written Decision issued October 21, 2015 (Paper 35), holding claims 26, 28, and 30–33 unpatentable as obvious over Porras (Live Traffic Analysis of TCP/IP Gateways, 1997) in combination with Cheswick & Bellovin, Firewalls and Internet Security (1994). The panel was Administrative Patent Judges Kristen L. Droesch, Jennifer S. Bisk (author), and Justin Busch. IV's appeal, consolidated with the banks' IPR2014-00801 appeal and a related IV appeal, was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on March 27, 2017 (nonprecedential, Nos. 2016-1519, -1520, -1528, 2017 WL 1130320), with costs to IBM and the banks; the court held that construing "analyzing data" under the broadest reasonable interpretation to include indirect analysis (via results of analyses performed by other network devices) was supported by the ordinary meaning and the specification, and that the IPR2014-00682 decision independently disposed of all claims at issue in both proceedings. The IPR was, in other words, a parallel-track invalidity challenge used to stay or blunt the district court campaign — SunTrust moved to stay and was granted a stay in N.D. Ga. (Judge William S. Duffey, Oct. 7, 2014). Note that the petition-filing, institution, and claim-scope history here was contested: IBM sought rehearing of the institution decision, arguing the panel resolved the "determining" limitation on IV's arguments alone without giving IBM a chance to respond.

Why it matters. Three things make this case notable. First, it is a leading illustration of the AIA-era IPR/district-court interface against an NPE: a non-party operating company (IBM) and the accused banks filed a wave of petitions against a patent being asserted in eight forums, and the resulting PTAB proceedings supplied the stay leverage and, ultimately, the fatal invalidity ruling. Second, it is a § 101 collateral-estoppel landmark: in parallel litigation, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) invalidated the '084 patent under Alice in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2015 WL 1941331 (Apr. 29, 2015), and Judge Paul W. Grimm (D. Md.) gave that partial summary-judgment order preclusive effect in the Capital One case (Sept. 4, 2015), a ruling the Federal Circuit affirmed as to the '084 patent — a significant Blonder-Tongue issue-preclusion holding against a repeat NPE plaintiff. Third, on the merits, the case turned on a claim-construction battle over "analyzing data" that IV pressed all the way to the Federal Circuit and lost, and it tested the real-party-in-interest and joint-defense-agreement boundaries of IPR practice. In market terms, IV's bank campaign targeted the financial sector's post-PCI-DSS security infrastructure and became a frequently cited example of NPE assertion against operating financial institutions — the Federal Circuit's affirmance (and the JPMC § 101 ruling) was publicly framed by defense-side counsel as having a "positive lasting impact" on the financial services industry.

Sourcing note. Party identities, petition dates, instituted claims, the FWD date and grounds, counsel, and the Federal Circuit outcome are well documented in the PTAB filings (Papers 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 35), the IPR2014-00681/00801 institution decisions, and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Nos. 2016-1519/-1520/-1528 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2017). The precise accused systems in each district court case are not fully described in the sources I could reach; the PCI DSS framing comes from Capital One's answer and should be treated as party allegation, not established fact. The original pre-IV assignee of the '084 patent is not confirmed in the sources retrieved — only the named inventors and current assignee (IV II) are.

I'll research this case. First, let me establish what IPR2014-00682 actually is, since the metadata describes it as a PTAB inter partes review (not a district court case), and identify the parties and the underlying litigation.

Strong leads. Let me now pin down the IPR docket details, the underlying district court litigation, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Excellent. Now let me nail down the IPR docket chronology, the Federal Circuit opinion details, and how the parallel district court cases resolved.

Important framing note

The case metadata identifies IPR2014-00682, which is not a district court infringement suit — it is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The "infringement litigation" the user asks about is the parallel district court campaign in which Intellectual Ventures II LLC ("IV") asserted U.S. 6,715,084 (the "'084 patent") against a group of banks. Below I map the two tracks together in chronological order, and I flag where I could not verify a fact.

Confirmed party identification: Petitioner = International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM"); Patent Owner = Intellectual Ventures II LLC. This resolves the "petitioner was not confirmed" gap in the prior summary.

---

The patent at issue

• U.S. 6,715,084 B2, "Firewall System and Method Via Feedback From Broad-Scope Monitoring For Intrusion Detection." Inventors Jeffrey A. Aaron and Thomas Anschutz; filed 2002-03-26; issued 2004-03-30; originally assigned to BellSouth Intellectual Property Corp., later AT&T IP (assignment record filed as Ex. 1014, IPR2014-00682). It claims network-based intrusion detection using a centralized "data collection and processing center" that correlates data across multiple hosts/servers/sites.
• Asserted against banks alongside four companion patents: 5,745,574; 6,314,409; 6,826,694; 7,634,666.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings — the district court campaign (2013–2014)

IV filed a wave of near-identical complaints against financial institutions, each asserting the '084 patent and the four companion patents:

(Source for the list: IBM's Amended Mandatory Notices in IPR2014-00682, citing eight lawsuits pending as of 2015; SunTrust complaint date from the N.D. Ga. stay order. I could not verify answers/counterclaims in each case via PACER; the complaints sought damages and fees, and the Commerce complaint (W.D. Mo.) pleaded induced and contributory infringement of at least claim 26.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — motions to stay pending IPR

The district court cases largely stalled on IPR-driven stay motions:

• SunTrust (N.D. Ga.), 2014-10-07 — stay granted. Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. granted defendants' motion to stay "until the IPR proceedings and, appeals, if any, are completed." The order noted 13 non-party IPR petitions had been filed against the five patents, that the case was at an early stage (only four depositions taken, no Markman hearing, no summary judgment motions, no trial date), and that a stay would simplify the issues. (Doc. 175.)
• JPMorgan Chase (S.D.N.Y.) — the parties exchanged joint claim-construction charts (2014-01-15) and IV filed its opening claim-construction brief (2014-02-27, Dkt. 72) before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. A 2014-12-30 filing in the JPMC matter notes JPMC had not sought CBM review of the '084 patent and that only claims 26, 28, and 30–33 were subject to instituted IPR.
• I did not find a reported ruling on a motion to dismiss or transfer in these cases. Treat that as unverified.

3. Claim construction

(a) District court (Markman): No final Markman ruling on the '084 patent is documented in the sources I located. The JPMC papers show the disputed terms IV proposed (e.g., "an anomaly" = plain and ordinary meaning vs. JPMC's "predetermined pattern of data"; "network based intrusion detection techniques"; "alerting the devices"; "pattern correlations"). The JPMC case was overtaken by the IPR track before a construction issued (if one ever did — unverified).

(b) PTAB (broadest reasonable interpretation): Construction was decisive at the Board. In the institution decisions the panel construed:

• "anomaly" = "a departure from the usual or expected; an abnormality or irregularity."
• "determining which of the plurality of devices are anticipated to be affected by the anomaly" = "deciding or ascertaining which devices are expected or foreseen to be affected by the anomaly."

That "determining" construction is what drove the partial institutions and denials (see below).

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '084 patent (all filed 2014)

5. IPR2014-00682 — the trial track in detail

• 2014-04-23 — IBM Corrected Petition (Paper 4) challenging claims 19, 20, 22–33. Expert: Dr. Steven M. Bellovin (Ex. 1001); IV's expert: Dr. David Goldschlag.
• 2014-10-30 — Decision to Institute (Paper 11). Instituted on (1) claims 26, 28, 30–33 obvious under §103(a) over Porras + Cheswick; (2) claims 26 and 30–32 anticipated under §102(b) by NetRanger. Institution was denied on the remaining grounds/claims, including all claims reciting the "determining" limitation — because IBM had not shown Porras disclosed it.
• 2014-11-13 — Petitioner's Request for Rehearing (Paper 14). IBM argued the panel resolved a case-dispositive claim-construction dispute based solely on arguments IV raised for the first time in its Preliminary Response, giving IBM no opportunity to respond — an "abuse of discretion" and contrary to the meaning of "inter partes." (Note: a docket-alarm index entry suggests this request was granted in some form; I could not confirm the disposition of the rehearing request, and the FWD does not discuss one.)
• 2015-03-30 — Deposition of IV's expert Dr. Goldschlag (Ex. 1041), taken by IBM's counsel (Kirkland & Ellis); IV represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox.
• 2015-10-21 — Final Written Decision (Paper 35, APJs Droesch, Bisk (author), Busch**).** Held: by a preponderance of the evidence, claims 26, 28, and 30–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Porras in view of Cheswick. The Board rejected IV's argument that the "data collection and processing center" must directly analyze data entering the network; under the broadest reasonable construction it may indirectly analyze by correlating analysis results from other devices — which Porras' "anomaly reports"/central server disclosed. The FWD provisionally issued under seal with a joint redaction process.

6. Appeal — Federal Circuit

• Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., No. 2016-1519 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2017) (nonprecedential). IV appealed the unpatentability holdings in both IPR2014-00682 and IPR2014-00801; the Banks cross-appealed the Board's finding that claim 33 was not anticipated in IPR2014-00801.
• The court affirmed the Board in IPR2014-00682, holding that decision properly rendered unpatentable all claims at issue in both proceedings, and dismissed the IPR2014-00801 appeal and cross-appeal as moot (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Lee, 812 F.3d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The court stated: "In this case, claim construction is dispositive. Intellectual Ventures' challenge … rests entirely on a claim-construction challenge," which it rejected.
• (The Federal Circuit panel composition and any certiorari activity are unverified.)

7. Effect on the district court litigation / final disposition

Because the only asserted '084 claims subject to instituted IPR were 26, 28, 30–33, and those claims were cancelled and the cancellation affirmed, the '084 patent dropped out of the bank litigation. Most district courts had already stayed those cases pending the IPR (e.g., SunTrust, 2014-10-07). Jones Day's case summary for Compass Bank confirms the practical result: the three IPRs "resulted in the PTAB holding unpatentable all of the claims of these three patents that Intellectual Ventures had asserted in the district court litigation."

Caveat: I could not verify the individualized final dispositions (dismissals with/without prejudice, settlements, or fee motions) of each bank case via PACER, nor a Markman ruling, JMOL, new-trial, or fee decision in any of them. Those events appear not to have occurred on the '084 track because the cases were stayed and then overtaken by the IPR cancellation.

One additional, later proceeding to flag: A separate PTAB final written decision on the '084 patent (from roughly 2019 or later, citing the April 2019 reissue/reexamination notice) held claims 1–3, 9, 10, 16, 18 anticipated by a Farris reference, claims 5, 12, 13, 17 obvious over Farris+Cheng, claims 6–8, 14 obvious over Farris+Lucidarme, and claims 4, 11, 15, 19–21 not shown unpatentable. I could not confirm the proceeding number or petitioner for that decision, so treat it as a distinct, later challenge rather than part of IPR2014-00682.

---

Bottom line

• Case of record: IPR2014-00682, IBM v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, on U.S. 6,715,084. Instituted 2014-10-30; Final Written Decision 2015-10-21 cancelling claims 26, 28, 30–33 as obvious over Porras + Cheswick.
• Parallel PTAB docket: IPR2014-00681 (denied), IPR2014-00793 (denied), IPR2014-00801 (instituted; claims 26, 28, 30–32 anticipated by Aucsmith).
• Appellate disposition: Affirmed, No. 2016-1519 (Fed. Cir. 2017-03-27); IPR2014-00801 appeal/cross-appeal dismissed as moot.
• Net effect: Cancellation of the asserted '084 claims terminated that patent's role in the multi-district bank litigation, which had been stayed pending the IPRs.

Key sources: IPR2014-00682 FWD (Paper 35, 2015-10-21, docketalarm.com); IPR2014-00801 FWD (Paper 23, 2015-10-21); IPR2014-00681 Denial (Paper 11, 2014-10-30, ptabtrialblog.com); Fed. Cir. opinion (courtlistener.com/opinion/4378493; ipr-pgr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IV.pdf); SunTrust stay order (law.justia.com, N.D. Ga. 1:13-cv-02454, Doc. 175); IBM Amended Mandatory Notices (IPR2014-00682, Paper 32, 2015-05-26); Jones Day case summary (jonesday.com).

I'll research this case. Note at the outset a terminological caveat I need to verify: IPR2014-00682 is a PTAB inter partes review, which has a petitioner and a patent owner, not a plaintiff/defendant. Let me confirm what this proceeding actually is and who appeared.

This is a critical framing issue I need to nail down before answering. Let me pull the actual docket and party filings.

Threshold correction: this "case" has no plaintiff

IPR2014-00682 is not a district‑court patent infringement suit — it is a PTAB inter partes review, International Business Machines Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, on U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084 ("Firewall System and Method Via Feedback From Broad‑Scope Monitoring For Intrusion Detection"). An IPR has a petitioner and a patent owner, not a plaintiff and defendant. So there is no "counsel for plaintiff" of record here.

I'll answer both ways, since the request is ambiguous:

• (A) The party that initiated the proceeding and carried the affirmative case — the functional "plaintiff" in the IPR — is IBM, the petitioner.
• (B) The entity that was the plaintiff in the parallel infringement litigation over the '084 patent was Intellectual Ventures II LLC**, whose infringement counsel are listed separately below.

Everything below is sourced to the PTAB filings themselves. I have flagged anything I could not verify.

---

A. Counsel of record for the Petitioner (IBM) — the party that filed and prosecuted the case

All from Petitioner IBM's Power of Attorney (Paper 2, filed Apr. 23, 2014) and Petitioner's Amended Mandatory Notices (Paper 32, May 26, 2015). Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago office (300 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60654).

Service email on the record: IBM_IPR_SERVICE@kirkland.com. The same Adamo / Goryunov pair is also named as petitioner's counsel in the companion petition IPR2014-00681 (same patent, different claims), as shown in the Board's Oct. 30, 2014 denial decision.

(Note: Kirkland & Ellis is a defense-side firm; here it is on the "petitioner/plaintiff-analog" side — this is a defensive IPR filed by IBM, which was not a defendant in the district court suits, to knock out the '084 patent.)

---

B. Counsel of record for the Patent Owner (Intellectual Ventures II LLC) — the respondent in the IPR, and the plaintiff in the underlying infringement suits

Sources: Patent Owner Power of Attorney (Paper 7, May 13, 2014, signed by Tracy Lemke); Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 37, Apr. 14, 2016); Ex. 3001 (Nov. 17, 2014 teleconference transcript, filed Nov. 25, 2014); Board's institution decision in companion IPR2014-00681 (Oct. 30, 2014), which lists Strang/Gordon for IV and Adamo/Goryunov for IBM.

---

C. Plaintiff's counsel in the parallel district court infringement case (if that is what was meant)

The '084 patent was asserted by IV II as plaintiff in eight suits filed May–June 2013. The flagship one is Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc. and Commerce Bank, No. 2:13‑cv‑04160 (W.D. Mo., filed June 20, 2013) (stayed June 4, 2014 pending IPR, later dismissed/reopened).

The complaint's signature block lists as "[OF COUNSEL]" for the plaintiff:

• Ian Feinberg, Elizabeth Day, Marc Belloli — Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP, 1600 El Camino Real, Suite 280, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (pro hac vice applications noted as forthcoming).

⚠️ I could not verify the lead (i.e., local/main) counsel of record for IV II on the W.D. Mo. docket from the sources available — the OCR I retrieved shows only the "of counsel" block. Do not treat the Feinberg Day attorneys as the full plaintiff-side roster. Separately, Eric F. Citron of Goldstein & Russell, P.C. (Bethesda, MD) appears in the record of the related appeal Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 14‑1724 (Fed. Cir.) as "Counsel for Intellectual Ventures"; his appearance in the '084 appeal (No. 16‑1528) is not verified here.

For completeness on the petitioner side of the other '084 IPRs: the bank petitioners (Commerce Bancshares, Compass Bank/BBVA, First National Bank of Omaha) used Jones Day (Joseph Melnik, lead; Geoffrey K. Gavin), Senniger Powers LLP (Marc Vander Tuig), and Kutak Rock LLP (Jason S. Jackson) — per the IPR2014‑00793 petition.

---

D. Case posture (for context)

• Filed: Apr. 23, 2014 by IBM (real party‑in‑interest: IBM alone), challenging claims 19–20 and 22–33.
• Institution: Oct. 30, 2014 (Paper 11) — partial; IBM sought rehearing (Paper 14, Nov. 13, 2014), which the Board granted but without changing the non‑institution as to certain claims (Paper 18, Dec. 11, 2014).
• Final Written Decision: Oct. 21, 2015 (Paper 35) — claims 26, 28, 30–33 held unpatentable as obvious over Porras in view of Cheswick.
• Appeal: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Nos. 16‑1528, ‑1519, ‑1520 (Fed. Cir.) — affirmed, 682 F. App'x 891 (Fed. Cir. 2017); IV's appeal and the Banks' cross‑appeal in IPR2014‑00801 dismissed as moot.

---

Bottom line: In IPR2014‑00682 the "initiating party" was IBM, represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago) — Kenneth R. Adamo (lead), Eugene Goryunov, Brent P. Ray, Joel R. Merkin, with IBM in‑house counsel Tulloss Delk. The opposing side, patent owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC, was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC — Lori A. Gordon (lead as of April 2016) and Jonathan M. Strang (lead during trial), with Michael D. Specht, plus IV in‑house Donald J. Coulman and Tim R. Seeley. IV II was the plaintiff in the related district‑court suits, where Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson appeared as of counsel.

If your dataset intends a different underlying district‑court case number or a specific defendant, tell me which and I'll pull that docket's appearance list — I won't guess at counsel not evidenced in the filings.

I'll research the counsel of record. Note upfront a framing issue I need to resolve: IPR2014-00682 is an inter partes review, where the parties are petitioner (IBM) and patent owner (IV II) — there is no "defendant." The "defendants" in the underlying patent infringement campaign are the eight banks. Let me research both layers.

Good — this surfaced the PTAB party counsel and a service list. Now let me pin down the district-court defendant (bank) counsel, since that's where a "defendant" actually exists.

Framing correction (important)

There is a category mismatch to flag before the list: IPR2014-00682 is not a "patent infringement case," and it has no "defendant." It is an inter partes review before the PTAB, where the parties are the petitioner (IBM Corp.) and the patent owner (Intellectual Ventures II LLC). The "defendant" concept only exists in the parallel district court suits — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase, v. Capital One, v. SunTrust, etc. — where the defendants are the eight banks. So I've given you both layers: (A) the IPR parties' counsel of record, and (B) the underlying infringement defendants' counsel. That also resolves the "defendant" question the way this assignment is presumably intended.

I could not reach PACER directly; the identifiers below come from PTAB filings (Docket Alarm/CourtListener mirrors), the Federal Circuit opinions, and attorney-authored source documents. Nothing in the record suggests counsel appearances are sealed.

---

A. IPR2014-00682 counsel of record (the docketed case)

Petitioner IBM Corp. — Kirkland & Ellis LLP (common counsel to the bank defendants; see Part B)

Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC ("the responding/defendant-side party" in the IPR) — Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox + IV in-house

Contradiction flag: the previously generated overview stated the patent-owner team as "Lori A. Gordon, Jonathan M. Strang, and Michael D. Specht of Sterne Kessler." The IPR2014-00682 mandatory notices I retrieved name only Strang and Gordon (plus in-house Coulman/Seeley). I could not verify Michael D. Specht on the '682 filings — treat that name as unconfirmed for this docket. Separately, Knobbe Martens attorneys (Brenton R. Babcock, Ted M. Cannon) appear for IV in related proceedings (e.g., CBM2014-00157/-00160 on other patents), not in IPR2014-00682.

---

B. Defendants' counsel in the underlying infringement suits (the eight banks)

The common thread is that Kirkland & Ellis served as lead/co-counsel for the bank defendants across the campaign — the same firm that filed for IBM. By Adamo's own published trial-counsel history ("Significant Lead Trial Counsel Representations"), he states Kirkland "represent[ed] defendants as lead counsel or co-counsel in each case," listing SunTrust, U.S. Bancorp, First National Bank of Omaha (FNBO), Huntington, and Commerce. That dual representation (IBM as petitioner; the banks as defendants) is exactly what prompted IV's failed real-party-in-interest/joint-defense ("Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement") challenge.

JPMorgan Chase defendants — IV II v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:13-cv-03777-AKH (S.D.N.Y.)

(Sources: Fed. Cir. 781 F.3d 1372 (2015) counsel lines; Fed. Cir. judgment, Dec. 17, 2018 (2017-2429/2018-1024); district-court letter to Judge Hellerstein, Feb. 28, 2014.)

Capital One defendants — IV I/II v. Capital One, No. 8:14-cv-00111-PWG (D. Md.) & No. 1:13-cv-00740-AJT (E.D. Va.)

(Source: Fed. Cir. 850 F.3d 1332 (2017) counsel lines; D. Md. docket.)

SunTrust, U.S. Bancorp, Commerce Bancshares, BBVA Compass, FNBO, Huntington

For these six, the confirmed defense-side counsel is Kirkland & Ellis — Adamo's published representations expressly cover the SunTrust (N.D. Ga., 1:13-cv-02454-WSD), U.S. Bancorp (D. Minn.), FNBO (D. Neb.), Commerce (W.D. Mo.), and Huntington (S.D. Ohio) matters as "defendants as lead counsel or co-counsel." I was not able to individually verify each bank's local counsel within my research budget, and I will not guess names.

Do not be misled by the service list in IBM's Power of Attorney (IPR2014-00682, Paper 2). That certificate of service lists a firm in each suit city, but at least two of them — Krevolin & Horst LLC (Zahra S. Karinshak, Jonathan E. Hawkins, A. Jarrod Jenkins, Atlanta) and Feinberg Day / Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP (Ian N. Feinberg, Elizabeth Day, Marc Belloli, Menlo Park) — were Intellectual Ventures' own counsel (plaintiff/patent owner), not defense counsel. Krevolin & Horst signed the SunTrust complaint as "Attorneys for Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II," and Feinberg Day appeared for IV throughout the JPMC matter and appeal. So that list is the IV side, not the banks' defense team. The remaining entries (Koukol, Johnson (Omaha); Bainbridge Mims Rogers & Smith (Birmingham); Stueve Siegel Hanson (Kansas City); Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus (Eden Prairie, MN); Faruki Ireland & Cox (Dayton); Dunnegan (New York)) I could not definitively attribute to plaintiff or defendant — flag as unverified rather than assume.

---

C. Bottom line

• If "defendant" = the IPR respondent: the counsel of record is IV II's patent-owner team — Sterne Kessler (Jonathan M. Strang → Lori A. Gordon as lead) with IV in-house (Coulman, Seeley, Hietala). IBM's petitioner team is Kirkland & Ellis (Adamo, Goryunov, Ray, Merkin).
• If "defendant" = the district-court bank defendants: the backbone of the defense was Kirkland & Ellis (Kenneth R. Adamo lead), supplemented in JPMC by Durie Tangri and Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig, and in Capital One by Latham & Watkins, Troutman Sanders, and Capital One in-house counsel.
• Cross-check caveat: no counsel or appearance is fabricated here; where the record left a gap (individual local counsel for the six non-JPMC/Capital One banks; Michael Specht on the '682 notices; the plaintiff/defendant attribution of certain service-list firms), I've marked it unverified. These would be resolved by pulling the appearances from PACER in each district case (N.D. Ga. 1:13-cv-02454; D. Minn.; W.D. Mo.; N.D. Ala.; D. Neb.; S.D. Ohio; S.D.N.Y. 1:13-cv-03777; D. Md. 8:14-cv-00111), which was beyond my remaining search budget.