Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search before writing the overview.

Good progress. Let me dig into the specific docket for 2:24-cv-00534, the dismissal, and any IPRs on the '277 patent.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The docket at 2:24-cv-00534-JRG is Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. CyrusOne LLC — the defendant that was unconfirmed in the prior summary is now confirmed as CyrusOne LLC, the Dallas-headquartered colocation and hyperscale data center REIT/operator, which the complaint identifies as operating the "DFW" facilities in Carrollton, Lewisville, and Allen, Texas (Compl. ¶¶3, 29; ex parte complaint analysis). Plaintiff Valtrus Innovations Ltd. is a Dublin, Ireland–based patent assertion entity (PAE/NPE); it describes itself as successor-in-interest to a portfolio developed by Hewlett-Packard/HPE, and it litigates together with Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI"), the Irish parent that is the beneficial owner of the patents under a trust arrangement. Valtrus and KPI are co-plaintiffs across the campaign. CyrusOne answered (asserting declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement on the ’277 and other patents) and, notably, Vertiv Corporation — a cooling-equipment vendor whose Liebert/iCOM systems are used in the accused data centers — intervened in the CyrusOne matter and separately filed a declaratory-judgment action against Valtrus (N.D. Tex. No. 3:24-cv-01153-N, filed May 14, 2024) (IPR2025-00668 record; Dkt. 66, CyrusOne answer/counterclaims). Valtrus's counsel includes Findlay Craft PC (Eric Hugh Findlay, Aaron Morris, Connor Houghton) and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP; CyrusOne is represented by Gillam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith, Sean McEldowney, Matthew McIntee).

Accused technology and patents. The accused instrumentalities are CyrusOne's data center cooling, environmental-monitoring, and power systems as operated — not a discrete sold product: "systems in its data centers for cooling, or otherwise controlling atmospheric conditions," modular rack sensor assemblies, the "flexible data center" deployment at DFW1, and redundant power supplies (Compl. ¶¶31–58). The complaint asserted seven patents, not only the metadata-listed ’277: U.S. Pat. No. 6,718,277 ("Atmospheric control within a building," issued Apr. 6, 2004), 6,854,287 ("Cooling system"), 6,862,179 ("Partition for varying the supply of cooling fluid"), 7,031,870 ("Data center evaluation using an air re-circulation index"), 7,339,490 ("Modular sensor assembly"), 9,310,855 ("Flexible data center and methods for deployment"), and 7,939,967 ("Multiple Power Supply Control") (PatSnap case note). A one-line sketch of each: the ’277 patent claims a five-step method of controlling a building's atmosphere — supply conditioned fluid, sense an atmospheric parameter at multiple locations, generate an "empirical atmospheric map," compare it to a "template atmospheric map," and identify "pattern differentials" (e.g., hot spots) — asserted at claim 1 and, in the data-center variant, claim 12 (challenged claims listing); the ’287 and '179 patents cover room/rack cooling and controllable partitions for varying cooling-fluid supply; the '870 patents an air-recirculation "index" metric; the '490 a flexible modular sensor assembly; the '855 a block-based modular "flexible data center" architecture; and the '967 a redundant multi-power-supply failover scheme. Importantly, the ’277 (like the ’287 and ’179) is expired — Vertiv's interrogatory response states plainly that "the '277, '287 and '179 patents are expired" — so recovery would be limited to pre-expiration damages within the limitations period (Vertiv response).

Procedural posture and notability. The case was filed July 12, 2024 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, and was consolidated as a member case into Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (Valtrus v. NTT Data Services) (ex parte docket page; Dkt. 83 order). The case is closed: on Judge Gilstrap's order signed Nov. 21 and entered Nov. 22, 2024 (Dkt. 83 in 2:24-cv-00361), member cases 2:24-cv-00259 and 2:24-cv-00534 (both CyrusOne) were dismissed with prejudice on a joint motion joined by plaintiffs, CyrusOne, and intervener Vertiv, with each side bearing its own costs — a consensual exit with no merits ruling, while the lead NTT/Vertiv case remained open (order text). Venue matters here for the usual reasons: Gilstrap's Marshall docket is the busiest patent venue in the country and CyrusOne admitted it "operates data centers in this District" and did not contest venue, undercutting a transfer fight (CyrusOne answer). The case is notable for several reasons: (1) it is part of a broad PAE campaign against data center operators in the middle of the AI/cloud build-out, asserting method claims on the act of cooling rather than targeting the equipment vendors who supplied the chillers — a framing that pushes infringement risk onto colocation customers; (2) that strategy triggered vendor intervention: Vertiv's DJ suit and intervention forced claim construction on the ’277's "empirical atmospheric map" against the vendor directly (P.R. 4-3 statement, Dkt. 117; briefing at Dkt. 148); (3) IPR linkage: Vertiv filed IPR2025-00668 against the ’277 patent (App. No. 10/123,403) on Feb. 26, 2025, and the Board issued a Director discretionary denial on July 31, 2025, so the ’277 survived PTAB review without a merits institution decision; and (4) the campaign has since been pulled into an MDL — the JPML's Conditional Transfer Order (CTO 2) in MDL No. 3190 moved later-filed Valtrus data-center suits (e.g., Compass Datacenters, Iron Mountain) into Gilstrap's court (PacerMonitor docket 2:26-cv-00800; PacerMonitor docket 2:26-cv-00669). Cutting across all of it is a standing/ownership attack — several defendants argue Valtrus is an undercapitalized "bare trustee" for KPI with no exclusionary rights, and Valtrus has already lost a claim-splitting dismissal barring a duplicate suit in N.D. Cal. (Google), so Valtrus's capacity to sue is a live theme in this campaign (PTAB briefing; N.D. Cal. Valtrus II dismissal).

Sourcing caveats. The lead/member-case relationship, the dismissal order, the seven-patent list, and the IPR denial are well documented in docket text and PTAB filings. I could not independently verify from PACER the exact identity of companion case 2:24-cv-00259 (it appears, per the dismissal order and IPR exhibit lists, to be a parallel CyrusOne case by Valtrus/KPI), the precise ’277 expiration date including any patent-term adjustment (only that it is expired per Vertiv's filing and the "before the expiration" framing in the complaints), or the specific terms of the CyrusOne settlement/license — no royalty, damages figure, or license terms appear in the public record, and the dismissal was cost-neutral with no merits findings.

I'll research the key legal developments and chronology for this case. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me get the specific docket for the CyrusOne case and the IPR details.

Let me pull the specific docket entries for the CyrusOne case and the Vertiv intervention.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. CyrusOne LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00534-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Scope note / metadata caveat. The case metadata lists the ’277 patent as the sole patent at issue, but the CyrusOne complaint actually asserted seven patents (’277, ’287, ’179, ’870, ’490, ’855, ’967). The ’277 is simply the lead/most-discussed patent and the one that generated the parallel IPR. I flag this because the development list below necessarily spans the whole seven-patent assertion. Also note that 2:24-cv-00534 was a short-lived member case — it was filed in July 2024 and dismissed with prejudice in November 2024 without ever reaching Markman, claim construction, or trial. The "legal developments" for this docket are therefore front-loaded (pleadings + consolidation + intervention + dismissal); the substantive litigation (claim construction, summary judgment) played out in the lead case, No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (Valtrus v. NTT Data Services), into which 00534 was folded, and in Vertiv's related DJ action. I separate the two tracks below.

---

A. Chronology for 2:24-cv-00534 (the CyrusOne member case)

2024-03-29 — Pre-suit notice letter. Valtrus sent CyrusOne a letter titled "Notice of Infringement of Valtrus Innovations Ltd.'s Patents" (received 2024-04-01), addressed to CyrusOne EVP/GC & Secretary Robert M. Jackson, proposing a license meeting. CyrusOne's answer admits receipt and the letter's contents (Dkt. 66, Answer ¶¶20–21).

2024-04-11 — CyrusOne declines. Jackson replied: "[a]t this point we will decline your request for a meeting. We will let you know if that changes." (Id.)

2024-05-14 — Vertiv files a separate declaratory-judgment action against Valtrus in the N.D. Tex.: Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., No. 3:24-cv-01153-N (referenced in Vertiv filings). This is the direct vendor-side challenge to the Valtrus campaign, aimed at the Liebert cooling units and iCOM/iCOM-S control systems.

2024-07-12 — Complaint filed. Valtrus (with co-plaintiff KPI) filed the CyrusOne complaint in the Marshall Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Asserted patents and representative claims: ’277 (claim 1), ’287 (claim 1), ’179 (claim 1), ’870 (claim 1), ’490 (claim 1), ’855 (claim 8), ’967 (complaint text; ex parte complaint analysis). Accused instrumentalities are CyrusOne's operated data-center systems (cooling, environmental monitoring, redundant power, "flexible data center" deployment), specifically the DFW facilities in Carrollton, Lewisville, and Allen, Texas. Exemplary claim charts were attached (Exhibits 8–11).

2024-07-12 / onward — Consolidation into the lead case. 2:24-cv-00534 was consolidated as a member case into Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (Valtrus v. NTT Data Services) for pretrial purposes (dismissal order, Dkt. 83). A companion CyrusOne case, No. 2:24-cv-00259, was also consolidated and treated together with 00534 (see dismissal order). I could not independently verify from the retrieved record the precise distinction between 00259 and 00534 (e.g., a re-filed or parallel CyrusOne action); the two are handled jointly throughout.

2024-09-03 — Docket Control Order entered (Dkt. 48/49 in lead case): Markman hearing set for 2025-10-15; Pretrial Conference 2026-03-02; Jury Selection 2026-04-06 before Judge Gilstrap (PTAB exhibit reproducing the DCO). (These dates governed the lead case; the CyrusOne member cases were gone before any of them arrived.)

2024-10-01 — CyrusOne's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Dkt. 66, filed on the lead-case docket). CyrusOne:

• denied infringement across all seven patents;
• asserted seven mirror-image declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement (’277, ’287, ’179, ’870, ’490, ’855, ’967);
• importantly admitted, "for purposes of this action only," personal jurisdiction, admitted it "operates data centers in this District and the State of Texas," and did not contest venue (Answer ¶¶24, 26, 28–29);
• sought a judgment that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, plus fees and costs (Dkt. 66; answer PDF).
  The admission of district-wide data-center operations and the decision not to contest venue effectively killed any transfer fight.

2024 (fall) — Vertiv intervenes in the CyrusOne matter. Vertiv — the Liebert/iCOM vendor whose equipment is used in the accused facilities — moved to intervene in the E.D. Tex. customer suits, including the CyrusOne case, and pursued its DJ action (transferred to E.D. Tex. as member case No. 2:24-cv-00907-JRG-RSP and consolidated with the lead case for pretrial issues) (Dkt. 266 PDF header showing 2:24-cv-00907 member case; PTAB exhibit). Vertiv's interrogatory responses (dated 2024-10-03) asserted, among other defenses, that the ’277, ’287 and ’179 are expired, that CyrusOne did not use Vertiv products in the claimed manner, and that the accused systems do not practice the "empirical atmospheric/thermal map" limitations (Vertiv responses).

2024-11-19 — Joint Motion to Dismiss the two CyrusOne member cases with prejudice (Dkt. 82), filed jointly by Valtrus/KPI, CyrusOne, and Intervenor Vertiv.

2024-11-21 / 2024-11-22 — Dismissal with prejudice (final disposition of 00534). Judge Gilstrap signed the order 2024-11-21 (entered 2024-11-22), Dkt. 83:

• all claims and counterclaims "that were, or could have been, brought" in Member Case Nos. 2:24-cv-00259 and 2:24-cv-00534 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
• each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees (no prevailing party, no fee award);
• all pending relief denied as moot;
• Clerk to close the two member cases but maintain the lead case (2:24-cv-00361-JRG) open (order text; CourtListener Dkt. 83).

Outcome. Consensual dismissal with prejudice, cost-neutral, no merits ruling on infringement, validity, or enforceability as to CyrusOne. The broad "could have been brought" language precludes Valtrus from re-asserting the same patents against CyrusOne. No royalty, license term, or damages figure is disclosed in the public record.

---

B. Developments in the lead case / related tracks after the CyrusOne dismissal (context)

Because 00534 was folded into the lead case, the substantive motion practice occurred there. The most significant items retrieved:

• Valtrus's motion to dismiss Vertiv's DJ complaint for lack of jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)) (lead-case Dkt. 81, filed 2024-11-19). It was fully briefed, then re-urged after transfer. Magistrate Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation recommended denial (Dkt. 253); Judge Gilstrap overruled the objections and adopted the R&R, denying the motion, on 2026-03-24 (Dkt. 266) (Dkt. 266). So Vertiv's DJ action survives; the vendor-side challenge proceeds.
• Claim construction (lead case, incl. the ’277): P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed 2025-08-11 (Dkt. 117), with the central ’277 dispute over "empirical atmospheric map" / "empirical thermal map" — Vertiv proposing "visual representation of an area showing measured [atmospheric/temperature] conditions corresponding to locations," Valtrus contending plain and ordinary meaning (Joint Statement/App. A; Valtrus response brief, Dkt. 148). Vertiv also asserted indefiniteness of 29 claims of the ’870. Markman hearing was set for 2025-10-15; I did not retrieve a separate Markman opinion/order, so the actual constructions are unverified.
• Valtrus's late-2025 joinder maneuver: on 2025-09-25, Valtrus answered Vertiv's Second Amended DJ Complaint and asserted counterclaims joining ~28 of Vertiv's customers (including CyrusOne-adjacent operators, Iron Mountain, Compass, Equinix, etc.) as counterclaim-defendants, and defended that joinder against § 299 challenges (lead-case briefing, Dkt. 151, 197) (Dkt. 151 attachment; Dkt. 197).
• Summary-judgment / Daubert wave (March–April 2026): numerous sealed SJ and Daubert motions (lead-case Dkt. 255–265), including Valtrus motions for partial SJ of no invalidity (prior art, §§ 112/101, Patel ’104, license claim) and Vertiv motions for SJ of non-infringement (claims 1–9, 5–6, 8–22, dropped products) and invalidity of claims 1–4 and 7–9 of the ’287, plus a Daubert motion to strike Dr. Himanshu Pokharna (lead-case docket). Trial was calendared for 2026-04-06. I do not have a confirmed verdict or post-trial ruling; the record I retrieved runs only through the SJ/response stage in April 2026.

---

C. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

• 2025-02-26 — Vertiv filed three IPR petitions against the three "Atmospheric Control Patents": IPR2025-00667 (’287), IPR2025-00668 (’277, App. No. 10/123,403), and IPR2025-00669 (’179) (IPR2025-00668 record).
• 2025-07-31 — Discretionary denial of institution in all three. Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a single decision denying institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in IPR2025-00667/68/69, granting Valtrus's discretionary-denial request. The stated rationale: the projected final written decision (Oct. 2026) would likely arrive after the parallel district-court trials (set April 6 and June 22, 2026), creating duplication/expense and risk of inconsistent decisions; insufficient evidence the district court would stay; and the challenged patents had been in force ~20 years, creating strong settled expectations (Director's Decision).
• Effect on the litigation / the ’277: The ’277 (and ’287, ’179) survived PTAB review without any merits institution decision — the patents were neither invalidated nor even substantively tested at the Board. Because the IPRs were filed (Feb. 2025) after the CyrusOne member case was already dismissed (Nov. 2024), they had no effect on 2:24-cv-00534 itself; they mattered to the surviving lead case and the broader campaign. Post-denial housekeeping (refund of post-institution fees, 2025-09-17/23) confirms termination (IPR2025-00668 record).

---

D. Bottom line

For the docket that is the subject of this case — 2:24-cv-00534-JRG — the "outcome" is a consensual dismissal with prejudice entered 2024-11-21/22 (Dkt. 83), cost-neutral, with no merits determination, roughly four months after the 2024-07-12 filing. It never reached Markman, discovery-dispositive motions, or trial. The only substantive events on its own docket were (1) Valtrus's seven-patent complaint against CyrusOne's operated DFW data centers, (2) CyrusOne's answer asserting seven DJ counterclaims and declining to contest venue, and (3) Vertiv's intervention as the equipment vendor, after which all three parties jointly moved to dismiss.

The ’277-specific legal battleground then shifted entirely to (a) Vertiv's DJ action / the NTT lead case (claim construction of "empirical atmospheric map," Valtrus's failed 12(b)(1) motion, the 2026 SJ/Daubert wave, and an April 6, 2026 trial setting) and (b) the PTAB, where the Director's 2025-07-31 discretionary denial left the ’277 unadjudicated but also un-instituted.

Sourcing caveats. The filing date, answer/counterclaims, consolidation, intervention, and the dismissal order are well documented in docket text and PTAB exhibits. I could not verify from the retrieved record: the precise relationship between companion case 2:24-cv-00259 and 00534; whether any Markman order actually issued in the lead case (only the hearing date and party briefs were retrieved); the exact post-April-2026 outcome of the lead-case trial; the ’277's exact expiration date/PTA; or any settlement/license terms (none appear publicly — the CyrusOne dismissal was cost-neutral). Any judgment about "who won" on the ’277 merits would be unsupported by the public record.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff side in this case.

Let me dig into the specific docket sheet and complaint for this case to identify counsel.

I found the plaintiff's counsel signature block. Let me verify the specific appearances in the 00534 docket and gather biographical detail.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (and co-plaintiff Key Patent Innovations Ltd.)

Sourcing note up front. Case 2:24-cv-00534 is a member case consolidated into Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG, so plaintiff-side appearances are made on the consolidated/lead docket rather than on a standalone 00534 sheet. The names below are corroborated by (i) the Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement signature block filed in the consolidated action (Dkt. 3, dated May 14, 2024, CourtListener PDF), (ii) the same signature block on later joint filings in the lead case (e.g., Dkt. 117, Aug. 11, 2025; Dkt. 376, May 20, 2026), and (iii) PTAB/IPR docket printouts reproducing the E.D. Tex. attorney-appearance list for Valtrus. I was not able to pull a clean, case-specific PACER "attorney appearances" list limited to 00534, so the individual appearance entries (as opposed to the signature blocks) are drawn from the consolidated docket.

Lead counsel

Other counsel of record (Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP)

Local counsel

In-house counsel

None identified. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. are Irish licensing entities (Valtrus is a wholly owned subsidiary of KPI per the Rule 7.1 statement); no in-house attorney for the plaintiffs has appeared of record in this matter in the sources reviewed.

---

Flags and corrections to the prior summary

1. Firm attribution correction. The earlier-generated case overview grouped "Eric Hugh Findlay, Aaron Morris, Connor Houghton" all under Findlay Craft PC. That is only partly right: Findlay is Findlay Craft's local counsel, while Morris and Houghton are Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP attorneys, not Findlay Craft. The signature blocks separate the two firms clearly.

2. Role correction / addition. The prior overview did not name the lead counsel: Matthew G. Berkowitz (RJLF), who is expressly designated "LEAD ATTORNEY" on the Valtrus filings. It also did not name Ariane S. Mann or Patrick Colsher, both of whom appear on the plaintiff's signature blocks / PTAB papers.

3. Not verified. I could not confirm from a case-specific PACER docket sheet which of these attorneys entered a formal "Notice of Attorney Appearance" in 00534 itself versus in the lead 00361 case before consolidation; the 00534 defendant-side appearances were handled by CyrusOne's counsel (Melissa R. Smith/Gillam & Smith, with Kirkland & Ellis — note the overview's placing of McEldowney and McIntee under Gillam & Smith appears imprecise, as both are Kirkland & Ellis attorneys). If a granular per-case appearance list is needed, it should be pulled directly from the 00534 PACER docket.

4. No invented names. Every attorney listed above is drawn from a retrieved filing or docket-derived attorney list; none has been inferred.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this case.

Good — I now have the core defendant-side counsel. Let me verify details and identify the Vertiv (intervenor) team.

Let me pull the specific docket entries for the 00534 case and verify the Kirkland team.

Counsel of Record — Defendant CyrusOne, LLC (2:24-cv-00534-JRG)

Bottom line. The sole defendant in this member case is CyrusOne, LLC. Its counsel of record is a Kirkland & Ellis LLP team (New York and Washington, D.C.) appearing pro hac vice, anchored by Marshall local counsel Gillam & Smith, LLP (Melissa Richards Smith). Because the case was consolidated into Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG and then dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 83, Nov. 21/22, 2024), all defendant-side appearances appear on the consolidated lead docket, not on a standalone 00534 docket — appearances were filed "on behalf of CyrusOne, LLC (CONSOLIDATED FROM 2:24CV259), CyrusOne, LLC (consolidated from 2:24-cv-534)."

1. CyrusOne, LLC — counsel of record

No in-house counsel appeared of record. CyrusOne's EVP, General Counsel & Secretary Robert M. Jackson is identified by name in the pleadings (he received Valtrus's March 29, 2024 notice letter and replied on April 11, 2024 declining a meeting — admitted at Answer ¶¶20–21), but he did not enter an appearance; the company litigated through Kirkland + Gillam & Smith.

2. Vertiv Corporation — non-party/Intervenor counsel (appeared in this member case)

Vertiv intervened in member case 2:24-cv-00534 and filed its Answer in Intervention there, so its counsel are part of the 00534 record even though Vertiv was not a named defendant.

(Vertiv's first-filed N.D. Tex. DJ case also briefly involved Rudolph Fink IV and Patrick Doyle before transfer to E.D. Tex.; neither is on the 00534-side record.)

3. Key docket citations

• Dkt. 66 — Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims of CyrusOne, LLC, filed Oct. 1, 2024 by Melissa R. Smith, with Kirkland & Ellis signature blocks (Arovas, Friedman, Evangelatos / McEldowney, McIntee); asserts DJ counterclaims of non-infringement on the patents-in-suit and a § 285 exceptional-case request. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.[230090](/patent/230090)/gov.uscourts.txed.230090.66.0.pdf
• Notices of Attorney Appearance for CyrusOne (Arovas, Friedman, Evangelatos, McEldowney, McIntee), entered Aug. 30, 2024 on the consolidated docket (2:24-cv-00361-JRG). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68526786/valtrus-innovations-ltd-v-ntt-data-services-llc/?entry_gte=15
• Vertiv's Answer in Intervention (member case 2:24-cv-00534) — filed by William Davis. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68526786/valtrus-innovations-ltd-v-ntt-data-services-llc/
• Dkt. 82 / Dkt. 83 — Joint Motion and Order dismissing Member Case Nos. 2:24-cv-00259 and 2:24-cv-00534 with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.230090/gov.uscourts.txed.230090.83.0.pdf
• Vertiv counsel signature blocks (Nixon Peabody / Davis Firm) reproduced in PTAB papers: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557497](/patent/1557497)/download-documents?artifactId=jUk5basV7cPxYxFH1jS0pRvDFcQCRE3I9L4Y3o5VMLRCJtkmQaIt-Lg

4. Flags against the earlier case summary

• Correction (firm attribution). The prior section described CyrusOne as "represented by Gillam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith, Sean McEldowney, Matthew McIntee)." That is imprecise: McEldowney and McIntee are Kirkland & Ellis LLP (D.C.), not Gillam & Smith. Gillam & Smith's defendant-side role is limited to Melissa Richards Smith as Texas local counsel; Kirkland (NY/D.C.) is lead.
• Correction (plaintiff-side grouping, for completeness). The earlier section listed Valtrus's counsel as "Findlay Craft PC (Eric Hugh Findlay, Aaron Morris, Connor Houghton) and Reichman Jorgensen." Signature blocks show Eric H. Findlay = Findlay Craft PC (Tyler, TX), while Matthew G. Berkowitz, Patrick Colsher, Aaron Morris (Redwood Shores, CA) and Connor S. Houghton, Ariane S. Mann (Washington, D.C.) = Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. Also appearing for Valtrus: Stuart Hene and Claire Abernathy Henry / Andrea L. Fair (Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC) as Texas counsel in related campaign cases.
• Consistency confirmed: the prior section's identification of CyrusOne as the confirmed defendant, Vertiv's intervention, and the Nov. 2024 with-prejudice dismissal all match the counsel records above.

5. Sourcing caveats

• I could not retrieve a standalone PACER/CourtListener docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00534 with individual entry numbers for each notice of appearance; the 00534 attorney entries live inside the consolidated lead docket (2:24-cv-00361-JRG), and the retrieved search excerpts show them clustered around the Aug. 30, 2024 entries without reliable per-entry numbering. Treat the "Dkt. 66 / Dkt. 82 / Dkt. 83" citations as solid and the appearance-entry numbers as approximate.
• Pro hac vice status for Arovas, Friedman, Evangelatos, McEldowney and McIntee is stated in the Answer's own signature block ("pro hac vice"); I did not retrieve the individual pro hac vice orders.
• I found no attorney bio pages in this session to substantiate specific prior-case credentials beyond the docket appearances themselves (e.g., Arovas's and Smith's general reputations are well established but are stated here as background, not from a verified bio retrieved today).
• No counsel appeared for any defendant other than CyrusOne in 00534; there is no sealed or as-yet-unappeared counsel issue, since the case is closed.