Untitled case

I'll research this case now.

Let me pin down the specific docket and defendant.

Confirmed the defendant. Now let me verify the portfolio's history, PTAB activity, and procedural status.

Case Overview — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex.)

Defendant confirmed; the '807 assertion confirmed. The case is CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas on February 2, 2026 (docketed 2/2/26, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 2/3/26) — confirmed via PACER Monitor's docket for 2:26-cv-00088 and Ex Parte's complaint analysis. This resolves the gap flagged in the prior case summary: the defendant is Realtek, and U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 is asserted (attached as Exhibit G, "Evidence of Use Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807"). Note that the case metadata's single-patent ('807) characterization materially understates the pleading — the complaint asserts eight patents and attaches Exhibits A‑1 through H.

Parties and accused technology. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a non-practicing licensing entity — a Georgia LLC (principal place of business per earlier complaints: 44 Milton Avenue, Suite 254, Alpharetta, GA 30009) whose Rule 7.1 disclosure in this case identifies Brainbox Innovations, LLC as its corporate parent (Dkt. 3). It makes no products; it monetizes a portfolio of early-2000s wireless and wireline networking patents, several of which trace to an AOL-origin family (the '807 patent's own front page lists America Online, Inc. as assignee at issuance; the application was filed January 13, 2003 — I could not verify the full chain of title from AOL to Brainbox/CommWorks in this pass). Realtek Semiconductor Corp. is a publicly traded Taiwanese fabless chip designer headquartered in Hsinchu Science Park, one of the world's largest suppliers of Wi-Fi, Ethernet, PON/broadband and consumer multimedia SoCs — an operating company whose chips reach the U.S. embedded in third-party routers, PON gateways, mesh nodes and IoT devices. CommWorks is represented by Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (James F. McDonough III, Jonathan L. Hardt, Carey M. Rozier, Kenneth A. Matuszewski, and Cortney S. Alexander, who appears in the related Grandstream and Digi matters); no appearance or counsel for Realtek was identified in my searches, and no answer or motion by Realtek is confirmed as of today.

Asserted patents and the accused instrumentalities. The complaint groups Realtek's products into five accused categories: (1) 802.3ah chips and (2) ITU-T G.984 / G.9807.1 (GPON/XGS-PON) OLT and ONU chips and devices, both accused under the '249 patent (claims 11 and 38); (3) WPS-capable SoCs and devices ('285, '596, '979, '807); (4) WMM / IEEE 802.11-2007+ QoS products ('465 and reissue RE44,904); and (5) Wi-Fi Mesh products ('304). One-line sketches:

Posture, venue and why it matters. The case sits on Judge Gilstrap's Marshall docket — the highest-volume patent venue in the country, with a fast-track scheduling order, deep § 101 and claim-construction experience, and a well-known practice of resolving most patent cases by settlement rather than trial. Service ran slowly: summons issued 2/3/2026, a waiver of service was sent 4/22/2026 with answer due 7/21/2026; the docket's status after that date (including whether Realtek answered, moved to dismiss/transfer, or filed IPRs) is not verified here, and I found no IPR petition against the '807 patent. Venue significance is twofold: Realtek's SoCs are ubiquitous in U.S.-sold networking gear (supporting EDTX-specific jurisdiction and venue allegations), yet Realtek is a foreign, non-U.S.-manufacturing defendant, making a § 1404 transfer or forum challenge a plausible early fight — cf. CommWorks' parallel action against u-blox, which was filed in E.D. Va. and intradistrict-transferred to Norfolk. The case is notable as the chip-supply-chain end of a sustained CommWorks campaign: since 2020 it has sued cable operators (Comcast, RCN, Mediacom, NextLink), equipment vendors (DrayTek, AVM, TRENDnet, EarthLink, Grandstream, Digi) and now silicon vendors (TI, Marvell, Microchip, u-blox, Realtek), typically asserting a seven-to-eight-patent Wi-Fi-standard portfolio (WMM/WPS/mesh) against standard-compliance. Practically every prior defendant exited via voluntary or stipulated dismissal with prejudice rather than a merits ruling — TI (2:25-cv-00439), TRENDnet (C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-08048), Marvell (7:25-cv-00354, dismissed October 2025) and EarthLink (2:25-cv-00716) — which suggests a licensing/settlement-driven model with little adjudicated precedent. Two caveats cut the other way for CommWorks: most of these patents are now expired or near expiry (the '807 was filed in 2003, so its term ran out around 2023 absent significant PTA), capping damages to the § 286 lookback window and foreclosing injunctive relief for those patents; and the current PTAB posture is notably hostile to discretionary institution where there is parallel litigation and a foreign-affiliated petitioner (see the Director's precedential Magnolia Medical Technologies v. Kurin, IPR2026-00097, denying institution in May 2026), which is directly relevant if Realtek later seeks IPR on the '807 or its siblings. Treat the settlement-outcome pattern and the expiry analysis as my synthesis from the cited dockets and patent face records, not as holdings; and treat the absence of IPRs and of Realtek's response as unverified negatives rather than confirmed facts.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with the docket and patent basics.

Now let me drill into the docket details and any PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents.

Let me look for recent docket activity and any PTAB challenges involving CommWorks's patents.

Bottom line

This case is still in its earliest pleading stage. As of today (2026-09-20) there is no answer on the public docket, no Markman, no dispositive motion practice, no discovery order, no trial, and no verdict. The only confirmed merits-adjacent development is the filing of the complaint and the perfection of service on the defendant. I also found no PTAB IPR/PGR against U.S. Patent 6,891,807 (or any of the other asserted patents) as of today, so the litigation has not been stayed or narrowed by a parallel PTAB challenge.

---

1. Case identification (correcting the prior summary)

Sources: PACER Monitor docket, 2:26-cv-00088; Ex Parte AI docket page.

Correction to the earlier section: the defendant is Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, and the '807 patent is not the sole patent asserted — it is one of eight asserted in the complaint (Exhibit G of the infringement-contentions exhibits).

---

2. Chronological development

(a) Filing and initial pleadings

• 2026-02-02/03 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). 35-page complaint for patent infringement, filing fee $405. Attachments include eight "Evidence of Use" exhibits:

  • A-1/A-2: U.S. 6,832,249 ("802.3ah" / ITU-T G.984/G.9807.1 PON chips)
  • B: U.S. 7,177,285 (WPS)
  • C: U.S. 7,463,596 (WPS/provisioning)
  • D: U.S. 7,911,979 (time-based provisioning)
  • E: U.S. RE44,904 (WMM QoS)
  • F: U.S. 7,027,465 (WMM contention-free traffic detection)
  • G: U.S. 6,891,807 (WPS)
  • H: U.S. 9,554,304 (Wi-Fi Mesh)

  Accused products are pleaded in five functional buckets: "802.3ah Accused Products," "ITU-T Accused Products," "Realtek WPS Products," "Realtek Wi-Fi Multimedia Products," and "Wi-Fi Mesh Products" (Realtek SoCs/devices/software). (complaint analysis)

• 2026-02-03/04 — Case assignment. Case assigned to Judge Gilstrap; Clerk's new-suit notice issued with the consent-to-magistrate form. AO 120 (Patent/Trademark form) filed and emailed to the PTO Director. Rule 7.1 disclosure filed identifying Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent.

• Summons/service wrinkle. The Clerk's office noted that "Summons and complaint was returned in mail via FedEx and is available for pick up in the Clerk's office" — consistent with a foreign defendant (Realtek is a Taiwanese corporation) and no U.S. agent for service.

• 2026-04-22 — Waiver of service sent (Dkt. 5, "Waiver of Service Returned Executed"). Answer due 2026-07-21. This is the last docket entry I can verify.

• Answer / counterclaims — unverified. The response deadline has passed (2026-07-21), so a responsive pleading, Rule 12 motion, or extension is almost certainly on file, but I could not confirm from public sources whether Realtek filed an answer, counterclaims (invalidity/non-infringement, §101/§112), or a motion to dismiss/transfer. Treat this as an open item.

(b) Pre-trial motions of substance

None confirmed. No motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion appears on the record. Any defense-side stay motion would be premature in any event: no IPR has been filed.

(c) Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. Without a docketed scheduling order, no Markman schedule exists. In Judge Gilstrap's Marshall docket, a scheduling order normally follows the answer; nothing has been reported.

Note: none of the eight asserted patents has, to my knowledge, been construed by any court — CommWorks' prior cases have almost uniformly terminated before Markman (see §5). This means the key claim terms across the portfolio — e.g., "activatable time interval," "tracking an operating parameter" ('807/'596/'979); "quality of service event," "layer less than N" ('249); "bit pattern … defined by the offset" ('465/'904) — remain judicially unconstrued.

(d) Discovery milestones

None reached. Only service-phase activity. In CommWorks' prior campaign, the big early discovery fight was pre-Markman third-party discovery into upstream chipmakers and router OEMs, because CommWorks sits several steps removed from the accused functionality (see the Comcast joint status report describing subpoenas to router manufacturers, chipmakers, and standards bodies: Dkt. 19, 6:21-cv-00366-ADA). Here, Realtek is itself the chipmaker, so that particular multi-tier discovery problem is reduced.

(e) Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion.

(f) Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

Active and unresolved. No dismissal, no judgment, no appeal. Realtek had not appeared on the public docket as of the last indexed entry (Dkt. 5, 2026-04-22).

---

3. The '807 patent specifically

• U.S. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued 2005-05-10, from Application No. 10/341,847, filed 2003-01-13.
• Asserted claim: at least independent claim 17.
• Accused functionality: the WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup) products — i.e., Realtek SoCs/devices implementing the Wi-Fi Alliance push-button/PIN provisioning protocol, alleged to practice time-based provisioning where a tracked operating parameter (power-on or onset of signal transmission) must occur within a designated "activatable time interval." (DrayTek complaint analysis, which asserts the same claim/feature pairing for '807)
• The '807 is part of a three-patent time-based-provisioning family ('807, 7,463,596, 7,911,979), all asserted against Realtek, all directed at WPS.

⚠ Patent-term issue worth flagging (my analysis, not a court finding): With a 2003-01-13 filing date, the '807's 20-year statutory term would have run to on or about 2023-01-13, subject to any patent term adjustment appearing on the face of the patent (which I have not verified). CommWorks' own pleadings in the parallel Broadcom action speak of indirect infringement of the '979 patent "from March of 2021 until its expiry," which is consistent with the family having lapsed. If the '807 has in fact expired:

• There is no prospective/injunctive exposure, only a backward-looking royalty; and
• Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, recovery is cut off for infringement more than six years before filing, i.e., before 2020-02-03, which — combined with an early-2023 expiry — would compress the recoverable damages window to roughly three years. That is a material damages-leverage argument for Realtek and a plausible driver for early settlement.

Please treat the expiration analysis as unconfirmed until checked against the printed patent/Patent Center for PTA and the priority chain.

---

4. Parallel PTAB / PTO proceedings

• No IPR, PGR, or CBM on U.S. 6,891,807 (or on '249, '285, '465, '904, '596, '979, or '304) was found.
• The only CommWorks-related AIA trial I could confirm is IPR2021-01297, Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, challenging U.S. 8,923,846 — a patent not asserted in this case. Petitioner's reply (2022-08-31) argued collateral estoppel based on a separate ex parte reexamination that cancelled claims of related U.S. 7,769,374 over similar art. (Petitioner's Reply, IPR2021-01297)
• Effect on this litigation: none yet. But the clock matters: Realtek's waiver of service issued 2026-04-22, so the § 315(b) one-year bar would expire on or about 2027-04-22. Expect any Realtek (or Unified Patents-style defensive-aggregator) IPR petition on '807, '285, '979, '596, '465/'904, or '249 in the late 2026 – April 2027 window, which would then tee up a § 315(b)-driven stay motion before Judge Gilstrap.

---

5. Strategic context: how CommWorks campaigns actually resolve

The case-specific record is thin, so the portfolio pattern is the best predictor of outcome. CommWorks (parent: Brainbox Innovations) is a standards-focused licensing entity asserting this early-2000s Wi-Fi/802.11 family. Nearly every comparator case ended in an early, with-prejudice dismissal without any merits adjudication:

Sources: PatSnap TI analysis; PatSnap u-blox; Justia docket, Microchip.

Two takeaways for Realtek: (1) the modal outcome in this campaign is a confidential license followed by a with-prejudice stipulated dismissal within roughly 3–9 months of filing, not a merits ruling; and (2) the Microchip suit (filed 2026-02-10) shows CommWorks filing parallel, near-simultaneous actions against multiple Wi-Fi chipmakers — the classic pattern of a portfolio-licensing push rather than a bet-the-company infringement trial.

---

6. Confidence and gaps

Well-sourced: the caption, case number, court, judge, filing date, docket entries 1–5, plaintiff's counsel and corporate parent, the eight asserted patents and their "Evidence of Use" exhibit letters, Realtek's waiver-of-service date and 2026-07-21 answer deadline, and the comparator-case outcomes in §5.

Not verified / do not rely on without checking PACER or PTAB:

• Whether Realtek has answered, counterclaimed, or moved to dismiss/transfer/stay (deadline passed 2026-07-21).
• Venue and personal-jurisdiction theory against a Taiwanese defendant in E.D. Tex. — the complaint text on this point was not retrieved.
• Exact PTA and expiry date of the '807, and the precise priority chain for the '596/'979 family.
• Whether any IPR/PGR on the eight asserted patents has been filed since my search cutoff; a petition filed in the last several weeks may not yet be indexed.
• Some party/counsel and docket details above come from AI-generated litigation-intelligence sites (PatSnap, Ex Parte AI); where those conflict with PACER (e.g., the "02/02/26" vs. "2/3/2026" filing date), I have flagged the discrepancy rather than resolved it.

Recommended next checks: PACER for 2:26-cv-00088 docket entries 6+ (answer, scheduling order, any stay motion); PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Case Tracking System for petitions naming CommWorks as patent owner; and the face of the '807 patent / PTO Patent Center for PTA and terminal disclaimer.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

Good — the case is CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., 2:26-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap). Now let me pin down the counsel of record on the docket.

Let me confirm the appearances on the docket and gather firm/attorney details.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Case identification (correcting the metadata in the prompt)

The metadata in the prompt is incomplete. The docket establishes:

The prior summary line — "defendant name and '807 assertion unconfirmed" — should be updated.

---

Plaintiff's counsel

Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Texas IP boutique; the firm is consistently identified as CommWorks's counsel in its 2025–26 Texas filings). Plaintiff is a licensing entity whose sole disclosed parent is Brainbox Innovations, LLC (Dkt. 3, Rule 7.1 disclosure) — no in-house counsel appears on the docket.

Lead vs. local counsel: E.D. Tex. does not formally designate "local counsel" on the docket, and the Rozier Hardt McDonough lawyers appear to be the only plaintiff-side firm — i.e., there is no separate local-counsel entry. McDonough is the only attorney affirmatively confirmed as of record in this case from the docket snapshot I retrieved. Rozier, Hardt and Matuszewski are documented as CommWorks's counsel in the companion cases, and appear on the same campaign's filings, but I could not retrieve a Notice of Attorney Appearance bearing their names on the 2:26-cv-00088 docket itself.

---

Sourcing caveats (read before relying on this)

• Docket is early-stage. The public docket I retrieved runs only through Dkt. 5 (~April 2026). The '807-patent complaint bears no visible signature block in the excerpts retrieved; counsel identification rests on the PACER "filer" field showing "(McDonough, James)" on Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 5, plus the firm's consistent role for CommWorks. If the plaintiff adds or substitutes counsel after April 2026, that would not appear in my sources.
• The firm used varies by venue — do not assume Rozier Hardt McDonough for all CommWorks matters. Other CommWorks suits list different firms: Kaleo Legal (William Rueger Poynter) in CommWorks v. U-blox, 1:25-cv-02504 (E.D. Va.); The Stafford Davis Firm (Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis) in the 2021 Comcast W.D. Tex. action; Steven W. Ritcheson in a C.D. Cal. action. So firm attribution should be verified per case, not generalized.
• Firm office location not verified. I could not confirm the Rozier Hardt McDonough office address from the sources retrieved (widely reported as Dallas, Texas, but I have no primary-source citation in hand). Treat the location as unconfirmed.
• Individual experience notes are limited to CommWorks campaign appearances. I did not locate independently verified bios, prior-firm history, or notable Federal Circuit/PTAB wins for these four attorneys within my source set, so I have not asserted any.
• No sealed filings or missing appearances to report beyond the above; nothing on this docket appears sealed as of the snapshot, and no in-house counsel has entered an appearance.

Key sources: PACER Monitor docket 62913676, pacermonitor.com; Ex Parte case/analysis pages for 2:26-cv-00088; UniCourt docket for 2:25-cv-00024 (DrayTek); Justia docket for 7:26-cv-00043 (Microchip); PatSnap litigation summary for 2:25-cv-00439.

I'll research this case. Let me start with several parallel searches.

The case is CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Let me now dig into the docket and defendant-side counsel specifically.

Bottom line

I could not confirm any attorney of record for the defendant. As of my searches, the public docket for CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex.) shows filings only from Plaintiff's counsel. No notice of appearance, answer, or Rule 12 motion by defendant-side counsel surfaced in the records I could retrieve. Because the defendant's answer deadline passed on July 21, 2026, a response is very likely on file by now (Sept. 20, 2026), but I was unable to retrieve those docket entries — so I will not name defendant counsel.

The case summary's two open items are now resolved: defendant = Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (Taiwan-based fabless Wi-Fi/ethernet SoC maker), filed 2/2/2026, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Marshall Division). The '807 patent is one of eight patents asserted (see below).

---

Case / docket posture (confirmed)

Source: PacerMonitor docket snapshot, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62913676/CommWorks_Solutions,_LLC_v_Realtek_Semiconductor_Corporation_; complaint analysis at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00088/doc/analysis/1

Patents asserted in the complaint (from Exs. A–H): U.S. 6,832,249; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979; RE44,904; 7,027,465; 6,891,807; and 9,554,304 — i.e., the '807 is not the sole patent in suit, contrary to the existing summary's implication.

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record (confirmed, for context)

CommWorks appears through Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Houston), in this and multiple sister suits:

• James F. McDonough III — lead/filing attorney (signed the complaint and the waiver-of-service filing here)
• Carey Matthew Rozier — principal
• Jonathan Lloyd Hardt — appeared in related CommWorks matters
• Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski — appeared in related CommWorks matters

---

Defendant-side counsel — NOT CONFIRMED (and why)

No E.D. Tex. appearance by any attorney for Realtek was retrievable for this docket. I checked PACER-derived snapshots (PacerMonitor, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia dockets), the complaint-analysis aggregator, and firm/lateral-move reporting. The most recent entries I could see remain plaintiff-side. Possible explanations: a Rule 12 motion or answer was filed after my last-retrievable docket snapshot; the appearance was filed by local counsel under a firm name not indexed; or the court's CM/ECF entries aren't yet reflected in the free aggregators.

I am therefore not naming a lead counsel, of counsel, or local counsel for Realtek.

---

Rather than guess: who Realtek actually uses (attorney-level, verified from parallel matters)

These are not appearances in 2:26-cv-00088 — they are documented representations of the same client in other cases. They are the right shortlist for a follow-up PACER pull.

Findlay Craft PC (Tyler, TX) — plausible local counsel

• Eric Hugh Findlay — filed Realtek's Answer in Freedom Patents LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., No. 4:25-cv-00426 (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 21, Aug. 8, 2025). Findlay is a widely used Tyler/Marshall local-counsel firm. Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/4:2025cv00426/[237485](/patent/237485)

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Washington, D.C.) — national/PTAB counsel

• Christopher James Higgins — appeared pro hac vice for Realtek in Freedom Patents (Dkt. 25, Aug. 27, 2025); also listed as Realtek's PTAB counsel in Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., IPR2023-00687. Sources: same Justia docket; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00687/

Baker Botts LLP (Houston) — PTAB/ITC

• Jeffrey L. Johnson — signed Realtek's filings as petitioner's counsel in IPR2023-00687.

Mintz (Boston/San Diego) — represented AMD (opposing Realtek) in IPR2023-00687, so note the conflict posture rather than as Realtek counsel.

White Hat Legal (San Jose, CA)

• Steve S. Baik — long-running Realtek defense counsel; appeared in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., No. 6:22-cv-01162 (W.D. Tex.), and in IPR2023-00687.

W.D. Tex. local counsel in ParkerVision

• Mark Siegmund (local, Waco) and Richard Juang (pro hac vice) — documented on the ParkerVision v. Realtek docket (e.g., order granting Juang's pro hac vice, Dkt. 269). Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65746461/parkervision-inc-v-realtek-semiconductor-corp/

K&L Gates (Seattle)

• Theodore Angelis — Legal 500 credits the K&L Gates team with advising Realtek in "the largest, ongoing patent battle in the semiconductor industry." (Firm-ranking source; treat as marketing-tier, not a docket record.) https://www.legal500.com/rankings/ranking/c-united-states/intellectual-property/patents-litigation-full-coverage/52534-kl-gates

Finnegan (Washington, D.C.)

• Yanbin Xu, Ph.D. — Realtek defense in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-837 (Wi-Fi/802.11), a Realtek win affirmed on appeal. http://www.finnegan.com/print/content/282/Yanbin-Xu-PhD.pdf

Chen Malin LLP — lead trial counsel for Realtek in ITC Inv. Nos. 749(c) and 949 (historical).

---

Recommended next steps to close the gap

1. Pull the live PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00088, entries after Dkt. 4, for a Notice of Appearance, Answer/Rule 12 motion, and any motions for pro hac vice (E.D. Tex. pro hac vice motions name the local sponsor, which identifies local counsel).
2. Check the court's docket report for a Rule 16 / "Order Governing Proceedings" in this case — Judge Gilstrap's scheduling orders list counsel of record for each side and are the cleanest single confirmation.
3. Cross-check Docket Navigator / Lex Machina party-counsel reports, which reconcile appearances that free aggregators miss.
4. If nothing appears, the realistic alternative is that the matter resolved or was dismissed before an appearance (CommWorks' pattern is quick, confidential, with-prejudice dismissals — e.g., Texas Instruments 2:25-cv-00439, CommScope 2:23-cv-00510, TRENDnet 2:23-cv-08048, Marvell 7:25-cv-00354, EarthLink 2:25-cv-00716).

Caveat: Nothing in this section should be read as an attorney of record in 2:26-cv-00088. Only Plaintiff's counsel (Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC) is confirmed on that docket from the sources available to me.