Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Good — I've identified the case. Let me dig deeper into the specific docket and related proceedings.

Case Overview: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. The previously unverified defendant is Cable One, Inc., a cable/broadband and pay-TV operator (since rebranded as Sparklight) serving markets across roughly two dozen states, sued in the Marshall Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The RPX Insight docket page and Patexia both confirm the case number, forum, judge, and dates: filed May 27, 2020, closed February 12, 2021 (last docket entry 2/16/2021), 262 days in litigation, cause of action pleaded as willful patent infringement. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is not an operating company. It is a Georgia LLC (registered office: Alpharetta, GA) that Unified Patents has publicly described as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC"; the IPWatchdog NPE roundup of June 3, 2020 likewise flags CommWorks as [IP Investments Group]. In a later CommWorks case, the company's Rule 7.1 disclosure identified its corporate parent as Brainbox Innovations, LLC. Its litigation counsel in this era was the Stafford Davis Firm (Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis), with attorneys including Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, and Daniel Sokoloff appearing on the docket; Cable One was represented by, among others, Brandon Chen, Robinson Vu, and Jace Yarbrough. CommWorks holds no manufacturing business — its revenue model is patent licensing and assertion against network operators and, later, semiconductor vendors.

Accused technology and patents. Cable One is an end-user service provider, not a product maker, so CommWorks' theory was service-level: the complaint alleged that Cable One infringed "by providing services to its customers that make, use, offer to sell, sell in the United States or import into the United States the Ciena devices that run Service Aware Operating System (SAOS) and/or Juniper devices that run Junos OS, as well as all other equipment utilizing substantially similar methods of providing broadband communications over a multi-layered network." The '465 count in CommWorks' later, parallel complaints targets "services and/or devices with Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and/or 802.11-2007+ wireless QoS functionality." Per RPX, nine patents were placed at issue in this case: U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465 — "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" (issued Apr. 11, 2006; App. No. 10/167,986, filed June 11, 2002), covering detection/prioritization of contention-free (priority) traffic at the MAC layer without parsing upper-layer protocols, so low-cost access points can differentiate traffic; its reissue, RE44,904 (May 20, 2014), same title; plus 6,832,249 (multi-layer broadband network with user-controllable QoS/flow priority), 6,891,807, 7,177,285, 7,463,596, and 7,911,979 (all "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning"), 7,760,664 ("Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network"), and 8,116,315 ("System and Method for Packet Classification"). The '465 patent's own specification frames the invention against a background in which "conventionally … transmission differentiation based on priority was not conducted at all" and priority detection forced a scan of every field of every frame — the patents are pleaded as solving that complexity problem. Note: I have not reviewed the full Cable One complaint firsthand, so I cannot state which specific claims were asserted against Cable One.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. The case was filed in E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division) as part of a coordinated same-day wave on May 27, 2020 against cable/broadband operators — Cable One (2:20-cv-00158), Consolidated Communications (2:20-cv-00159), and AMG Technology Investment Group d/b/a Netlink (2:20-cv-00160) — followed by RCN Telecom in S.D.N.Y. (1:20-cv-07534). CommWorks sent pre-suit notice letters to Cable One on April 3/6 and again April 17, 2020, per the complaint, and filed after receiving no response. Judge Gilstrap entered a docket control order in October 2020 setting Markman for April 20, 2021 and jury selection for October 4, 2021; the case instead terminated on February 12, 2021 — before any Markman ruling, invalidity adjudication, or merits decision — leaving the patents' scope completely untested. That "settle early, never litigate the merits" pattern is the case's significance in the NPE landscape: E.D. Tex./Judge Gilstrap's docket supplied the pressure, and CommWorks converted it into licenses across the cable industry (the '465 patent has since appeared in roughly twenty-plus suits, with assertions continuing into 2025). The case also sits at the front end of what became a much larger campaign. Unified Patents took up the defensive side, filing IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846 (July 2021) and an ex parte reexamination against 6,832,249 (Nov. 22, 2021), and CommWorks subsequently pivoted from ISPs to chipmakers and OEMs — Texas Instruments (2:25-cv-00439), NXP, STMicroelectronics (7:25-cv-00363), Broadcom (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998), Marvell, VTech, MikroTik, DrayTek, and EarthLink. Caveats: I could not verify whether the Cable One dismissal was with or without prejudice, whether a license or settlement payment was involved, or the outcome of IPR2021-01297; PatSnap's AI-generated summaries of several CommWorks cases contain internal inconsistencies (e.g., mischaracterizing the '465 patent's subject matter) and should not be relied on without checking PACER or the underlying complaints.

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

I've identified the defendant. Let me dig into the docket and outcome.

Now let me get the actual docket and check for PTAB proceedings on the '465 patent.

Scope and source caveats

A threshold correction to the case metadata: 2:20-cv-00158 in the E.D. Tex. is not an untitled case — the defendant is Cable One, Inc. Multiple litigation databases agree: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tex.), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, filed 2020-05-27, closed 2021-02-12 (last docket entry 2021-02-16), status "Dismissed – Other," 262 days in litigation. Sources: RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[197834](/patent/197834)-commworks-solutions-v-cable-one); Patexia (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CommWorks-Solutions-LLC-v-Cable-One-Inc-id-[137667](/patent/137667)).

One important caveat up front: PACER/CourtListener docket text for this specific case was not retrievable in the sources I could confirm, so some expected events (answer, counterclaims, motion practice, the precise dismissal vehicle) are not verified below. I mark each such gap explicitly rather than inferring. The chronology that follows is built from the complaint text (hosted via RPX), the docket control order reproduced in PTAB filings, and the case-tracking databases.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Pre-suit notice (per the complaint itself):

• 2020-04-03 letter and 2020-04-06 email: CommWorks notified Cable One of its patent portfolio, enclosed a proposed NDA, and invited licensing discussions.
• 2020-04-17 second letter/email: CommWorks identified exemplary infringed claims and accused products/services and again invited a license.
• Complaint alleges Cable One never responded. (Compl. ¶¶ 17–19, RPX litigation document 13798984.)

Complaint — 2020-05-27. Filed in the Marshall Division, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap. Pleaded willful patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, seeking damages "not less than a reasonable royalty," interest, costs, and (per the prayer in CommWorks' parallel complaints) enhanced damages and injunctive relief. The complaint was pleaded in separate counts by patent; the count text available in the sources addresses the '249 patent (claim 11) and accuses Ciena devices running Service Aware Operating System (SAOS) and Juniper devices running Junos OS — equipment supporting IEEE 802.3ah (Ethernet in the First Mile) — plus "all other equipment utilizing substantially similar methods" used by Cable One to serve subscribers.

Patents at issue. The '465 patent ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," issued 2006-04-11) is confirmed as a patent-in-suit via Patexia's related-patent listing for this case number. The complaint text also confirms the '249 patent. CommWorks' 2020 assertion campaign — this case, its companion CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications, No. 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.), and the S.D.N.Y. action against RCN, No. 1:20-cv-7534 — asserted a package drawn from the same family of nine-plus patents: 6,832,249; 6,891,807; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,760,664; 7,911,979; 8,116,315; RE44,904 (and, in later suits, 8,923,846 and RE42,883). I could not verify the exact patent count asserted against Cable One; the databases' "patents-in-suit" field for this docket is garbled (the "262" is days-in-litigation). Treat the asserted set as "several of the portfolio, certainly including the '465 and '249," not as a confirmed list.

Answer / counterclaims. Not verified. I found no source describing Cable One's answer, invalidity contentions, or counterclaims in 2:20-cv-00158.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Verified: none of the substantive pre-trial motions the prompt asks about — motion to dismiss, § 1404 transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment — appear in any source I located for this docket. Given the case ran only ~8.5 months and closed before the Markman hearing, that is consistent with there having been little or no contested motion practice. I cannot affirmatively confirm a negative, so treat "no motions of substance" as unverified-but-likely.

Docket Control Order — signed 2020-10-08 by Judge Gilstrap (reproduced verbatim in PTAB petition exhibits; the text for this order is captioned to 2:20-cv-00158 and lists counsel for both Cable One and the Consolidated Communications defendants, indicating the two Marshall cases were coordinated on a common schedule):

• Joinder of parties due 2020-09-30
• Amended pleadings due 2021-02-02
• Markman hearing set 2021-04-20
• Pretrial conference 2021-08-30; motions in limine due 2021-08-09; proposed pretrial order due 2021-08-23
• Jury selection set 2021-10-04

Every one of those dates after 2021-02-02 was mooted by the dismissal.

Counsel (from the same docket text): for CommWorks — Catherine Susan Bartles, Andrey Belenky, Hanna Glomska Cohen, Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis, Dmitry Kheyfits, Brandon Gregory Moore, Daniel Sokoloff; for Cable One — Brandon Chen, Robinson Vu, Jace Yarbrough (plus Melissa Richards Smith and Jack Daniel Kitchen, appearing for the Consolidated Communications defendants on the coordinated schedule).

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. The Markman hearing was set for 2021-04-20, and the case was dismissed on/about 2021-02-12. There is therefore no claim construction order and no construed terms for the '465 patent from this litigation — a point with real strategic significance, discussed in §6. (For contrast, the '465 terms that would have been disputed are visible in the later CommWorks v. Comcast W.D. Tex. case, where the disputed '465 terms were "identifying a received frame as a priority frame…," "priority frame," "offset," and "high priority queue" — see Comcast's Opening Claim Construction Brief, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA, Dkt. 26, filed 2021-10-15.)

---

4. Discovery milestones

Not verified. No discovery orders, discovery-dispute motions, or third-party subpoena activity specific to 2:20-cv-00158 surfaced. The comparable third-party discovery fight — CommWorks subpoenaing router manufacturers, chipmakers, and standards bodies to trace accused features to third-party silicon — is documented in the S.D.N.Y. RCN action (1:20-cv-7534) and in the Comcast case's Case Readiness Status Report (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366, Dkt. 19), not in the Cable One docket. The joinder deadline (2020-09-30) passed without any recorded joinder.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. Jury selection was calendared for 2021-10-04; the case closed roughly eight months earlier. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion.

---

6. Disposition and present posture

• Closed 2021-02-12; final docket entry 2021-02-16; status "Dismissed – Other."
• Exit roughly 8.5 months after filing, before Markman, in the same pattern as the rest of this campaign: CommWorks v. Skybeam/Rise Broadband (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00368) settled and was stipulated-dismissed 2021-06-24; CommWorks v. Comcast (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366) was dismissed on an order granting a motion to dismiss dated 2022-07-01 (AO 120 filing); CommWorks v. Altice/CSC Holdings (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323) ended in a notice of voluntary dismissal, per the AO 120 entered 2022-06-21; the 2023–2025 waves against Extreme Networks (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00835), NXP (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00395), Texas Instruments (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00439), Marvell, Microchip, STMicroelectronics, and EarthLink were all resolved by with-prejudice dismissals/stipulations, generally without claim construction.
• I could not verify the specific dismissal mechanism in 2:20-cv-00158 — whether it was a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation, or a joint motion granted by order — nor whether it was with or without prejudice, nor whether any payment was made. A "Dismissed – Other" code and the absence of a reported opinion are consistent with a private settlement, but that is inference, not a sourced finding.
• No appeal. No Federal Circuit activity tied to this case was located.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

Not on a stay posture — the litigation closed first. The most significant PTAB proceeding against this portfolio is:

• IPR2021-01297, Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC — challenging U.S. 8,923,846 ('846, the "recovery techniques in mobile networks" patent asserted in other CommWorks suits). Petition filed 2021-07-30; instituted 2022-02-14 on all challenged claims (claims 1–6, 9–13, 16–20); oral hearing 2022-11-16; Final Written Decision 2023-02-13 holding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). (Unified Patents' petition and the Board's FWD are on Docket Alarm; the FWD cites CommWorks v. Comcast, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA, as the related litigation.) Note the '846 patent's back-up/data-recovery claims were invalidated, and Unified's reply leaned on the fact that narrower claims of related U.S. 7,769,374 had already been cancelled in inter partes reexamination.
• Related reexamination: CommWorks-related patents (including 7,769,374) were cancelled in inter partes reexamination, per Unified's reply brief — evidence of meaningful PTAB/USPTO attrition against this portfolio.
• For the Cable One case specifically: no IPR petition against the '465 patent appears in the sources I could reach, and in any event IPRs on this portfolio postdate (or roughly coincide with) the February 2021 closure — so there was no stay, no estoppel, and no PTAB-driven simplification of 2:20-cv-00158. The one PTAB-facing artifact connecting this docket is that an IPR petition exhibit reproduced the Cable One docket control order as evidence of co-pending litigation (PTAB petition documents 1537042 / 1538727), i.e., the Cable One case was cited as a related matter in some 2021–2022 PTAB filing rather than being affected by one.
• Reissue overlay on the '465 patent: the '465 patent's claims were reissued as RE44,904 (2014), and CommWorks typically asserted the '465 and RE44,904 together. That reissue is a scope-risk factor for any defendant, and it matters that no court ever construed the '465 or RE44,904 claims in this case.

---

8. What this case did and did not establish

• Established: nothing precedential. No claim construction, no validity ruling, no infringement finding, no damages award, no fee ruling. The '465/RE44,904 claim scope is as untested after this case as before it.
• Strategic significance: 2:20-cv-00158 was an early, bellwether-style enforcement filing in what became a multi-year, multi-defendant CommWorks licensing campaign against cable operators, ISPs, and — from 2024–2026 — Wi-Fi/WMM/WPS chipset vendors (Qualcomm, NXP, Marvell, Microchip, STMicroelectronics, TI, MediaTek/Broadcom as prospective targets). Cable One (operating as Sparklight) was among the first targets; the speed of resolution (~262 days, pre-Markman) is the template that CommWorks repeated across the campaign, and it explains why the portfolio's patents remain "live FTO risks" with no narrowing precedent.

9. Verification gaps worth closing on PACER

To firm up the items above, the specific entries to pull are: the complaint (Dkt. 1) and its exhibit list (exact asserted patents and claims); any answer/counterclaims (~Dkt. 10–15); the Docket Control Order of 2020-10-08; and Dkts. ~20–25 (the February 2021 dismissal filings) to establish the Rule 41 mechanism and whether dismissal was with or without prejudice. I could not confirm any of those docket numbers or texts from the sources available, and I have not attributed any dismissal language to this case that belongs to the later, better-documented CommWorks suits.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel appearances.

Now let me find the specific docket for 2:20-cv-00158 and plaintiff's counsel appearances.

I found the complaint signature block. Let me verify via the full docket sheet and CourtListener RECAP.

Case identification (correcting the prior summary)

The defendant is now verified: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, Judge Rodney Gilstrap), filed May 27, 2020, terminated Feb. 12, 2021 (dismissed), last docket entry Feb. 16, 2021. Cause of action: willful patent infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,027,465, among others ('465, "Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection"), plus other CommWorks Wi-Fi/network patents (e.g., '249, '315). Sources: RPX Insight docket page for 2:20-cv-00158; Patexia case summary.

Sourcing caveat up front: I could not retrieve the live PACER docket sheet for 2:20-cv-00158 within this search session, so I cannot confirm which attorneys filed formal Notices of Appearance (Dkt. 4/5/6/7-type entries) versus appearing only via the complaint signature block. The roster below is taken from the signature block of the operative complaint in this case (filed May 27, 2020, appearing at RPX litigation document 13798984), cross-checked against the dockets of the three companion CommWorks complaints filed the same day (2:20-cv-00159 and 2:20-cv-00160). Nothing here is drawn from a sealed filing — this docket does not appear to be sealed. Patexia's aggregated "13 Plaintiff Attorneys" figure is a portfolio-wide count across CommWorks matters, not a count for this case, and should not be read as 13 appearances here.

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC

The complaint was signed by six attorneys across two firms — a two-firm structure CommWorks used across its 2020 E.D. Tex. wave (it also appears in 2:20-cv-00159 and 2:20-cv-00160, where Belenky, Moore, and Kheyfits each filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on June 16, 2020).

Firm 1 — The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler, Texas) — Texas/local counsel

Firm 2 — Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Austin, TX and New York, NY) — lead/technical counsel

---

Notes, inferences, and limits on the record

• Role designations are inferences, not docket labels. E.D. Tex. practice (and the filing pattern) indicates The Stafford Davis Firm acted as local/Texas counsel and Kheyfits Belenky LLP as lead substantive counsel, but I did not find a docket entry formally designating "lead counsel." Treat "lead" as an inference from briefing authorship, not a court designation.
• Continuity of the CommWorks team. The same firm pairing reappears in CommWorks's later suits — e.g., CommWorks v. Comcast Cable, No. 2:21-cv-00459 (E.D. Tex.) with the same four Kheyfits Belenky/Stafford Davis names, and the W.D. Tex. cases (6:21-cv-00366) with the identical signature block. By 2024–2025, CommWorks filings in newer matters are signed by Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC attorneys (Carey M. Rozier, James F. McDonough III, Jonathan L. Hardt, Kenneth A. Matuszewski) and, in C.D. Cal., by Steven W. Ritcheson — i.e., successor counsel, not counsel of record in 2:20-cv-00158.
• Not verified: whether any of these attorneys withdrew before the Feb. 12, 2021 dismissal (likely a voluntary dismissal/settlement, which usually requires no withdrawal motion); whether additional appearances were filed only in this case; and the exact docket entry numbers for appearances in 2:20-cv-00158 specifically. I also did not locate a court opinion in this case, so no opinion citation is available.
• No in-house counsel identified. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a licensing entity; no in-house attorney appears in the pleadings reviewed.

Bottom line: Plaintiff's counsel of record in 2:20-cv-00158 were Stafford Davis and Catherine Bartles of The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler, TX — local counsel) together with Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Brandon G. Moore, and Hanna G. Cohen of Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Austin, TX and New York, NY — lead counsel), per the complaint signature block and the parallel-case appearances.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for Cable One in this case.

Confirmed the three defense-side names. Let me identify their firms and roles.

Now let me pin down firms and the local-counsel structure.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Cable One, Inc.

Bottom line: The verifiable defense-side appearances in CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tex.) are attributable to a Baker Botts LLP team — Brandon Chen, Robinson Vu, and Jace Yarbrough — with Vu (Houston) as the senior IP litigation partner anchoring the engagement. No separate Marshall/Tyler-based local counsel appears in the attorney listing I was able to retrieve, and no Cable One in-house counsel is identified on the docket. Details and sourcing caveats follow.

Defense counsel of record

How the team was structured

• No verified local counsel. The attorney listing I retrieved for 2:20-cv-00158 shows only Chen, Vu, and Yarbrough on the Cable One side — i.e., the defense was staffed entirely out of Baker Botts. That is mildly unusual for E.D. Tex. practice, where out-of-district counsel often pair with a Tyler/Marshall firm; Vu's pattern in other Cable One and Altice matters was to have Roger J. Fulghum (Potter Minton, Tyler) move his pro hac vice admission. It is possible the same arrangement existed here and simply is not reflected in the summary attorney list I could access; the individual notices of appearance and any pro hac vice motions would be controlling (see Caveats).
• Consistent outside-counsel bench. The same Baker Botts/Cable One pairing recurs across the cable industry docket — Vu represented Cable One and Cequel/Suddenlink repeatedly from at least 2015 (Phoenix Licensing, 2:15-cv-01371) through 2022 (Interactive Media Networks), which is consistent with Vu serving as Cable One's relationship patent-defense counsel.
• No in-house counsel identified. I found no Cable One legal-department attorney appearing on this docket.

Caveats and unverified points

1. What I could and could not see. The attorney identifications come from a reproduction of the E.D. Tex. docket's attorney listing appearing in USPTO PTAB/PTACTS petition exhibits reproducing the October 8, 2020 Docket Control Order in this case (PTACTS petition exhibit), which shows "Brandon Chen representing Cable One, Inc. (Defendant) … Robinson Vu representing Cable One, Inc. (Defendant) … Jace Yarbrough representing Cable One, Inc." That listing reflects appearances as of the DCO date; I did not obtain the full PACER docket sheet or each notice of appearance, so additional or later-appearing counsel (including any local counsel) may exist and would not be captured.
2. Firm attribution for Chen and Yarbrough is inferential. Vu's Baker Botts affiliation is independently corroborated (Martindale; Rice University profile). For Chen, the identification rests on a Law360 firm index entry for a "Brandon A. Chen (Houston, TX)" at Baker Botts; note that multiple attorneys named Brandon Chen exist (e.g., a corporate associate at Fenwick), so the name alone is not conclusive. For Yarbrough, a directory listing places him at Baker Botts Dallas, while some 2025 court filings show a Jace R. Yarbrough (Tex. Bar No. 24110560) at S|L Law PLLC, Cedar Hill, TX — which may indicate he has since moved firms, or may involve a different filer. I could not confirm a Baker Botts bio page for either Chen or Yarbrough before my research was cut off. Treat those two firm attributions as likely-but-unconfirmed.
3. Sealed/limited record. Because the case terminated on February 12, 2021 — before Markman — the defense filings were limited to extensions, answers, and case-management papers; there was no substantive motion practice that would generate additional attorney signatures. Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and whether any settlement/license was involved, remains unverified (as flagged in the existing case overview), and none of that affects the counsel identification.
4. No representation is made about current employment. Robinson Vu's move to Rice University (2025) and any post-2021 changes for Chen and Yarbrough mean the Baker Botts roster above reflects the 2020–21 engagement, not necessarily present-day affiliations.