Untitled case

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

Good — I have the core parties. Let me dig into the institution denial, the parallel litigation, and the other IPRs.

Now let me pin down the IPR family, outcomes, and remaining litigation details.

Case Overview — IPR2023-00530 ([Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp.)

One threshold correction: IPR2023-00530 is not itself a district court infringement suit — it is an inter partes review petition before the PTAB, filed February 14, 2023 by Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. (the petitioner caption, which the existing summary flagged as unconfirmed, is now confirmed) against Lemko Corporation as patent owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,548,763. The underlying infringement litigation is Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex.), filed February 14, 2022 — the IPR was filed essentially at the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar, which expired in mid-February 2023 (defendants were served February 16, 2022). Lemko is a genuine operating company, not an NPE/PAE: a small Schaumburg, Illinois-based vendor of virtualized/edge-capable 4G/5G mobile core software, private LTE/5G networks, rural broadband (it has served Cairo, Illinois), and military/public-safety deployments; it was formed in 2002 by Shaowei Pan, who is the sole named inventor on the asserted patents, and it holds 50-plus U.S. patents. Unified Patents classifies Lemko as an "Operating Company" in "High-Tech," facing a "Large Operating Company" petitioner — Microsoft, which acquired Affirmed Networks (a cloud-native mobile-core vendor) in 2020 and folded its virtualized packet core into the Azure Operator Nexus platform.

Accused technology and the patent at issue. The N.D. Tex. complaint targets Microsoft's/Affirmed's virtualized mobile-core products and services — i.e., Affirmed's software-based core network offerings now commercialized through Microsoft's Azure telecom portfolio — though the precise accused instrumentalities are identified only in the pleadings (Am. Compl. ¶ 50), which I could not fully verify from the sources retrieved. Lemko asserted eight patents against Microsoft: the '763, '414, '988, '409, '111, '980, '478, and '931 patents. The '763 patent (App. No. 11/105,173, filed April 13, 2005; issued June 16, 2009; Tech Center 2600), titled "System, method, and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture," is the foundational one: claim 1 (the sole independent claim; only claims 1, 4, 6, 9 and 15 were challenged) recites a system of two "distributed mobile architecture" (DMA) servers, each with a computer-readable medium embedding mobile switching center (MSC) and base station controller (BSC) modules and a CDR-generation program, each in direct physical connection to a wireless transceiver, with the second DMA server embedding a program allowing a group call among four or more mobile communication devices, and telephony traffic passing between the servers over a peer-to-peer connection. Lemko's framing — and the reason the patent matters — is that this is "network functions virtualization (NFV)" implemented in software on commodity servers years before the term existed (Lemko points to the ETSI NFV white paper of October 2012 as seven years later). The petition challenged those claims over Waylett (U.S. 8,184,603) alone and in combination with Cope (U.S. 8,271,619), supported by the declaration of James Proctor (Ex. 1003); Lemko's preliminary response (June 30, 2023) relied on Dr. Todor Cooklev (Ex. 2001) and argued that Waylett's "network-in-a-box" implemented MSC/BSC/CDR functionality in hardware network cards, not software, and that no motivation existed to migrate it to software.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. The Board denied institution on the merits on September 25, 2023 and terminated the proceeding the same day (a petitioner request for refund of fees followed on December 6–8, 2023) — notably just three days before Judge Lindsay's September 28, 2023 order on the first Rule 12(b)(6) motion in the parallel case. IPR2023-00530 was one of a four-petition February 2023 batch: IPR2023-00529 ('414) and IPR2023-00531 ('988) were instituted (Sept. 25–26, 2023) and went to final written decisions on August 30, 2024 and September 10, 2024, both holding the challenged claims not unpatentable (see Bloomberg Law, Sept. 4, 2024; Banner Witcoff PTAB Highlights, Oct. 3, 2024, discussing Microsoft v. Lemko, IPR2023-00531, Paper 31), while IPR2023-00570 ('980) was also denied (Sept. 26, 2023). So the PTAB round has been a net win for Lemko: it never lost a claim, and the '763 patent's validity remains untested at the Board. In district court, the case has been venued in the Dallas Division of the N.D. Tex. before Judge Sam A. Lindsay (referred to Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford), a court that has moved slowly here — Lemko amended after a partial dismissal (Sept. 28, 2023), Microsoft moved again (Nov. 16, 2023), and only on June 4, 2025 did Judge Lindsay adopt the R&R (Doc. 94), dismissing contributory infringement with prejudice but denying dismissal of direct and indirect infringement. Lemko has since expanded the campaign: it sued AT&T Mobility (and subsidiaries) in the E.D. Tex. (2:25-cv-00305, Judge Rodney Gilstrap) over the AT&T Private Edge 5G Network and Private Mobile Connection services, asserting seven different patents (RPX/Mondaq, May 9, 2025), and Lemko's own website reports a second Microsoft complaint filed June 5, 2026 alleging willful infringement — a filing I could not corroborate in a docket source. The case is notable because the patents sit at the center of cloud-native 5G core and multi-access edge computing (MEC), the technology at the heart of Microsoft's Azure Operator Nexus and AT&T's private-5G push; because a single-inventor, 20-year-old operating-company portfolio is being asserted against two of the largest U.S. telecom/cloud players; and because the PTAB record here (two denials, two petitioner losses) illustrates the difficulty of invalidating Lemko's software-vs.-hardware embedded-functionality claims — meaning the '763 patent's fate will likely be decided by Judge Lindsay rather than the Board.

Sourcing note: Party names, IPR numbers/dates/outcomes and the docket history are grounded in the Unified Patents PTAB case list, the GreyB IPVerse and Docket Alarm PTAB records, the Justia docket for 3:22-cv-00363 (including Docs. 24, 50, 59, 63, 90, 94) and PTAB filings hosted at ptacts.uspto.gov. The Board's specific reasoning in the Sept. 25, 2023 institution denial (Paper/decision text) and the exact accused Microsoft product names are not fully verified above and are flagged as such.

I'll research this case. Note upfront: the case number given is an IPR (PTAB) proceeding, not a district court litigation, so the district-court template items (complaint, Markman, verdict) may not map directly. Let me verify the record.

I now have the core case identified. Let me dig into the parallel IPRs and the district court's current posture.

Framing note

IPR2023-00530 is not a district court litigation — it is an inter partes review before the PTAB. The "parallel litigation" you're asking about is Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex.), the case in which the '763 patent was asserted. I've covered both, plus the three sibling IPRs and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Confirmed caption (correcting the prior summary's open item): Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., IPR2023-00530 (U.S. Patent No. 7,548,763). Petitioner's counsel: Matthew Hopkins (Winston & Strawn). Patent Owner's counsel: James Hannah (Kramer Levin). Status: institution denied on the merits, 2023-09-25. (GreyB IPVerse; Unified Patents PTAB case list)

---

A. The district court litigation — N.D. Tex. No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (Judge Sam A. Lindsay)

1. Filing & initial pleadings

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2022-05-09 — Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (ECF 24), briefed through reply (ECF 26, 27).
• 2022-10-21 — court orders attorney conference and joint status report (ECF 32).
• 2022-12-07 — three joint motions: E-discovery order (ECF 34), joint motion for focusing patent claims and prior art (ECF 35), and protective order (ECF 37).
• 2023-01-12 — discovery stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss (ECF 41); E-discovery order entered (ECF 42); the patent claim-focusing motion referred to Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford (ECF 43).
• 2023-07-31 — Lemko moves for a status conference (ECF 46).
• 2023-09-28 — Memorandum Opinion and Order on the motion to dismiss (ECF 50): granted in part / denied in part — direct and indirect infringement claims dismissed without prejudice, willfulness dismissal denied as moot, leave to amend by 2023-10-19. Same day: Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art (ECF 51–52) and rulings on the protective order (ECF 53).
• 2023-10-05 — stipulated protective order entered (ECF 55–56); 2023-10-06 case referred to Mag. J. Rutherford (ECF 58).
• 2023-10-19 — Amended Complaint (ECF 59).
• 2024-07-29 — a further dismissal filing targeting the amended pleading (Doc. 77). Note: I could not confirm from a primary source whether Doc. 77 is Defendants' second motion to dismiss or a magistrate filing; the Mondaq report of 2025-05-09 describes a second Rule 12(b)(6) motion that prompted a second amended complaint, followed by a third motion that was fully briefed.
• 2025-04-10 — Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (Doc. 90) recommending grant in part / deny in part of Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 85).
• 2025-06-04 — Order (Doc. 94) by Judge Lindsay: R&R adopted; contributory infringement dismissed with prejudice (Lemko pleaded its "best case"); motion otherwise denied — direct and indirect infringement claims survive. No further leave to amend. (Justia PDF of Doc. 94)

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman order has issued. As of the May 2025 reporting, the case four years on had still not exited the pleadings phase ("mired in the pleadings phase more than three years later" — Mondaq, 2025-05-09). The only claim-scoping development is the court's Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art (2023-09-28, ECF 52) — a claim-reduction mechanism, not a construction ruling. I found no scheduling order setting a Markman hearing.

4. Discovery

Discovery was stayed 2023-01-12 (ECF 41) pending the motion to dismiss, with the court stating it would issue a scheduling order if the motion were denied in whole or part. An E-discovery order (ECF 42) and stipulated protective order (ECF 55–56) are in place. Because the case has remained in Rule 12 practice, no substantive discovery milestones (fact/ expert close, dispositives) are on the docket that I can verify.

5. Trial / verdict / post-trial

None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion exists.

6. Present posture

Active and in early-stage litigation. Lemko's public statement of 2025-04-15 touted the denial of Microsoft's motion to dismiss the direct and indirect infringement claims (lemkocorp.com). Separately, Lemko filed a second N.D. Tex. suit against Microsoft on 2026-06-05 (No. 3:26-cv-01876, Judge A. Joe Fish), pleading willful infringement (PACER Monitor; Lemko news page). Note: Lemko's press release states Microsoft acquired Affirmed Networks in March 2022; the acquisition was announced in March 2020 — the 2022 date appears to be an error in the release.

---

B. The PTAB proceedings on the eight asserted patents

Microsoft/Affirmed filed four IPRs on Feb. 14–15, 2023 — right at the § 315(b) one-year bar date (service was 2022-02-16):

IPR2023-00530 chronology ('763):

• 2023-02-14 — Petition filed challenging claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 15 (claim 1 sole independent). Grounds relied on Waylett (U.S. 8,184,603) and Cope (U.S. 8,271,619), plus 3GPP TS 100 925 v8.1.0 and an interWAVE cruise-ship GSM article; supporting declaration of James Proctor.
• 2023-03-07/31 — PO mandatory notices and power of attorney; filing date accorded.
• 2023-06-30 — Patent Owner's Preliminary Response with exhibits 2001–2021, including the Cooklev declaration. Lemko's core argument: the '763 claims require MSC, BSC, and CDR functionality implemented in software embedded in a computer-readable medium, and Waylett's network-in-the-box was a hardware appliance (network cards), so it neither discloses nor inherently discloses the claimed embedded functionality, and there was no motivation/ reasonable expectation of success to port hardware functions to software (no hindsight). (POPR, PTACTS)
• 2023-09-25 — Institution DENIED; proceeding terminated same day.
• 2023-12-06/08 — Petitioner's refund request; refund approved.
• Litigation effect: Lemko filed a Notice of IPR Status in the district court on 2023-09-28 (ECF 49), the same day the court ruled on the motion to dismiss. The '763 patent survived the IPR challenge, and the denial is non-appealable, so the '763 patent remains live in the N.D. Tex. case. (The Board has not issued a public precedential opinion here; the denial reasons are not set out in a precedential writing I could locate — treat the "why" as inferred from the POPR framing.)

Sibling proceedings:

• IPR2023-00529 ('414) & IPR2023-00531 ('988) were instituted 2023-09-25/26 and tried together. Lemko sought Director Review of both institution decisions on 2023-10-10 (arguing the Board wrongly declined to resolve a dispositive claim-construction dispute and that petitioners failed to construe terms), which was denied 2023-11-17 by Deputy Director Derrick Brent (Director Vidal recused) (IPR2023-00531, Paper 14). (Docket Alarm)
• Oral hearing 2024-07-11 (moved from 2024-06-27 by Board order of 2023-10-23 at Lemko's request, due to a conflict with a district court trial then calendared for 2024-06-17).
• IPR2023-00531 FWD, 2024-09-10 (Paper 31) — claims held unpatentable over Flore; the Board construed "communications information" broadly and declined to construe "distributed." Panel: Raevsky, Ippolito, Range. (Banner Witcoff PTAB Highlights, 2024-10-03.)
• IPR2023-00529 FWD, 2024-08-30 — issued; I could not verify from a reliable source whether the '414 claims were cancelled or upheld. No Federal Circuit appeal from -00529 appears in the record, which may indicate Lemko prevailed, but I flag that as inference only.

---

C. Federal Circuit appeal — Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2024-2336

• 2024-09-16 — Lemko's Notice of Appeal from the IPR2023-00531 FWD.
• 2025-01-29 — Lemko's opening brief. Issues: (1) the Board misconstrued "communications information" by reading out express limitations (the information must identify a device subscribed to a network accessible via the second DMA gateway, and must identify the network it is "for"); (2) the Board erred in refusing to construe "distributed." Counsel: Kramer Levin (Andre, Kobialka, Hannah, Frankel, Price, Eng). Appellees: Winston & Strawn (McCullough) and King & Spalding (Rueckheim).
• 2026-04-10 — Judgment: AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential), per curiam (Hughes and Stoll, Circuit Judges, and Seeborg, Chief District Judge). (CAFC Rule 36 judgment)

Practical consequence: the '988 patent claims at issue (1, 3–9, 20) are cancelled and that invalidity is now final, which removes at least one asserted patent from the district court case — although the '988 patent was one of eight asserted, and at least the '763, '409, '111, '478, and '931 patents were not subject to instituted IPRs.

---

D. Parallel litigation (same campaign, non-overlapping patents)

• 2025-03-17 — Lemko Corp. v. AT&T, No. 2:25-cv-00305 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), asserting seven different patents: 7,840,230; 7,979,066; 8,224,322; 8,310,990; 8,340,667; 8,359,029; 9,198,020 (targeting AT&T Private Edge 5G Network / Private Mobile Connection). Same family tree, no patent overlap with the Microsoft case. (Mondaq, 2025-05-09.)
• 2026-06-05 — second Lemko suit against Microsoft, N.D. Tex. 3:26-cv-01876 (Judge Fish), with a willfulness count.

---

E. Bottom line

• The IPR you named — IPR2023-00530 ('763) — ended in a merits denial of institution on 2023-09-25; the '763 patent emerged intact and remains asserted in the district court case.
• The district court litigation (3:22-cv-00363) has never reached claim construction, fact discovery, or trial. Four years of Rule 12 practice produced one partial dismissal (2023-09-28), an amended complaint and second amended complaint, and a 2025-06-04 order that dismissed only contributory infringement (with prejudice) while letting direct and indirect infringement proceed.
• The PTAB side was a split decision for the parties: Microsoft lost institution on the '763 and '980 patents, but won final written decisions on the '414 and '988 patents, with the '988 cancellation affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-04-10.

Unverified / open items I would flag before relying on them: the merits reasoning in the IPR2023-00530 denial decision; the outcome of the IPR2023-00529 ('414) FWD; the precise nature of Doc. 77 (2024-07-29) in the district court docket; and whether any motion to stay the district court case pending the IPRs was ever filed (I found none in the available docket excerpts).

I'll research this. Note upfront: this is an IPR at the PTAB, not a district court infringement action, so there is no "plaintiff" — the analogous party is the Petitioner (challenger), with Lemko Corporation as Patent Owner. Let me find the actual parties and counsel.

Now let me pin down the Petitioner's (plaintiff-side) counsel of record in IPR2023-00530 specifically.

Threshold clarification: there is no "plaintiff" in this case

IPR2023-00530 is an inter partes review at the PTAB, not a district court infringement action. As the case metadata you supplied reflects (Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Status: not instituted), the parties are styled Petitioner v. Patent Owner. There is no plaintiff and no complaint in this docket.

• Petitioner (the challenger / plaintiff-analog): Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Patent Owner (the rightsholder / defendant-analog): Lemko Corporation
• Filed Feb 14, 2023; institution denied on the merits Sept 25, 2023; proceeding terminated same day (Unified Patents PTAB portal; GreyB/IPVerse case page).

Because the question asks for the "plaintiff-side" counsel, I give you Petitioner's counsel first, then Patent Owner's counsel (since in the parallel district court case, Lemko is in fact the plaintiff and is represented by the same firm appearing for it here).

⚠️ Sourcing caveat: Party and counsel names below are drawn from the PTAB papers (powers of attorney and certificate-of-service lists) surfaced via PTACTS/docketalarm and aggregators (GreyB/IPVerse, Unified Patents, Patexia), plus the Lemko v. Microsoft N.D. Tex. docket. I did not independently open the sealed/underlying petition to confirm every back-up counsel signature block, and I could not complete live checks of individual firm bios before hitting my search limit — I flag where a name is inferred from the sibling IPRs rather than confirmed on the -530 face.

---

Petitioner's counsel of record (Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks, Inc.) — the "plaintiff" side

GreyB's case page for IPR2023-00530 lists the Petitioner's counsel simply as "Hopkins, Matthew," and the docket includes separate "Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Microsoft)" and "(Affirmed)" papers. The broader Winston & Strawn team is confirmed across the companion IPRs (IPR2023-00529, -00531) filed the same day on Lemko patents.

Note: In the IPR itself, Petitioner-side POAs were filed separately per petitioner (Microsoft and Affirmed). Kang/Shelton/Rueckheim are confirmed on the Affirmed POA; Hopkins is the name tied to -530 in the aggregator listing. The precise ordering of lead vs. back-up for Microsoft in -530 is best confirmed against the "Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Microsoft)" paper on PTACTS.

---

Patent Owner's counsel (Lemko Corporation) — the actual plaintiff in the related district court suit

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Confirmed via Lemko's Power of Attorney in the companion IPR2023-00529 ("Practitioners associated with KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, USPTO Customer No. 31013"):

Lemko itself publicly confirms this lineup: "Lemko is represented by Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, and Aaron Frankel of Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel" (lemkocorp.com, Apr. 15, 2025).

---

Related district court action (where a "plaintiff" genuinely exists)

The IPR is one prong of Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex.), filed Feb. 14, 2022 — exactly one year before the Feb. 14, 2023 IPR filings.

• Plaintiff Lemko's counsel: Kramer Levin (Andre, Kobialka, Hannah, Frankel) — see above.
• Defendants' (Microsoft/Affirmed) counsel: Winston & Strawn — Kelly C. Hunsaker (pro hac vice, Dkt. 16), M. Brett Johnson (Dkt. 15), Barry K. Shelton (Dkt. 23), and Michael Rueckheim (Dkt. 22), plus a local-counsel appearance.

---

What I could not verify (no fabrication)

• I found no sealed or unappeared-counsel gap of note — counsel did appear and PoAs were filed.
• I did not confirm a distinct "local counsel" designation in the IPR itself (PTAB practice doesn't require it); Shelton's Dallas office functions in that capacity in the district case.
• Matthew Hopkins's specific prior-case background is unverified here (search limit reached); I only confirm his role as Petitioner-side counsel of record on the -530 record.
• If by "plaintiff" you were thinking of a separate Lemko enforcement suit, note Lemko filed a second infringement action against Microsoft (announced June 5, 2026) — outside the scope of this IPR and not reviewed here.

I'll research defense counsel for the defendants (Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc.) in the underlying N.D. Tex. litigation and in the IPR itself.

Good — the core defense team is emerging. Let me verify each attorney's role, firm, and background, and check for later appearances.

Defense Counsel of Record — Where Things Stand

One framing note first. The case number in this file (IPR2023-00530) is the PTAB proceeding, which has no "defendants." The requested defense side maps onto two tracks:

• District court (the infringement case): Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div., Judge Sam A. Lindsay) — defendants are Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. (acquired by Microsoft in 2020).
• IPR track: In IPR2023-00530 and its three sibling petitions, Microsoft and Affirmed are the petitioners (i.e., the same real parties that are defendants below); Lemko is the patent owner/respondent.

Both tracks are staffed by the same firm: Winston & Strawn LLP. This is verified from the docket and PTAB filings; no separate trial-counsel firm or co-counsel has been identified to date.

---

1. District Court Defense Team (3:22-cv-00363-L-BT)

All entries below are from N.D. Tex. docket records (as mirrored on Justia/Patexia) and PTAB filings.

Not defense counsel (for disambiguation): the plaintiff/patent-owner team is Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel — Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah (lead), and Aaron Frankel — with N.D. Tex. local counsel Jon Hyland (and Grant K. Schmidt, ECF Doc. 45, 7/31/2023). Do not conflate these with the defense side.

---

2. PTAB Counsel (IPR2023-00530 and siblings)

Winston & Strawn again represents the petitioners (affiliates of the district-court defendants). Confirmed by Petitioner's Power of Attorney filed 2/14/2023:

---

3. Gaps and Caveats

• No PACER pull. Names/dates are drawn from the N.D. Tex. docket as mirrored by Justia, Patexia, and Docket Alarm, plus PTAB filings. A live PACER docket sheet should be pulled to confirm the current, complete appearance list.
• Post-2023 appearances unverified. I could not confirm new appearances, substitutions, or withdrawals after the Feb. 2023 Wright notice, nor defense counsel for the reported second Microsoft complaint (Lemko's site, June 5, 2026). Any 2025–2026 defense-side changes are unknown to me.
• Ashley Jones Wright's firm unconfirmed; M. Brett Johnson's office is inferred, not verified.
• IPR2023-00530 itself was denied institution (9/25/2023), so its PTAB counsel record is short; the Winston & Strawn team's more fully developed appearances are in IPR2023-00529 and -00531, which were instituted and litigated to final written decisions.