Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case, the patent's origins, and the reexamination.

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

Parties and posture. The defendant in this action is Cable One, Inc., a cable/broadband multiple-system operator (RPX Insight and Patexia both identify this docket as CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc.). The plaintiff, CommWorks Solutions, LLC, is a non-practicing entity (PAE/NPE) — a Georgia limited liability company that owns and licenses a portfolio of legacy networking patents rather than making or selling products. Its corporate parent is Brainbox Innovations, LLC, and its Rule 7.1 disclosures in related cases identify the Invention Investment Fund I LLC / Invention Investment Fund II LLC vehicles (i.e., Intellectual Ventures–origin funds) as interested parties, which is consistent with the widely reported characterization of CommWorks as one of several Brainbox/IV-linked assertion entities (Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists CommWorks as "NPE"; IPWatchdog's Sept. 22, 2021 roundup described Altice USA's Delaware declaratory-judgment actions alleging a "coordinated patent assertion campaign driven by Brainbox"). The case was filed May 27, 2020 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, and was closed on February 12, 2021 (latest docket activity Feb. 16, 2021) — i.e., it did not reach a merits ruling, judgment, or verdict. A docket control order in the case had set a Markman hearing for April 20, 2021, pretrial conference for Aug. 30, 2021, and jury selection for Oct. 4, 2021, but the case terminated before claim construction. The termination is reported by RPX/Patexia as a dismissal (Patexia labels it "Dismissed – Other"); the specific dismissal instrument (voluntary dismissal, settlement/license) is not confirmed in the sources I could access, so I would not characterize it as a settlement with certainty. A companion case, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00159, was filed the same period, and Charter Communications was voluntarily dismissed from a related CommWorks action in July 2020.

Patent asserted and accused technology. The sole patent in the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 7,760,664, entitled "Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network." It issued July 20, 2010 from Application No. 11/101,136, filed April 7, 2005. In one line, the '664 patent claims techniques for determining and provisioning network paths — i.e., selecting/configuring data paths through a communications network. CommWorks's complaints in sister cases assert it against network infrastructure and subscriber-premises equipment featuring QoS/802.11 quality-of-service, WPS, and related provisioning functionality (alleging induced infringement under §271(b)), and assert the patent alongside a family of related legacy broadband-networking patents (e.g., U.S. 6,832,249; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 8,116,315; RE44,904). For Cable One specifically, the precise accused products/services are not confirmed in the sources I retrieved (RPX records nine accused products but does not enumerate them); the assertion would most plausibly target Cable One's cable broadband services and the routers/gateways/modems deployed on its network, but that is inference, not a sourced fact. The patent's original assignee/provenance is also not confirmed — the related Narad Networks portfolio (a Westford, Mass. broadband-QoS startup) is a plausible origin given the patent family's subject matter, but I could not verify the chain of title to CommWorks.

Why it matters. This case is notable chiefly as a data point in CommWorks/Brainbox's broad assertion campaign over a legacy 2000s-era networking portfolio, and because the '664 patent became a focal point of third-party validity challenges. Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination against U.S. 7,760,664 on June 10, 2022 (control no. 90/015,057), and the USPTO granted the request on July 1, 2022, finding substantial new questions of patentability; Unified's public statement noted the patent "has been asserted against eight companies, including RCN Telecom Services, LLC and Charter Communications." That reexamination is the key IPR-adjacent linkage for this patent: even though the Cable One case itself ended early, the '664 patent was pressed against multiple cable ISPs and network vendors (RCN, Charter, Comcast, Consolidated, and later Extreme Networks, TI, Marvell, and others), with most of those actions resolving via stipulated with-prejudice dismissals — the pattern CommWorks has used repeatedly across its campaign. The Eastern District of Texas (Judge Gilstrap's Marshall docket) was the natural venue for this early 2020 filing given its historically plaintiff-friendly patent rules, speed, and heavy NPE filing volume, though CommWorks later migrated many assertions to the Western District (Judge Albright) and elsewhere. The market context is the licensing of foundational Wi-Fi/QoS and broadband-provisioning standards (WMM, WPS, 802.11 QoS) against ISPs and chipset/router makers, with operating companies — not just end users — among the targets.

Sourcing caveats: Party identity, court, division, judge, filing date, and closure date are confirmed by RPX Insight, Patexia, and the NPE Litigation Database. The reexamination facts are confirmed by Unified Patents' own publications. The exact dismissal mechanism for 2:20-cv-00158, the enumerated accused products in that case, and the '664 patent's chain of title to CommWorks are not confirmed in the accessible sources and should be verified against the PACER docket and the recorded assignment (USPTO assignment database) before being relied upon.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

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

Now let me find the specific docket entries and the PTAB proceedings.

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

Key correction to the case metadata first: The defendant is now confirmed. This case is CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00158-JRG, filed in the Marshall Division of the E.D. Tex. before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap on 2020-05-27 and terminated 2021-02-12 (docket last updated 2021-02-16). It is not an unresolved/"outcome unknown" matter — it was dismissed before claim construction, so several categories in your checklist (Markman, summary judgment, trial, JMOL, fees) simply never occurred. Sources: RPX Insight docket page; Patexia case summary.

A caution up front: much of the substantive docket text for this case is only partially available in the free sources I could reach. Where I am reconstructing from secondary sources or the complaint's own paragraphs (via RPX litigation documents), I say so. Where a fact is unverified, I flag it rather than fill the gap.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2020-05-27 — Complaint filed. CommWorks Solutions, LLC sued Cable One, Inc. for willful patent infringement, pleading 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284–85. Cause of action: willful patent infringement (Nature of Suit 830). Judicial assignment to Judge Gilstrap. (RPX; Patexia)

Patents asserted. The case was part of a portfolio-wide campaign, not a single-patent suit. CommWorks asserted a family of networking/QoS patents. The IPWatchdog NPE roundup for the May 2020 filings lists U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,891,807; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,760,664; 7,913,979; 8,116,315; and RE44,904 as commoving through CommWorks' May 2020 complaints, and the Cable One complaint's Count I is directed to U.S. 6,832,249. (IPWatchdog, 2020-06-03) The patent flagged in your metadata, U.S. 7,760,664, "Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network," issued 2010-07-20, was one of the asserted set. (Patexia)

Accused products/infringement theory (from the complaint). Cable One was accused of infringement "by providing services to its customers that make, use, offer to sell, sell … the Ciena devices that run Service Aware Operating System (SAOS) and/or Juniper devices that run Junos OS," with IEEE 802.3ah support as the technical hook. For the '249 count, CommWorks asserted at least claim 11 and cited Ciena/Juniper implementation of RFC 4090 (MPLS backup label-switched-path tunnels) — the same "path determination/provisioning" concept that underlies the '664 patent. (RPX litigation document 13798984) The complaint also attached "Evidence of Use" exhibits (the campaign's standard practice, e.g., Exhibit D for the '664 patent in later suits).

Pre-suit notice / licensing contact. CommWorks alleged it sent Cable One a letter dated 2020-04-03 and email 2020-04-06 disclosing the portfolio and enclosing a proposed NDA, then a second letter/email on 2020-04-17, and that Cable One had not responded as of filing (Compl. ¶¶17–19). (RPX doc 13798984)

Answer and counterclaims — unverified. I was not able to retrieve the Answer, affirmative defenses, or any invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims for No. 2:20-cv-00158 from the accessible sources. Cable One's counsel of record in the consolidated proceeding appear as Brandon Chen, Robinson Vu, and Jace Yarbrough (firm affiliation not confirmed in my sources — I will not guess it). (PTAB-hosted copy of the Docket Control Order) Treat the answer/counterclaim step as not documented here rather than absent from the docket.

2020-05-27 — Companion case. CommWorks filed a parallel suit the same day, No. 2:20-cv-00159, against Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc. The two matters were handled together — the Docket Control Order in 2:20-cv-00158-JRG expressly lists the Consolidated entities as "Consol Defendant," indicating consolidation or coordinated treatment under the 158 case number. (IPWatchdog; PTAB-hosted DCO text)

---

2. Docket Control Order — the last substantive scheduling event

2020-10-08 — Docket Control Order signed by Judge Gilstrap in the 2:20-cv-00158-JRG proceeding. Per the order as quoted in documents hosted on the USPTO's PTAB filing system:

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

(PTAB-hosted DCO text, petition 1537042; petition 1538727) Note the internal inconsistency in the parties' names across these quotations (Cable One plus the Consolidated defendants), consistent with coordinated handling of 158/159. This scheduling order is the single most detailed docket artifact I could locate for the case.

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

None documented. I found no public record of a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion in 2:20-cv-00158. This is consistent with the case's short life (262 days from filing to termination — the "262" figure on RPX is days in litigation, not patent count, despite how it renders on the page).

---

4. Claim construction (Markman)

None reached. A Markman hearing was calendared for 2021-04-20, but the case was terminated on 2021-02-12 — roughly two months before the hearing — and the docket's final entry is 2021-02-16. There is no claim construction opinion and no Markman order in this case, and thus no construction of the '664 patent's "determining and provisioning paths" limitations by Judge Gilstrap. (RPX)

---

5. Discovery milestones

The DCO established the usual E.D. Tex. sequence (joinder, amended pleadings, Markman, MILs, pretrial order). I could not confirm any specific discovery orders, discovery disputes, protective orders, or expert-designation dates from public sources. The only strategically significant discovery-related signal is indirect: the Cable One/Consolidated Docket Control Order was being used as an exhibit in PTAB filings in 2021, which typically happens when a petitioner or patent owner argues about the district court's schedule (e.g., in a stay or discretionary-denial argument). That implies the case timetable was materially relevant to at least one parallel PTAB proceeding.

---

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. The case was dismissed ~7 months before the scheduled 2021-10-04 jury selection. There was no trial, no verdict, and consequently no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion.

---

7. Final disposition / present posture

Terminated 2021-02-12; status classified as "Dismissed – Other" by both RPX and Patexia, with a final docket entry on 2021-02-16. (RPX; Patexia)

• The precise mechanism (stipulated dismissal, joint motion, or order) is not visible in the free sources I could access; the "Dismissed – Other" code and the timing — just before the Markman hearing, with no dispositive motion on file — are the classic signature of a settlement/license exit, but I cannot verify a settlement or its terms. No settlement agreement, license, or dismissal order text for this case is in the public record I found.
• No appeal. Nothing was appealed; there was no judgment to appeal.

---

8. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings on the '664 patent

Not confirmed — this is the biggest gap in my research. I could not identify an IPR or PGR number, petitioner, institution decision, or final written decision directed at U.S. 7,760,664. What I can say:

• USPTO PTAB filing-system documents (petitions 1537042 and 1538727) reproduce the 2:20-cv-00158 DCO and the consolidated case caption, establishing that some PTAB proceeding in this period involved CommWorks' enforcement campaign and cited the Cable One/Consolidated schedule. The specific patent and petitioner behind those filings are not evident from the search results alone.
• Circumstantial evidence that the '664 patent (and CommWorks' siblings) drew PTAB attention: in the later EarthLink suit, No. 2:25-cv-00716 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025-07-15, asserting '249, '807, '465, '664, '315, RE44,904), the docket shows an "Order on Motion to Stay" entered on 2025-09-25 followed by a notice of voluntary dismissal on 2025-10-03 and an order dismissing the case on 2025-10-10 — the pattern of a stay premised on parallel PTAB proceedings. (CourtListener docket 70806753) I flag this as unverified inference; I did not confirm the stay's basis.
• Recommended next step for a definitive answer: search PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / PTAB E2E for "CommWorks Solutions" as patent owner and for U.S. Patent 7,760,664, and check RPX's PTAB tab on the case page linked above.

---

9. Portfolio context — the '664 patent's assertion history (relevant because this case cannot be understood in isolation)

CommWorks is a licensing entity whose Rule 7.1 disclosures name Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent. (CourtListener dockets for 2:25-cv-00716, 7:2025-cv-00305) The '664 patent has been asserted in a serial campaign, virtually all of which resolved without a merits ruling:

Sources: Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 7,760,664 (listing Extreme Networks, Charter, and Consolidated cases); RPX doc / AO 120 for Comcast 6:21-cv-00366; Comcast answer, 6:21-cv-00366; PatSnap analysis of Extreme Networks dismissal; PatSnap analysis of TI dismissal; CourtListener 2:25-cv-00716; Justia docket 7:2026-cv-00043; PacerMonitor 0:26-cv-03949.

Strategic read: CommWorks' model is short-fuse assertion followed by early stipulated dismissal — typically within 6–18 months, before claim construction, and usually with prejudice. The Cable One case fits that template exactly: 262 days, no Markman, no motion practice of substance, dismissal ~2 months before the scheduled hearing. That means very little legal precedent was generated by any of these suits; they produced leverage, not rulings. The notable exceptions are the two cases that did generate orders — the Comcast dismissal (6:21-cv-00366, Dkt. 50) and the Extreme Networks dismissal with prejudice (6:23-cv-00835, Dkt. 21) — neither of which reached validity or infringement.

---

Bottom line

• Party/defendant: Cable One, Inc. (confirmed).
• Filed: 2020-05-27. Closed: 2021-02-12. Duration: 262 days.
• Patents: portfolio of CommWorks networking/QoS patents including the flagged U.S. 7,760,664; the complaint's lead count was on the '249 patent with Ciena SAOS/Juniper Junos as accused instrumentalities.
• Pre-trial motions of substance: none found.
• Markman: scheduled 2021-04-20, never held — no claim construction.
• Trial: none. JMOL/new trial/fees: none.
• Disposition: dismissed ("Dismissed – Other"); mechanism and any settlement terms not publicly confirmed.
• Parallel PTAB: no confirmed IPR/PGR on the '664 patent; PTAB filings of that era cite this case's DCO, and a later EarthLink suit was stayed then voluntarily dismissed, but I could not verify an IPR number for the '664 patent. This is the principal open item requiring PTAB E2E / PTAB Endpoint verification.

If you want, I can target the remaining gaps specifically: (a) the actual dismissal order or stipulation in 2:20-cv-00158 (PACER Dkt. after #~30), (b) Cable One's answer and counterclaims, and (c) a definitive PTAB search on 7,760,664.

I'll research the counsel of record for CommWorks Solutions in this case.

I found the complaint signature block. Let me verify against the docket and check for any later-appearing counsel.

Let me pin down the full attorney list and firm details.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC — No. 2:20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented by a two-firm team — a Tyler, Texas local-counsel shop (The Stafford Davis Firm, PC) and the NPE's primary patent prosecution/litigation boutique (Kheyfits Belenky LLP, Austin + New York). The complaint (Dkt. 1, filed May 27, 2020) carries a five-name signature block, and the docket's attorney-appearance list from the October 2020 docket control order adds two more names for CommWorks. No in-house counsel appear on the docket — consistent with CommWorks being a Brainbox-affiliated NPE with no litigation department.

Plaintiff's attorneys identified on the Docket / Complaint

What I could not confirm (flagged explicitly)

• A "13 plaintiff attorneys" count. Patexia's case summary lists "Plaintiff Attorneys: 13," which does not match the seven named individuals I can source. The Patexia figure likely aggregates appearance/withdrawal entries or spans the companion matters (e.g., 2:20-cv-00159 v. Consolidated Communications). Treat the 13 figure as unverified; the seven above are the ones tied to docket text or a signed pleading.
• Daniel Sokoloff's firm. No reliable source retrieved. Do not attribute him to a firm without checking PACER.
• Whether any of the non-Texas attorneys were formally admitted pro hac vice. Their firms' out-of-state addresses and the familiar Kheyfits Belenky practice pattern suggest PHV motions were filed, but I did not see the orders.
• Notices of appearance/withdrawal, substitution, or sealed filings. I derived the appearance list from (a) the complaint as posted by RPX (Litigation Document No. 13798984) and (b) the docket's attorney listing quoted verbatim inside USPTO PTAB Exhibit 2006 in Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297. I did not pull the PACER docket sheet itself, so a late-entering or withdrawing attorney could exist. The case terminated Feb. 12, 2021 (before the April 20, 2021 Markman), so no trial-counsel designations were ever filed.
• No in-house counsel for CommWorks appears anywhere in the record I could access — again, expected for an NPE with no operating business.

Sourcing / cross-checks against the prior sections

• Consistent with the earlier overview's identification of Kheyfits Belenky as CommWorks's recurring counsel and of the Stafford Davis Firm as the E.D. Tex. local firm; also consistent with the complaint's substantive allegation that Cable One was accused of infringement via Ciena devices running SAOS and Juniper devices running Junos OS (RPX Litigation Document No. 13798984) — i.e., the "13 attorneys" figure is more likely an aggregation artifact than a second, undisclosed defense team.
• Cross-reference note: the signature block in the complaint matches the identical plaintiff's-counsel block used in CommWorks's W.D. Tex. Comcast case (Joint Claim Construction Statement, Dec. 8, 2021, Case No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA), which lists the same four Kheyfits Belenky attorneys and the same two Stafford Davis attorneys — a useful confirmation that this is CommWorks's standing litigation team for the '664 patent family, not a case-specific lineup.

Primary sources: Dkt. 1 (Complaint, May 27, 2020), signature block as reproduced at RPX Insight Litigation Document No. 13798984; docket attorney-appearance list and Oct. 8, 2020 Docket Control Order as reproduced in Patent Owner Exhibit 2006, Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 (PTAB); Patexia case summary (Case No. 2:20-cv-00158); RPX Insight case page (insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-197834-commworks-solutions-v-cable-one).

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendant in this case. Let me run several searches.

I found a docket-sheet excerpt listing defendant-side counsel. Let me verify each name and firm.

Let me pull the actual docket for this case and verify the "Brandon Chen" identification.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tex.)

Short answer. The docket list of attorneys of record shows three attorneys appearing for Cable One, Inc. — Robinson Vu, Jace Yarbrough, and Brandon Chen — all apparently from Baker Botts LLP's Texas offices. Vu is confirmed to be a Baker Botts (Houston) patent litigator and a long-time Cable One patent-defense lawyer; Yarbrough is most likely the Baker Botts Dallas commercial/patent litigator by that name (now at a Dallas boutique); Brandon Chen's firm affiliation I could not verify. The usual caveats apply below.

---

Sourcing note (read first)

I could not retrieve the PACER docket sheet for 2:20-cv-00158 directly (no PACER/API access from this session, and the case is closed). The attorney-of-record list below comes from an E.D. Tex. docket-sheet excerpt attached as an exhibit to a USPTO PTAB filing (petition file 1538727, ptacts.uspto.gov), which reproduces the header block for "2:20-cv-00158-JRG CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Cable One, Inc." and, just below it, the E.D. Tex. "Attorneys" roster. That is a secondary reproduction of the docket, not the live docket — treat the names as reliable and the firm/office/role attributions as verified only to the extent each is separately sourced below.

Docket metadata cross-check: RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-197834-commworks-solutions-v-cable-one) and Patexia (services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CommWorks-Solutions-LLC-v-Cable-One-Inc-id-137667) both confirm case 2:20-cv-00158, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, filed 05/27/2020, closed 02/12/2021. Patexia's page shows a "Plaintiff Attorneys" count but does not enumerate defendant counsel — consistent with my inability to verify defendant counsel from the aggregators.

---

Defendant: Cable One, Inc. (d/b/a Sparklight)

1. Robinson Vu — lead trial counsel (Baker Botts LLP, Houston)

• Firm/office: Baker Botts L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana St., Houston, TX (Martindale listing; Delaware decision caption listing "Robinson Vu … Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston, TX"). He is no longer at Baker Botts — since 2025 he has been Assistant General Counsel at Rice University — so his Baker Botts tenure covers the 2020–21 period of this case.
• Experience: Registered patent attorney (USPTO, 2007) and Texas-bar (2004); B.S. Electrical Engineering, Rice; J.D., Columbia. He is Cable One's recurring patent-defense counsel in the Eastern District of Texas — the single most probative credential here:
  • TQP Development, LLC v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex.) — represented Cable One (and as consolidated defendant in TQP v. Wells Fargo, No. 2:12-cv-00061-JRG-RSP).
  • CDN Innovations, LLC v. Cable One, Inc. d/b/a Sparklight, No. 4:20-cv-00709 (E.D. Tex.) — filed the Notice of Attorney Appearance for Cable One on Oct. 6, 2020 (i.e., contemporaneously with this case) and two unopposed extension applications (Oct./Nov. 2020). That docket entry is the closest thing to affirmative confirmation that Vu was functioning as Cable One's E.D. Tex. patent counsel in this window.
  • Other carrier/telecom defense work: Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. Mediacom Communications Corp. (D. Del. 2017–2020, pro hac vice; defense team with Baker Botts colleagues), plus Toshiba entities, WebEx/Citrix, Goodman Global, Derrick Corp./Screen Logix, ViaSat.
• Confidence: High that Vu was on Cable One's team of record and was the senior patent litigator. Role label "lead counsel" is my inference from seniority and his being Cable One's standing counsel; the docket excerpt I have does not designate a lead trial attorney.

2. Jace Yarbrough — Baker Botts LLP, Dallas (role likely associate/staff attorney)

• Firm/office (with caveat): A "Jace Yarbrough" is listed at Baker Botts L.L.P., 2001 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX in FindLaw's Dallas directory, and his own bios describe him as a former commercial litigator at the Dallas office of a Texas-based global law firm (i.e., consistent with Baker Botts) after a Stanford J.D. He is now a principal at S|L Law PLLC, a Dallas litigation boutique, and a Federalist Society speaker — so any firm website page for him at Baker Botts would by now be stale.
• Caveat — flagging this explicitly: I found no Baker Botts-firm or docket-entry document tying the "Jace Yarbrough" in this case to a firm, and the name is shared with a publicly prominent litigator. The identification as the Baker Botts Dallas attorney is probable but not confirmed. Do not treat firm/role as verified.
• Experience: Patent-litigation experience at Baker Botts is not documented in the sources I could reach; his publicly documented profile is commercial litigation, employment/administrative and religious-liberty matters. No patent-specific track record confirmed.

3. Brandon Chen — firm and role UNCONFIRMED

• Status: The docket excerpt lists "Brandon Chen representing Cable One, Inc. (Defendant)," but I could not confirm any firm affiliation, office, bar number, or experience for him in this case.
• Warning against a false match: The only same-name hit I could source is a California-bar attorney admitted 12/9/2024 at Fenwick & West, San Francisco — that admission date postdates this 2020–21 case and is almost certainly a different individual; the State Bar profile also lists no patent practice. I am not reporting that person as Cable One's counsel.
• Inference only: Given that he appears on the same three-name Cable One roster as Vu and Yarbrough, he was most plausibly a Baker Botts associate on the defense team — but I could not verify this, and I flag it as unverified rather than stating it.

In-house counsel

None identified. No Cable One in-house attorney (e.g., general counsel's office) appears on the excerpted docket roster. Cable One/Sparklight legal-department personnel are not named in any source I reached, and I will not guess names.

Local counsel / pro hac vice

None identified for Cable One. No Tyler- or Marshall-based local counsel appears on the Cable One roster in the excerpt. This is plausible because Vu is admitted in the Eastern District of Texas (per Martindale), so a pro hac vice/local-counsel pairing may not have been required. If additional local counsel were designated in a later filing not captured by my source, I did not see it.

Sealed or non-appearing counsel

No sealed appearances or sealed counsel designations were found. The case was closed 02/12/2021, before the April 20, 2021 Markman hearing, so the roster above reflects the attorneys of record at termination — there is no later appearance activity to report.

---

Context on the excerpted docket roster (and one caution)

The same docket-sheet block also lists, for Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc. and Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., attorneys Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall — a well-known E.D. Tex. local-counsel firm) and Jack Daniel Kitchen; and for plaintiff CommWorks, Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis, Catherine Susan Bartles, Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Hanna Glomska Cohen, Brandon Gregory Moore, and Daniel Sokoloff. Those Consolidated entries almost certainly come from the *companion case, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00159*, whose header appears alongside 2:20-cv-00158 in the document — i.e., the excerpt spans a shared/consolidated docket report. Do not attribute the Consolidated counsel (Smith, Kitchen) to Cable One. (They are not on the Cable One roster line.)

For completeness on the plaintiff side, the complaint itself (RPX litigation document 13798984) is signed by Stafford Davis and Catherine Bartles of The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, Tyler, Texas, and by Dmitry Kheyfits, Brandon G. Moore, Andrey Belenky, and Hanna G. Cohen of Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Austin, TX and New York, NY) — matching the docket roster.

---

Two contradictions with the existing case summary worth flagging

1. The "sole patent" premise looks wrong. The case metadata lists only U.S. 7,760,664, and the earlier summary treats the '664 patent as the patent-in-suit. But the Cable One complaint reproduced at insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13798984 pleads multiple patents — including the '249 patent (Count I, U.S. 6,832,249) and the '315 patent (U.S. 8,116,315) — and its prayer speaks of "the Patents-in-Suit" plural, with a patent family ('249, '465, '285, '315, RE44,904). CommWorks's own later filings and Unified Patents's commentary confirm Cable One was among the defendants against whom the '249 patent was asserted. So the "7760664-only" metadata is at best incomplete; the assertion set was broader. This does not change the counsel analysis, but it changes the framing of the case.
2. Defendant identity is settled. The metadata's "defendant not confirmed" caveat should be treated as resolved: the defendant is Cable One, Inc., as the earlier case-overview section concluded and as confirmed by the docket/document headings above.

---

Verification checklist (what I could not do)

• Live PACER docket sheet, 2:20-cv-00158 — the authoritative source for the attorney roster and any pro hac vice motions. Not retrieved this session.
• Brandon Chen's firm/bar record — unresolved; a Texas bar or Baker Botts directory lookup would settle it.
• Jace Yarbrough's firm at the relevant time — unresolved; a Baker Botts Dallas attorney roster (2019–2021) or the docket's own appearance entry would settle it.
• Defendant's answer and any motions — not retrieved; if additional attorneys (or local counsel) signed them, they are not reflected here.

Bottom line for reliance: Name-level confidence is high for Robinson Vu (and he is demonstrably Cable One's E.D. Tex. patent counsel), moderate for Jace Yarbrough (name on docket confirmed; firm probable, not verified), and name-only for Brandon Chen (firm, office, and role unverified).