Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Valtrus Innovations Limited v. Digital Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00535, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Valtrus Innovations Limited, is an Irish patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) controlled by Key Patent Innovations Limited. Valtrus specializes in acquiring extensive patent portfolios, particularly from Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), with a focus on cloud, data center, storage, and networking technologies, and then asserting these patents. The defendants, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Digital Realty Trust, L.P., are major operators of data center properties serving cloud providers and enterprises. The core of the dispute revolved around alleged infringement of data center infrastructure technologies, including atmospheric control systems, cooling solutions, data center evaluation methods, modular sensor assemblies, and power supply controls. Specifically, US Patent 7,939,967, one of seven patents asserted in this particular case, describes an apparatus and method for providing redundant power supplies, detailing the detection of a failure condition in one power source and the subsequent transition of a second power supply from a standby to an operational state.

The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation as a "rocket docket" with plaintiff-friendly rules and expedited schedules. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 significantly restricted venue options, plaintiffs like Valtrus have adapted strategies, sometimes targeting foreign affiliates to maintain litigation in the district. Although the case metadata in the prompt indicates an "active" status, this specific suit (2:24-cv-00535) was filed on July 12, 2024, and concluded with a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 23, 2025, after a relatively swift 195 days.

This case is notable as part of Valtrus Innovations' broader, active campaign to monetize its substantial patent portfolio. Valtrus, backed by Key Patent Innovations, has engaged in multiple parallel assertion programs targeting companies across the cloud, data center, storage, and open-source sectors, resulting in a "dense landscape of district court litigation, IPRs, declaratory judgment and reexamination activity." Other defendants in Valtrus's campaign have included CyrusOne, Evoque Data Center Solutions, NTT Data Services, TierPoint, and DataBank Holdings. The litigation strategy often involves claims against data center operators, sometimes implicating technologies provided by third-party suppliers like Vertiv Corporation, which intervened in some related cases. The rapid dismissal with prejudice in the Digital Realty case, without reaching claim construction or discovery, is strategically significant, indicating a negotiated resolution within Valtrus's ongoing and extensive patent monetization efforts.

The patent infringement litigation Valtrus Innovations Limited v. Digital Realty Trust, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00535-JRG) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas saw a swift resolution through dismissal with prejudice in January 2025. This case involved US Patent 7,939,967 and six other patents related to data center infrastructure technologies.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-07-12: Valtrus Innovations Limited, along with Key Patent Innovations Ltd., filed the patent infringement complaint against Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Digital Realty Trust, L.P. in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap and was subsequently consolidated with Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00361-JRG and Member Case No. 2:24-CV-00139-JRG. The asserted patents included US 7,939,967, US 7,031,870, US 6,862,179, US 6,854,287, US 6,718,277, US 7,339,490, and US 9,310,855, all pertaining to data center cooling and thermal management. Intervenor Vertiv Corporation also became involved in the consolidated proceedings.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Due to the rapid resolution, the case did not proceed to extensive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The litigation concluded before reaching the claim construction (Markman) stage. While a court order in a related consolidated case (2:24-cv-00361-JRG) anticipated a claim construction order as a trigger for a mediation notice, the dismissal occurred prior to this stage for 2:24-cv-00535.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Discovery was in its nascent stages. Initial disclosures from intervenor Vertiv Corporation in the consolidated cases noted deficiencies in the Plaintiff's infringement contentions, indicating that substantive discovery had not progressed far before the case's resolution.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions occurred given the early dismissal of the case.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • 2025-01-23: The case was dismissed with prejudice following a joint motion by all parties, including Valtrus Innovations Ltd., Key Patent Innovations Ltd., Digital Realty Trust, Inc., and intervenor Vertiv Corporation. This voluntary dismissal concluded the case in approximately 195 days from its filing.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • While the district court case concluded, several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were either ongoing or initiated by Vertiv Corporation against Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. patents. Specifically, IPR2025-00667 ("VERTIV v. VALTRUS") is noted as relating to district court case 2:24-cv-00535-JRG as a member case. Another IPR, IPR2025-00669 ("Vertiv v. Valtrus"), is associated with the lead case 2:24-cv-00361-JRG. These IPR filings, occurring around or after the district court dismissal in January 2025, suggest that the PTAB challenges likely focused on the validity of the patents, including US 7,939,967, independently or as part of a broader strategy, rather than directly causing the district court's dismissal, which was by joint motion. The swift resolution of the district court litigation preempted any significant impact the IPRs might have had on those proceedings.

Based on available information for case 2:24-cv-00535 in the Eastern District of Texas, the following counsel represented the plaintiff, Valtrus Innovations Limited:

• Eric H. Findlay
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Local Counsel
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C., with offices in Tyler, TX and Marshall, TX.
  • Note on experience: Eric H. Findlay is a trial lawyer with nearly 30 years of experience, with patent cases forming the majority of his practice. He has appeared in over 1000 patent cases throughout Texas and has extensive experience in the Eastern, Western, and Northern Districts of Texas. He is a founding partner of Findlay Craft, P.C.

This specific case, 2:24-cv-00535-JRG, was filed on July 12, 2024, and was dismissed with prejudice on January 23, 2025, after a joint motion to dismiss. While Valtrus Innovations Limited has been represented by other firms, such as Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, in related or other patent infringement cases, Findlay Craft PC (with Eric Hugh Findlay) is explicitly identified as the plaintiff's counsel for case 2:24-cv-00535-JRG. No other specific attorneys were identified as counsel of record for Valtrus Innovations Limited in filings directly associated with this particular case number.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for this case, starting with the docket and firm-side sources.

I have strong leads. Let me verify the specific defense counsel and their firms.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant(s)

Defendants in this case: Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Digital Realty Trust, L.P. (collectively, "Digital Realty"). The docket also reflects Vertiv Corporation appearing as Intervenor in this member case (aligned with the defense on the Digital Realty claims), so I've separated the two.

One structural note before the names: 2:24-cv-00535 was consolidated for pretrial purposes into Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (along with member cases 2:24-cv-00139, -00259, -00534, -00907). Digital Realty's appearances are docketed in the consolidated proceeding with the parenthetical "(CONSOLIDATED FROM 2:24-CV-535)," which is how the -535 defense team is identified. I was unable to pull the individual CM/ECF entry numbers for every appearance; the names below come from the consolidated docket sheet (CourtListener docket for 2:24-cv-00361) and the case documents.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. / Digital Realty Trust, L.P. — Duane Morris LLP

Duane Morris is the defense firm. The Legal 500 U.S. ranking for Duane Morris expressly lists Digital Realty Trust as a representative client, stating the firm "Represented Digital in patent litigation and IPRs against Valtrus Innovations" — i.e., this very campaign, including the parallel IPRs (IPR2025-00667 / IPR2025-00669).

In-house counsel: No Digital Realty in-house attorney is identified as counsel of record on the pleadings I retrieved.

Caveat on the last three names: Woo, Royka, and Lantz all entered appearances for Digital Realty in the consolidated/member dockets, but my retrieved sources did not confirm their firm affiliations. Given that Duane Morris is the retained defense firm (per Legal 500) and Jameson, Liddell, and Engelmann are Duane Morris, they are most likely Duane Morris attorneys as well — but I am expressly not asserting that as verified. If you need certainty, the Notices of Attorney Appearance and the Answer's signature block will name the firms.

Intervenor Vertiv Corporation (defense-aligned)

Vertiv intervened in this member case (2:24-cv-00535) to protect its cooling/power technology that Valtrus's infringement contentions accused. Its Answer in Intervention and Declaratory Judgment pleadings were handled by:

• William ("Bill") Davis — filed Vertiv's Answer in Intervention to Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand (Member Case No. 2:24-cv-00535-JRG).
• Ty William Wilson — listed as counsel for Vertiv (Intervenor).
• Timothy Paul Maloney — counsel for Vertiv (Consol. Plaintiff/Intervenor).
• Daniel J. Schwartz, Nicole Danielle Sims, Allison Strong, Matthew A. Werber — counsel for Vertiv (Consol. Plaintiff/Intervenor).
• Randal Steve Alexander — Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Vertiv Corporation.

Caveat: These names are drawn from the consolidated docket sheet and PTAB/related-case filings; I was not able to confirm each attorney's firm and office location, so I am not attributing firms to them here rather than risk error. Vertiv's intervention was expressly limited — the January 2025 dismissal order (lead-case Dkt. 94) dismissed the Digital Realty claims with prejudice but stated it did not resolve Vertiv's claims except as to Digital Realty's use of Vertiv technology, and left Lead Case 2:24-cv-00361 open.

Sourcing / reliability notes

• Names and appearance dates for Jameson, Liddell, Engelmann, Royka, and Lantz are grounded in the consolidated docket sheet for No. 2:24-cv-00361 (CourtListener: courtlistener.com/docket/68526786/valtrus-innovations-ltd-v-ntt-data-services-llc/), which labels these entries as consolidated from 2:24-cv-535.
• The Duane Morris–Digital Realty relationship is corroborated by Legal 500's Duane Morris patent-litigation profile (client entry "Digital Realty Trust — Represented Digital in patent litigation and IPRs against Valtrus Innovations") and by Jameson's Chambers/law-firm bios.
• No sealed-counsel issue: defense counsel appeared openly; I found no indication that any defense appearance was filed under seal. The primary sealed items in this litigation concerned Valtrus's discovery motion practice against Vertiv, not defense appearances.
• Minor inconsistency with the existing summary: the previously generated sections describe the case as "active" (per prompt metadata) and also as dismissed Jan. 23, 2025. The court's order dismissing member cases -139 and -535 with prejudice is dated January 22, 2025 and directs the clerk to close those member cases while maintaining the lead case open — so the operative dismissal date is Jan. 22, 2025 (the joint motion having been filed shortly before). This doesn't change any counsel attribution, but it's worth correcting for precision.