Untitled case

Unified Patents PTAB Data, acting as a petitioner, initiated an inter partes review (IPR) against US8310990 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), naming Lemko Corp. as the patent owner. While Unified Patents is generally known as a membership organization that seeks to deter Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) by challenging patents through IPRs, often on behalf of its members, the specific real parties in interest for this IPR are AT&T Services Inc. and Microsoft Corporation. These operating companies are also involved in parallel patent infringement litigation filed by Lemko Corp. against AT&T Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00305-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas, which began on March 17, 2025.

The patent at issue, US8310990, broadly relates to computer networks, multiplex communication, video distribution, and security. More specifically, it describes systems and methods for peer-to-peer, distributed mobile architecture (DMA) networks, with Lemko having demonstrated its DMA technology, including the '990 patent, to AT&T in 2013. The accused products or services are those offered by AT&T and Microsoft that allegedly infringe this patent, likely pertaining to their network communication and distributed architecture technologies as implicated by Lemko's initial infringement suit.

The IPR, IPR2025-01142, was not instituted by the PTAB due to procedural grounds, specifically a discretionary denial. The Patent Owner, Lemko Corp., requested discretionary denial, arguing against institution based on the advanced age of the patent (issued over twelve years prior) and the principle of "settled expectations". This decision highlights a trend at the PTAB where discretionary denials have increased, influenced by factors such as the "settled expectations" doctrine and the ongoing district court litigation, particularly when a district court trial is scheduled to occur before a final written decision in the IPR. The case is notable for demonstrating the PTAB's application of discretionary denial factors, such as "settled expectations," which consider the length of time a patent has been in force, and the linkage between IPR proceedings and parallel district court infringement cases in determining institution.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. 25-cv-00305-JRG Eastern District of Texas docket", "Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation patent infringement litigation docket", "Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. 25-cv-00305-JRG Markman order", "Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. 25-cv-00305-JRG outcome", "PTAB IPR2025-01142 related litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for key legal developments and the outcome of the patent infringement litigation, specifically "Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00305-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas," and potentially litigation involving Microsoft Corporation. I need to cover various stages of litigation chronologically, from filing to final disposition. I also need to incorporate information about the parallel IPR (IPR2025-01142) and its effect.

From the previous section, I know:

• Case number: 25-cv-00305-JRG
• Court: Eastern District of Texas
• Plaintiff: Lemko Corp.
• Defendant: AT&T Inc.
• Filing date: March 17, 2025
• Patent at issue: US8310990
• Parallel IPR: IPR2025-01142, filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data on behalf of AT&T Services Inc. and Microsoft Corporation, not instituted on procedural grounds (discretionary denial).

My search strategy will focus on finding docket entries, orders, and news articles related to case 25-cv-00305-JRG. I will also look for any separate litigation involving Microsoft Corporation, as the previous section mentioned them as real parties in interest for the IPR.

Given the filing date of March 17, 2025, and today's date of May 19, 2026, the case is likely still in its early to mid-stages. I will prioritize finding information on:

1. Filing and initial pleadings: Complaint, answer, counterclaims for 25-cv-00305-JRG.
2. Motions: Motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay. Given the IPR's discretionary denial, a motion to stay pending IPR might have been filed and denied or not pursued.
3. Claim construction: Markman hearing and order, if available.
4. Discovery: Any significant milestones or disputes.
5. Trial/Settlement: Unlikely to have reached trial or settlement given the timeframe, but I will check for any updates.
6. Parallel IPR impact: How the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01142 has affected the district court litigation.

I will also perform a separate search for "Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation patent infringement" to see if a distinct lawsuit exists, as the previous context only mentioned Microsoft as a RPI in the IPR.The patent infringement litigation of Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00305-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas, as well as related proceedings, has seen several key legal developments:

Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00305-JRG, E.D. Tex.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (March 17, 2025): Lemko Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T Inc. and several of its subsidiaries (AT&T Enterprises LLC, AT&T Communications LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC II, and AT&T Services, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges willful infringement of seven patents, including US8310990, broadly related to mobile network innovations and distributed mobile architecture (DMA). Lemko claims that AT&T's Private Edge 5G Network platform and Private Mobile Connection service infringe its patents. Lemko also asserts that it had demonstrated its DMA technology to AT&T in 2013 and informed them of its patents, but AT&T chose to infringe rather than license the technology.

• Pre-Trial Motions – Motion to Transfer Venue (Denied March 6, 2026): AT&T filed a Motion to Transfer Venue, seeking to move the case to the Northern District of Texas. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied this motion on March 6, 2026. The court determined that the AT&T case involved different defendants, distinct technology platforms (Azure Private 5G Core versus Affirmed Mobile Core), and different accused products compared to Lemko's earlier litigation against Microsoft, thereby lacking substantial overlap to warrant a transfer for judicial economy.

• Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial, and Post-Trial Motions: As of May 19, 2026, no public information is available regarding claim construction (Markman) outcomes, significant discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions for this specific case. Given the March 2025 filing date and the recent venue decision in March 2026, the case is likely still in its pre-trial stages.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2025-01142 - Not Instituted): Unified Patents PTAB Data, acting on behalf of AT&T Services Inc. and Microsoft Corporation as real parties in interest, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-01142) challenging US8310990. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) discretionarily denied institution of this IPR on procedural grounds. Lemko Corp. had requested the discretionary denial, arguing that the "settled expectations" doctrine applied due to the patent being over twelve years old and AT&T's long-standing knowledge of the patent since 2013. The PTAB's decision was also influenced by the Fintiv factors, which consider the ongoing patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas involving the same patent.

Parallel Litigation: Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation (Case No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT, N.D. Tex.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (February 14, 2022): Lemko Corporation initiated a separate patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation and its acquired entity, Affirmed Networks, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. This suit alleged infringement of several patents through Microsoft's products, including Azure Private 5G Core (APNS) and vProbe.

• Pre-Trial Motions – Motions to Dismiss: The Microsoft litigation has been characterized by being "mired in the pleadings phase" for an extended period. Microsoft filed multiple motions to dismiss for alleged pleading inadequacies. In September 2023, the court partially granted one such motion, allowing Lemko leave to amend its complaint. Following a second amended complaint, a Magistrate Judge issued findings, conclusions, and a recommendation on April 10, 2025, to grant in part and deny in part another motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge found sufficient allegations for induced infringement claims but insufficient for contributory infringement claims. Lemko subsequently announced on April 15, 2025, that the District Court had denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect patent infringement claims.

• Claim Construction (May 12, 2026): A Claim Construction Order was issued in the Microsoft case on May 12, 2026.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: Microsoft also challenged Lemko's patents in separate IPR proceedings at the PTAB. For example, in IPR2023-00529 (Microsoft Corp v. Lemko Corp), the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on August 30, 2024, finding the challenged claims patentable. Additionally, institution was denied in IPR2023-00530 related to Microsoft's challenge against Lemko.

• Appeal: An appeal titled LEMKO CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, No. 24-2336, was filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with an opinion dated April 10, 2026. This Federal Circuit appeal likely pertains to an earlier ruling or certified question from the Northern District of Texas case.

The IPR, IPR2025-01142, was filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data, with AT&T Services Inc. and Microsoft Corporation identified as the real parties in interest. While Unified Patents is a membership organization that files IPRs to deter patent assertions, it does not act as a law firm for its members. Therefore, the counsel of record would represent the real parties in interest, AT&T Services Inc. and Microsoft Corporation.

Based on the "PETITIONER'S POWER OF ATTORNEY" for IPR2025-01142, the following attorneys represent Microsoft Corporation:

• Scott M. Border (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Robert N. Kang, also from Winston & Strawn LLP, was a speaker at the 2025 Corporate IP Strategy Conference, discussing "Litigation - Forum Shopping & Funding Disclosures," suggesting experience in patent litigation strategy.

• Robert N. Kang (Back-Up Counsel)

  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Robert N. Kang, a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP, was a speaker at Unified Patents' 2025 Corporate IP Strategy Conference, participating in a panel on "Litigation - Forum Shopping & Funding Disclosures," indicating experience in patent litigation matters.

While Unified Patents has its own team of in-house senior patent counsel who prepare and litigate post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, such as Jordan Rossen, David Seastrunk, and Michelle Callaghan, they represent Unified Patents in its capacity as a petitioner, not necessarily the underlying real parties in interest in every IPR.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. 25-cv-00305-JRG Eastern District of Texas counsel for Lemko Corp.", "Lemko Corp. patent litigation counsel", "Jeffrey P. Kushan Foley & Lardner patent litigation", "Jonathan B. Wilson Winston & Strawn patent litigation", "Robert N. Kang Winston & Strawn patent litigation", "Scott M. Border Winston & Strawn patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case "Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00305-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas."

From the "Previously generated sections," I know that:

• The case is "Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00305-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas."
• The plaintiff is Lemko Corp.
• The defendant is AT&T Inc.

However, the user's prompt states "Identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case." This directly contradicts the "Previously generated sections of this case" where it states "Unified Patents PTAB Data, acting as a petitioner, initiated an inter partes review (IPR) against US8310990 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), naming Lemko Corp. as the patent owner." and "These operating companies are also involved in parallel patent infringement litigation filed by Lemko Corp. against AT&T Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00305-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas, which began on March 17, 2025."

This means Lemko Corp. is the plaintiff in the district court case, and AT&T Inc. (and likely Microsoft, given they are RPIs in the IPR) are the defendants.

The previous section correctly identified counsel for the petitioner (Unified Patents / AT&T / Microsoft) in the IPR. The current task asks for counsel for the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case, which means counsel for AT&T Inc. and potentially Microsoft Corporation.

The previous section already listed Scott M. Border and Robert N. Kang from Winston & Strawn LLP as representing Microsoft Corporation in the IPR, and explicitly states that the counsel of record for the IPR would represent the real parties in interest, AT&T Services Inc. and Microsoft Corporation. Since these are the same parties involved in the district court litigation, it's highly probable that Winston & Strawn also represents AT&T/Microsoft in the district court case.

I will search for the counsel representing AT&T Inc. and Microsoft Corporation in the district court case "Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00305-JRG)". I will also cross-reference the attorneys identified in the IPR for Microsoft to see if they appear in the district court case.

It's important to clarify the roles based on the district court case:
Plaintiff: Lemko Corp.
Defendant(s): AT&T Inc. (and likely Microsoft Corporation, given the IPR RPIs)

So, I need to identify counsel for AT&T Inc. and Microsoft Corporation in the district court case.

Based on the prompt, the "Previously generated sections of this case" mentioned:
"Based on the "PETITIONER'S POWER OF ATTORNEY" for IPR2025-01142, the following attorneys represent Microsoft Corporation:
Scott M. Border (Lead Counsel) Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
Robert N. Kang (Back-Up Counsel) Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP"

These are counsel for the real parties in interest for the IPR, which are AT&T Services Inc. and Microsoft Corporation. These same entities are the defendants in the parallel patent infringement litigation. Therefore, it is highly likely that these attorneys, or other attorneys from Winston & Strawn LLP, represent the defendants in the district court case. I need to verify this with a search for the district court case directly.

Let's refine the search query to focus on the defendant's counsel in the district court case.The following counsel of record represent the defendant(s), AT&T Inc. and potentially Microsoft Corporation, in the patent infringement case Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00305-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas.

Defendant Representatives

Winston & Strawn LLP

• Scott M. Border (Lead Counsel for Microsoft in IPR, likely similar role for district court)
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Based on previous IPR information)
  • Note: Identified as lead counsel for Microsoft Corporation in the related IPR, IPR2025-01142.
• Robert N. Kang (Back-Up Counsel for Microsoft in IPR, likely similar role for district court)
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (Based on previous IPR information), also listed under Winston & Strawn LLP for New York office in PacerMonitor
  • Note: A partner at Winston & Strawn LLP, he was a speaker at Unified Patents' 2025 Corporate IP Strategy Conference, discussing "Litigation - Forum Shopping & Funding Disclosures," indicating experience in patent litigation strategy.
• Krishnan Padmanabhan (Counsel)
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: New York
  • Note: Listed as counsel for AT&T Inc. et al. in the district court case.
• Kelly C. Hunsaker (Counsel)
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Office Location: Redwood City
  • Note: Listed as counsel for AT&T Inc. et al. in the district court case.

Capshaw Derieux LLP

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Counsel)
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in search results; firm generally practices in Texas.
  • Note: Listed as counsel for AT&T Inc. et al. in the district court case.

The Dacus Firm, PC

• Deron R. Dacus (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC
  • Office Location: Not specified in search results; firm generally practices in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: The Dacus Firm is noted as experienced local counsel often retained alongside national IP litigation firms in the Eastern District of Texas for defense.
• Shannon Marie Dacus (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC
  • Office Location: Not specified in search results; firm generally practices in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Listed as counsel for AT&T Inc. et al. in the district court case.