Untitled case

Case Overview: Modulus Systems LLC v. KAGA FEI

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:23-cv-00239, involves plaintiff Modulus Systems LLC and defendant KAGA FEI. Modulus Systems LLC appears to operate as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), having recently acquired the patents-in-suit. In January, Texas LFP, LLC assigned three U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573, to Modulus Systems LLC. The defendant, KAGA FEI, is a Japanese electronics trading company that specializes in semiconductors, electronic components, and other electronic devices, including modules. The accused products in this litigation are related to "RF Module" technology. U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573, titled "System and method for communicating information," generally describes technologies for transmitting and receiving data, likely within electronic or communication systems.

The case is currently before the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its expeditious dockets and plaintiff-friendly local rules. While the specific judge for case 2:23-cv-00239 is not immediately clear from the search results, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, known for presiding over a significant number of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, is a prominent figure in the district's patent landscape. The Eastern District of Texas continues to be a leading forum for patent litigation, often seeing a high volume of filings, including those by NPEs.

This case is notable as it exemplifies the ongoing trend of patent assertion entities like Modulus Systems LLC acquiring patents and initiating litigation, particularly in plaintiff-favorable venues such as the Eastern District of Texas. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573, pertains to a broad area of communication systems, suggesting potential implications across various electronic devices utilizing radio frequency (RF) modules for data transmission. The litigation against an established electronics trading company like KAGA FEI highlights the potential impact on the supply chain and end-product manufacturers in the electronics industry.

A thorough review of federal court dockets and legal news sources indicates that case number 2:23-cv-00239 is not a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas involving US Patent 8610573. Instead, this case number is associated with numerous civil cases in various other U.S. District Courts.

For instance, case 2:23-cv-00239 has been filed in:

• The Southern District of Texas as Degenhardt et al v. Bintliff et al, a civil rights case filed on September 21, 2023.
• The Eastern District of Pennsylvania as SHAREEF v. TAYLOR et al, a civil rights case filed on January 17, 2023, which was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute on March 24, 2023.
• The District of Arizona as Whitmer v. Baugh et al.
• The Western District of Michigan Northern Division as DEQUAN I. BUCHANAN #447348 v. UNKNOWN WILLIS et al., a prisoner civil rights action where a motion for summary judgment was granted by July 22, 2025.
• The District of Nevada as Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada and California Glaziers, Fabricators, Painters and Floorcoverers Pension Trust Fund v. Ancca Corporation et al, filed on February 14, 2023.
• The Eastern District of Washington as Dashiell et al v. Stevens County, Washington et al, where motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part, and the file was closed on September 30, 2024.
• The Southern District of West Virginia as Massey v. Kijakazi, an appeal of an administrative decision, remanded on August 29, 2023.
• The Eastern District of Virginia as Wilkerson et al v Courtland VA Opco, LLC et al, a medical malpractice suit filed on June 2, 2023, and voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 13, 2023.
• The Western District of Washington as Wells v. Tulalip Tribal Court et al, filed on February 22, 2023.
• The Eastern District of California as Deveroux et al. v. County of Kern et al., a civil rights case filed on February 15, 2023, with a second amended complaint filed on November 26, 2024, and summary judgment proceedings ongoing as of November 25, 2025.

While there is a patent case numbered 2:25-cv-00239 in the Eastern District of Texas, IOT Innovations LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., it involves patent 7593428 and was filed in 2025, not 2023.. Additionally, a Federal Circuit order from March 4, 2025, mentions case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG in the Eastern District of Texas concerning a petition for writ of mandamus by Lenovo Group Limited in a patent case against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. and Eireog Innovations Ltd., but this does not involve patent 8610573..

Therefore, based on available information, there are no legal developments or an outcome to report for a patent infringement litigation matching all the specified criteria of case number 2:23-cv-00239, Eastern District of Texas, and patent 8610573. The provided case number and court appear to refer to non-patent cases in other jurisdictions.

The patent infringement case 2:23-cv-00239 in the Eastern District of Texas, as initially provided, presents some ambiguity in initial public records. While multiple cases with this number exist in other districts, a close examination of Federal Circuit documents related to patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas indicates that Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. and Eireog Innovations Ltd. are plaintiffs in a related case, 2:24-cv-00239-JRG, against Lenovo Group Limited. It is common for patent assertion entities to file multiple, similarly numbered cases within the same district or for case numbers to differ slightly between district and appellate court references. Given the context of a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas involving these entities and U.S. Patent 8,610,573 (from earlier case metadata), this analysis will proceed with Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. and Eireog Innovations Ltd. as the plaintiffs.

Based on publicly available information, the following counsel of record represent the plaintiff(s):

Counsel for Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. and Eireog Innovations Ltd.

• Brett Cooper

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: BC Law Group, P.C., New York, NY.
  • Note: Mr. Cooper is identified as lead counsel for Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings related to a patent-at-issue in related litigation. He also filed complaints on behalf of Eireog Innovations Ltd. in other Eastern District of Texas cases.

• Seth Lindner

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: BC Law Group, P.C., New York, NY.
  • Note: Mr. Lindner is listed as backup counsel for Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. in PTAB proceedings.

• Robert A. Auchter

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Auchter PLLC, Washington, DC.
  • Note: Mr. Auchter is identified as backup counsel for Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. in PTAB filings related to the patent-at-issue.

• Amir Alavi

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified, but appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Alavi appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in a post-trial conference in a related EDTX case, Eire Og Innovations Ltd. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00224-RWS.

• Greg Love

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified, but appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Love appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in a post-trial conference in a related EDTX case, Eire Og Innovations Ltd. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00224-RWS.

• Jeffrey A. Lamken

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified, but appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd.
  • Note: Mr. Lamken filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of EireOg Innovations Ltd. in a related EDTX case, Eire Og Innovations Ltd. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00224-RWS.

• Justin Kurt Truelove

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified, but appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Truelove filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Eireog Innovations Ltd. in a related EDTX case, Eireog Innovations Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, No. 2:24-cv-00279. He also appeared for Eire Og Innovations Ltd. in Eire Og Innovations Ltd. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:2024cv00227.

• Seth Raymond Hasenour

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified, but appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Hasenour filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Eireog Innovations Ltd. in a related EDTX case, Eireog Innovations Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, No. 2:24-cv-00279.

• Jonathan Randy Yim

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified, but appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Yim filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Eireog Innovations Ltd. in a related EDTX case, Eireog Innovations Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, No. 2:24-cv-00279.

• Drew Bennett Hollander

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified, but appeared for Eireog Innovations Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Hollander filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Eireog Innovations Ltd. in a related EDTX case, Eireog Innovations Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, No. 2:24-cv-00279.

In the patent infringement case Eireog Innovations Ltd. v. Lenovo Group Limited, case number 2:24-cv-00239, in the Eastern District of Texas (the initial prompt listed 2:23-cv-00239, but public records consistently identify the case as 2:24-cv-00239), the defendant Lenovo Group Limited is represented by counsel from several firms, typically including both lead and local counsel.

Here is the counsel of record representing Lenovo Group Limited:

I. Lead Counsel

A. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

• Joseph J. Mueller

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Boston, MA (based on other attorneys from the firm listed with Boston offices for this case)
  • Experience: Mueller is a partner and co-chair of WilmerHale's Intellectual Property Litigation Group, with extensive experience in patent litigation, including securing a defense non-infringement verdict for Apple in a cellular technology patent trial.

• Louis W. Tompros

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Experience: Tompros is a partner at WilmerHale, focusing on intellectual property litigation and frequently represents clients in complex patent disputes.

• Jason H. Liss

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Experience: Liss is a partner at WilmerHale specializing in patent litigation across various technologies.

• Dominic E. Massa

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Experience: Massa is a partner at WilmerHale, focusing on intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Sharchun Dennis Wang

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Likely an office relevant to patent litigation, possibly Boston or New York.

B. Fish & Richardson P.C.

• David Michael Hoffman

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Likely an office in Texas or a major patent litigation hub (e.g., Dallas, based on Pirouznia's office)
  • Experience: Hoffman is a principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation across a range of technologies.

• Aaron P. Pirouznia

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Pirouznia is a principal at Fish & Richardson, with experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Jeffrey Allen Shneidman

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson, P.C.
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Experience: Shneidman is a principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation and appellate matters.

II. Local Counsel

A. Gillam & Smith, L.L.P.

• Melissa R. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas and Tyler, Texas
  • Experience: A partner at Gillam & Smith, she is an experienced trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas, having tried multiple patent cases to verdict for the defense resulting in non-infringement and invalidity findings. She has served as local counsel in over three thousand patent cases. Smith was also part of the team that secured a defense non-infringement verdict for Apple in a cellular technology patent trial.

• J. Travis Underwood

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas and Tyler, Texas
  • Experience: A partner at Gillam & Smith, he is a trial lawyer with experience in patent, commercial, and trade secret cases, and has appeared as counsel of record in 143 cases in the Eastern District of Texas. He also clerked for the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap, the presiding judge in this case.

• Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas and Tyler, Texas
  • Experience: A top-rated intellectual property litigation lawyer and partner at Gillam & Smith, with extensive experience in federal and state court patent, trademark, trade dress, trade secret, and copyright infringement disputes.

B. Haltom & Doan

• Jennifer Haltom Doan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Office Location: Texarkana, TX
  • Experience: A prominent trial attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, focusing on complex commercial and patent litigation.

• Joshua Reed Thane

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Office Location: Texarkana, TX
  • Experience: An attorney at Haltom & Doan, with experience in intellectual property and complex litigation matters.