Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the patent and case number.

Case number resolves to Maxell v. BLU Products. Let me verify the patent link.

Confirmed: 1:17-cv-01447 is Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Products, Inc. Let me pull the docket, complaint, and outcome.

Let me confirm the outcome and the remaining patents' subject matter.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Key finding: US 9,100,604 appears to be a Maxell (Hitachi Maxell) patent. Let me confirm the case and patent link.

Bottom line up front

Before the chronology, two corrections/confirmations that matter for framing:

• **The case is Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Products, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01447 (D. Del.)**, filed 2017-10-13, cause of action 35 U.S.C. § 271, jury demanded, New Castle County. (Justia docket; UniCourt)
• The asserted patent, US 9,100,604 ("Electric camera"), is a Maxell/Hitachi Maxell patent (App. 14/264,243; issued 2015-08-04; inventors Nakano, Nishimura, Kinugasa; Jan. 2000 priority). It was not a BLU-only patent — it was asserted by Maxell across a 2017–2018 case family, and it was the target of at least three IPR petitions (Olympus ×2, BlackBerry ×1).

⚠️ Important caveat on sourcing: I was able to confirm the filing, party, judge, and counsel data, the patent's identity and family, and the PTAB activity, but not the full PACER docket sheet for 1:17-cv-01447 itself (PACER/RECAP requires authenticated docket access, and the free aggregators only expose partial entries). Everything below is labeled [Verified] vs. [Inferred/Unconfirmed]. I have not invented docket numbers, dates, or rulings where I could not retrieve them.

---

1. Case identification and actors

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the patent and docket.

The docket number resolves to Maxell Ltd. v. BLU Products, Inc. Let me verify the patent and dig into counsel.

Case confirmed as Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Products, Inc. Now let me pull the actual docket and verify each attorney's firm.

Correction to the case summary

The metadata ("Untitled case," parties unconfirmed) can now be resolved. 1:17-cv-01447 (D. Del.) is Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Products, Inc., filed October 13, 2017, assigned to the "Vacant Judgeship (2017)" and referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke (later shown as presiding Judge Joseph F. Bataillon / Mag. J. Sherry R. Fallon in aggregator records). It was one of a wave of same-day Maxell filings in Delaware (17-1446 v. BlackBerry, 17-1447 v. BLU, and others), all sharing the same counsel team. U.S. Patent No. 9,100,604 ("Electric Camera," Hitachi/Maxell) was among the asserted patents; Olympus's later IPR petition confirms the '604 was asserted by Maxell against BLU. (Justia docket; UniCourt; IPR2018-00904 Petition, Olympus v. Maxell)

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Maxell, Ltd.

The docket aggregators list nine plaintiff-side attorneys for Maxell in this action. The structure is a Mayer Brown LLP national team admitted pro hac vice, fronted by a Delaware local counsel who filed the complaint and all motions.

Likely later substitution (flagged, not confirmed for this docket)

In the parallel case, Maxell v. BlackBerry, 1:17-cv-01446, Maxell filed a "Notice of Substitution of Counsel" on April 2, 2018, entering Timothy Devlin (Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington) and terminating Benjamin J. Schladweiler; Devlin then handled the case through dismissal. Maxell also admitted Robert G. Pluta and Jonathan Weinberg (Mayer Brown, Chicago) pro hac vice in that case in February 2018. Because the two cases were filed the same day with an identical team and were treated as associated cases (see the 10/18/2017 docket remark referencing both 17-1446-VAC-CJB and 17-1447-VAC-CJB), the same substitution very likely occurred here — but I could not verify a Devlin entry of appearance on the 17-1447 docket itself, so treat it as probable, not established. Schladweiler's withdrawal from the related Maxell v. BLU, No. 1:18-cv-21231 (S.D. Fla.) was granted May 21, 2018 (D.I. 61 there).

---

Sourcing and caveats

• No sealed-material issue: counsel appears openly; the complaint and PHV motions are public. The limitation is that no free, complete PACER docket sheet for 17-1447 is accessible — my attorney list comes from Justia's and UniCourt's party/attorney extraction (identical nine names), cross-checked against the fully reproduced docket of the companion 17-1446 case (Unified Patents litigation portal, link).
• Firm attributions for Beaber, Fussell, Levy, Siddiqui and Schladweiler are well corroborated. Firm/office for Miller, Paul, Bonner and Gelsleichter reflects Mayer Brown at the time of their 2017 appearances; I did not verify current affiliations, and lateral moves since 2018 are likely for the more junior lawyers. Do not treat those four as current-firm confirmations.
• I found no court opinion, Law360 article, or Reuters piece specifically discussing 17-1447, so no judicial characterization of who "led" the case exists. The "lead counsel" designation for Beaber is inferential — he is first-listed on the Maxell PHV motions and is the attorney Maxell has consistently used as lead across its portfolio campaigns — not a docket designation.
• Case posture: the Delaware BLU case did not run to judgment. Maxell re-filed against BLU in S.D. Fla. (No. 1:18-cv-21231, filed April 3, 2018, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga), which proceeded to claim construction practice; the Delaware action was closed. Post-TC Heartland venue correction is the most likely explanation, but I have not confirmed the dismissal order or its terms.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for the defendant in this case.

Let me dig into the actual Delaware docket and any defendant appearances.

Let me look at the actual docket via CourtListener RECAP and check whether any defendant appearance was ever filed.

Bottom line

For the Delaware case itself, I could not identify any counsel of record for BLU Products, Inc. Every accessible docket source for No. 1:17-cv-01447 lists plaintiff-side counsel only, and one aggregator expressly reports "No Attorneys" for the case. That is consistent with a short-lived filing that was closed and re-filed against BLU in the Southern District of Florida — but I want to be explicit that this is an inference from the absence of an appearance, not from a dismissal order I was able to read.

Because the defendant's counsel slots are empty in Delaware, I have also set out below the BLU-side counsel who did appear in the refiled Florida action, clearly labeled as a different docket.

---

1. What the docket shows for 1:17-cv-01447

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2017cv01447/63429 ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db1-maxell-ltd-v-blu-products-inc-[590500](/patent/590500) ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:17-cv-01447/maxell-ltd-v-blu-products-inc ; https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent:([7995897](/patent/7995897))

Caveat on completeness: none of these is PACER. Justia/UniCourt/RPX-style mirrors frequently truncate short patent dockets, and a Delaware defendant could theoretically have appeared through local counsel without the aggregator picking it up. I did not find any motion for pro hac vice, answer, Rule 7.1 disclosure, or stipulation of extension filed by BLU in Delaware. If a defendant appearance exists, it would be on the PACER docket sheet (D. Del. 1:17-cv-01447) and I could not retrieve the full entry list.

2. Why the absence is plausible rather than an error

The evidentiary trail points to the Delaware BLU case being a placeholder that Maxell abandoned in favor of Florida:

• Maxell filed Maxell, Ltd. v. Blu Products, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-21231-CMA (S.D. Fla.) on April 3, 2018 — six months after the Delaware filing — before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. That case closed August 3, 2018 (295 days). https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/flsdce-[524495](/patent/524495)-maxell-v-blu-products
• In its IPR2018-00906 mandatory notices (June 6, 2018), Maxell stated that the '897 patent "was asserted against Blu Products, Inc. in Maxell Ltd. v. Blu Products, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-21231-CMA (S.D. Fla.)" — citing the Florida case, not the Delaware case, as the assertion against BLU. https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1510595](/patent/1510595)/download-documents
• The two filings share a date pattern with Maxell's parallel campaign: 1:17-cv-01446 against BlackBerry was filed the same day (Oct. 13, 2017), and that case did generate a full adversary docket (BlackBerry moved to dismiss; Perkins Coie's Brian C. Riopelle, Jason W. Cook, Shaun W. Hassett, Meghan M. Rachford, George B. Davis, Kuan-Chieh Tu appeared, with Chad S. Stover of Murphy & Landon as Delaware local counsel). The contrast in docket depth between 1446 and 1447 is itself suggestive. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:17-cv-01446

3. BLU Products' counsel in the refiled Florida action (different docket — flagged for cross-reference)

If you need the identity of BLU's defense team for this patent campaign, these are the names that appear in S.D. Fla. No. 1:18-cv-21231 — not in the Delaware case:

Sources: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db1-maxell-ltd-v-blu-products-inc-[716504](/patent/716504) ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/flsdce-524495-maxell-v-blu-products

I am deliberately declining to state firm names or office addresses for Butler and for the Egozi/Lew affiliation as fact: the aggregator returned bare names, and I could not confirm firm, role, or bar admissions from a firm website, court opinion, or Law360/Reuters item within this search. Treat the firm column as unverified.

4. Discrepancies to flag against the existing case summary and metadata

1. "Parties, filing date, and outcome could not be confirmed" is now partly superseded. Parties and filing date are confirmed (Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Products, Inc., filed 10/13/2017). The outcome remains unconfirmed — the case is reported "Closed," and the circumstantial case for dismissal-without-prejudice followed by the Florida refiling is strong, but I did not locate the dismissal order or stipulation.
2. Patent identification is inconsistent. The case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 9,100,604 as the patent at issue. Docket Alarm's patent-indexed record associates 1:17-cv-01447 with U.S. Patent No. 7,995,897. The '897 connection is corroborated by Maxell's IPR mandatory notices. I found no source tying the '604 patent to this Delaware docket. This should be resolved from the complaint (D.I. 1) before the patent identification is relied on.
3. Judge conflict across sources. Docket Alarm lists "Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, presiding, Judge Sherry R. Fallon"; UniCourt lists "Christopher J. Burke and Vacant Judgeship (2017)." Bataillon (D. Neb., sitting by designation) would be unusual for a 2017 Delaware patent case; this looks like an aggregator artifact, but it is unresolved.
4. Consistency with the prior "second Delaware filing" note: confirmed — 1:17-cv-01446 (BlackBerry) and 1:17-cv-01447 (BLU) were filed the same day, making 1447 the second of that pair.

5. What I would verify next

• Pull the PACER docket sheet for D. Del. 1:17-cv-01447 (full entry list, not the Justia summary) to confirm no appearance, and to capture the dismissal entry.
• Pull D.I. 1 (complaint) to confirm which patents — including whether the '604 is among them — were asserted against BLU in Delaware.
• If BLU-side Delaware counsel did appear, the most likely candidates are Delaware firms that Maxell's adversaries used across this campaign; I found no evidence for any specific one and will not speculate further.