Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. v. AT&T Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing the overview.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket, pleadings, and any parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me dig into the key motions, the IPRs, and the settlement details.

Let me pin down the complaint's patent count (metadata says 9; some sources say 4), the Markman outcome, and the IPR dispositions.

I'll search multiple angles to find actual press coverage of this case.

No mainstream coverage yet. Let me try more targeted angles.

Let me try IAM, RPX, and general trade press angles.

Press coverage: essentially none for this case specifically

Despite searching the caption, both party names, the asserted patent numbers (e.g., '458, '669, '996, '122, '631, '398, '654, '108, '313), and the docket number, I found no article from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or any telecom trade outlet that reports on ASSIA v. AT&T itself — not the January 2024 filing, not the February and April 2025 claim dismissals, not the March 19, 2025 Markman hearing, and not the April 14, 2025 settlement/dismissal. Searches for AT&T patent press in this window returned only unrelated matters (e.g., Law360's September 12, 2025 report on the Daingean Technologies 5G non-infringement verdict, and Mondaq/RPX coverage of the same case). The only public "reporting" of the case's existence is automated docket aggregation — Dockets.Justia, Docket Alarm, and UniCourt — plus academic/industry databases that index it without commentary, such as Stanford's NPE Litigation Database and the Ex Parte complaint-analysis page. None of these report figures, characterize the dispute, or quote the parties. In short: no damages number, no settlement term, and no executive statement about this case appears anywhere in the press record I could locate, which is consistent with the docket showing a stipulated dismissal with each side bearing its own fees and costs (Dkt. 143), with no disclosed consideration.

What does exist is adjacent, self-interested commentary from ASSIA's law firms — and it is entirely about the parallel Charter case (No. 2:24-cv-00124), not AT&T. Alberti Lim announced on 2025-05-23 that it and Sterne Kessler secured denial of institution on all five Charter IPRs, quoting partner David Alberti that "[w]inning all five IPR victories is quite an accomplishment"; an earlier 2025-05-01 Alberti Lim release quoted partner Nicole Glauser saying ASSIA "is in the process of proving that Charter infringes these three, plus two more, of ASSIA's patents in the U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas" and expected "trial in the district court this fall." Sterne Kessler similarly touted a "five for five" record and described ASSIA as "a leading broadband innovator" whose "technologies now enhance internet connectivity for over 120 million households worldwide." These releases frame ASSIA as an operating innovator defending a portfolio; notably, none mentions the AT&T suit, and none of ASSIA's counsel issued a comparable release when the AT&T case settled — meaning the only party-side characterization of ASSIA's litigation posture comes from a different lawsuit.

The one industry source that discusses the AT&T case by name is a defendant-side prior-art vendor, and its characterization differs sharply from ASSIA's counsel. Unified Patents announced on 2024-07-17 five PATROLL contests offering $2,000 each for prior art on the very patents asserted here, describing ASSIA flatly as "an NPE" whose patents "generally related to DSL and other wireline technology" and "have all been asserted against AT&T and Charter Communications"; a 2024-11-03 Unified post confirmed $6,000 in payouts. That "NPE" label is a genuine point of divergence: Stanford's NPE Litigation Database categorizes ASSIA as an "8 Product company" rather than a patent monetizer, while Unified's crowdsourcing framing (and the contests themselves, launched months into this litigation) effectively publicized AT&T's invalidity defense. That is the closest thing to industry reaction I found, and it is advocacy rather than reporting.

Caveats. My search budget ran out before I could exhaustively check paywalled sources (Law360, Bloomberg Law, IAM, RPX Insight, Docket Alarm's litigation-analytics blog), so I cannot rule out a paywalled item — particularly an RPX or IAM brief noting the AT&T settlement alongside the Charter case. I also could not verify whether ASSIA v. Charter drew mainstream coverage that mentioned AT&T as a co-target; the firm releases above do not. Given that this case ended in a stipulated dismissal roughly 15 months after filing, with no verdict, no damages figure, and no public settlement terms, the absence of press coverage is unsurprising rather than anomalous — and any future draft should resist the temptation to import the Charter IPR results or the $172.5M Wapp Tech verdict (a David Alberti matter) as if they were developments in, or commentary on, this AT&T case.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. v. AT&T Inc. et al, 2:24-cv-00029 (E.D.Tex.) - Track Docket
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. v. AT&T Inc. – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document
• Kramer LLP Attorneys Recorded Clean Sweep, Won Five Consecutive IPRs for ASSIA - Kramer LLP
• Mrs Justice Falk:
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. v. AT&T Inc. et al - This case was last updated from U
• Search court records on patent:(7428669)
• Search court records on patent:(7428669), page 2 - - All Courts
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• ASSAI: US-11477108-B2 (Optimizing WAN and LAN Network Communications)

I'll research the counsel of record for ASSIA (the plaintiff) in this case.

Let me dig into the docket and confirm each attorney's role and firm.

Let me verify the docket sheet details and each attorney's firm.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff — Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. ("ASSIA")

ASSIA is the sole plaintiff in this action, so all plaintiff-side appearances belong to ASSIA. Based on the docketed notices of appearance and subsequent filings in E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:24-cv-00029-JRG-RSP, ASSIA was represented by two tiers of outside counsel — a Dallas-based patent-litigation boutique as lead/primary counsel, two Texas local-counsel firms, and a Silicon Valley patent boutique closely tied to ASSIA's founder (Dr. John Cioffi).

Plaintiff-side roster

No in-house counsel identified

I found no docketed appearance by an ASSIA in-house attorney in this action. If one appeared after mid-March 2025, it is not reflected in the docket snapshots I could retrieve.

Adjacent counsel (PTAB only — NOT counsel of record in this district court case)

In the parallel IPR filed against ASSIA (AT&T Services, Inc. v. Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc., IPR2025-00451), ASSIA designated Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC (Michael Specht, Jon Fitzsimmons, Ryan Bemben; mspecht-PTAB@sternekessler.com, etc.) alongside Caldwell Cassady & Curry. Those are PTAB appearances, not appearances in 2:24-cv-00029.

Sourcing and caveats

• The appearance/docket facts above are drawn from the E.D. Tex. docket as reported on Dockets.Justia (attorney-appearance entries at Dkts. 5, 6, 10, and 11, Jan. 19–22, 2024), Docket Alarm's track docket for 2:24-cv-00029 (showing filings through Mar. 26, 2025), and UniCourt's attorney-of-record list for the case. See https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00029/[227401](/patent/227401) and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--24-cv-00029/.
• Role labels (lead vs. co-lead vs. local) are my characterization from firm type and filing patterns, not from a court-designated "lead counsel" order. E.D. Tex. practice — and this docket — show Caldwell Cassady & Curry as primary/lead counsel, Gillam & Smith and Andrea Fair

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

I have strong data already. Let me refine details on the defendant's counsel team and their roles.

Let me pull the full docket and verify the remaining attorneys' affiliations.

Based on my research, here is the counsel of record for the defendants. Below, I distinguish what is directly sourced from docket filings and firm records from what I have inferred.

Sourcing note

The most complete picture of the defense team comes from the signature block of Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 92, filed July 30, 2024), which lists seven attorneys "For Defendants," plus several notices of appearance captured on the public docket (via Docket Alarm, UniCourt, and the PTAB record). I did not locate a formal court order designating lead trial counsel for the defense, so the role labels below are my inference from signing/arguing roles in this and related AT&T litigation, not from an explicit designation.

Caption caveat: The case-metadata caption ("AT&T Inc. et al.") differs from the Dkt. 92 caption, which reads "AT&T ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL." This indicates the defendant set was amended at some point during the case (consistent with the PTAB's related-matter description listing "AT&T Enterprises, LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, and AT&T Services, Inc."). Flagging this as a metadata/filing discrepancy.

Defense counsel of record

What is well-sourced vs. uncertain

Well-sourced:

• The Alston & Bird core team (Stevens, Stevenson, Marais, Riolo, Spotts, Frist) and Deron Dacus as local counsel are directly supported by the Dkt. 92 signature block and, for Stevenson/Frist/Eaves/Newton, by docketed notices of appearance.
• Alston & Bird's firm bios confirm M. Scott Stevens' and Ted Stevenson's deep patent-litigation credentials generally, and Stevens' role as counsel in the parallel AT&T v. ASSIA IPR.
• The Dacus Firm's website confirms Deron Dacus' E.D. Tex. patent-litigation practice and local-counsel profile.

Uncertain / flagged:

• Role labels (lead vs. of counsel vs. local) are inferred; no lead-counsel designation order was found.
• The "Matthew Stevens" ECF display name that signed the March 29, 2024 extension motion is very likely the CM/ECF account for M. Scott Stevens, but the docket does not state this expressly.
• Firms for Michael J. Newton and Christian Eaves are unconfirmed (the search budget was exhausted before I could verify). Their late (Feb.–Mar. 2025) appearances — on behalf of only four of the six AT&T entities — coincide with the case's wind-down ('669 claims dismissed Feb. 6, 2025; '631 claims dismissed with prejudice Apr. 14, 2025; overall dismissal Apr. 14, 2025).
• I found no indication of any in-house AT&T counsel appearing of record.

If you need the Newton/Eaves firm affiliations or a lead-counsel designation confirmed, the next step would be a direct PACER pull of the full docket sheet (all appearance entries) for 2:24-cv-00029, which I was unable to retrieve in full within this session.