Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc. v. Intel Corporation

Case Overview: Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, No. 7:24-cv-00245-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and posture. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc. ("ACS") is a small, inventor-controlled software company founded in 2004 by Zvi Tannenbaum, who partnered with Dr. Dean E. Dauger (founder of Dauger Research, Inc.) to develop "Supercomputing Engine Technology (SET)," parallel-programming tools for high-performance computing (Compl. ¶¶1–2, Ex. 1019 in IPR2025-00915; RPX, "Inventor-Controlled Plaintiff Reboots Cluster Computing Campaign," Sept. 27, 2024). RPX characterizes ACS as an inventor-backed plaintiff whose sole litigation campaign began in October 2019 against NVIDIA in Delaware (1:19-cv-2032-CFC, dismissed April 2023 after settlement). Defendant Intel Corporation is the world's largest semiconductor maker and, relevant here, a leading supplier of server CPUs and AI accelerators. ACS filed suit on September 26, 2024 in the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright (case number "ADA"); the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 34, Jan. 22, 2025) added the later-issued family members, and Intel answered with counterclaims on February 5, 2025 (Dkt. 41). ACS is represented by Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC and Crowell & Moring; Intel by Munger Tolles & Olson and Morrison & Foerster (Dkt. 79, NEF, Aug. 18, 2025).

Patents and accused technology. ACS asserts five patents from a common "Cluster Computing" family (named inventors Dauger and Tannenbaum; shared ~June 2006 priority date; family of ten patents issued 2011–2024): U.S. Patent No. 10,333,768 (issued June 25, 2019), 11,563,621 (Jan. 24, 2023), 11,570,034 (Jan. 31, 2023), 11,811,582 (Nov. 7, 2023), and 12,021,679 (June 25, 2024). Technically, the patents describe an "advanced, parallel mesh computing framework" that lets software kernels designed for single-node operation (e.g., Mathematica, MATLAB) run in parallel across a multi-node cluster using "cluster node modules" that enable direct peer-to-peer communication between nodes "without transmitting tasks through a master node" — overcoming the master-slave limits of grid computing (Compl. ¶¶33–35; Ex Parte analysis of Dkt. 34). ACS asserts claims 1 and 30 of the '034 patent plus independent claims of the other four. The accused instrumentalities are Intel Xeon Scalable Processors (Skylake-SP through 6th generation), Intel's Habana AI accelerator lines (Goya, Gaudi, Gaudi 2, Gaudi 3), and servers/workstations incorporating them, allegedly infringing when configured in multi-node clusters using peer-to-peer messaging (e.g., Intel oneAPI and HCCL software) (Compl. ¶¶47–50; PICs, Ex. 1022 in IPR2025-00913). The case is in active pretrial litigation: Judge Albright held the Markman hearing on August 18, 2025 (Dkt. 79) and entered a Claim Construction Order on September 26, 2025 (Dkt. 87, also filed in the parallel AMD case 7:24-cv-00244-ADA), adopting plain-and-ordinary meaning for "single-node kernel" and rejecting § 112 ¶ 6 treatment for "mechanism" terms; the court also appointed a technical advisor (Dkt. 71) and trial is scheduled for November 16, 2026. Intel does not contest venue but denies convenience (Dkt. 41).

Why the case matters. This is a notable instance of an inventor-controlled plaintiff pairing a previously litigated lead patent ('768, which survived two NVIDIA IPR institution denials) with four first-time-asserted family members against the two dominant server/AI chip vendors simultaneously. Intel and AMD filed a coordinated PTAB campaign challenging all five patents, and the Board instituted IPR2025-00913/914/915/916 on the '621, '034, '582, and '679 patents in November 2025 — but AMD then settled with ACS and was terminated from those IPRs, leaving Intel as the sole petitioner (PTAB Termination Order, IPR2025-00913 et al.; Intel also pursued IPR2025-00794/795 on the '768 patent). The petitions rely on 1990s academic prior art (Cornell's MultiMATLAB system, IBM RS/6000 SP manuals, MPI standard) and build on prior-IPR record from the NVIDIA case, while ACS has pressed discretionary-denial (Fintiv) arguments given the fast Albright schedule. The case therefore tests (1) whether early-2000s cluster-computing patents covering peer-to-peer parallelization can reach modern AI accelerators and server meshes, (2) the viability of joint-petitioner IPR strategy against inventor plaintiffs, and (3) Judge Albright's continued role as a magnet venue for patent cases, with AMD's mid-IPR settlement underscoring the leverage such suits carry against chipmakers. Note: while the Ex Parte docket page flags the case as "Closed," the authoritative docket entries and IPR filings through October 2025 show the Intel case pending and trial set for November 2026; any settlement after that date would not be reflected in the sources reviewed here.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with multiple parallel searches.

Good progress. I can see this case is active with IPR proceedings. Let me dig deeper into the docket and IPR details.

Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc. v. Intel Corporation

Case No. 7:24-cv-00245-ADA (W.D. Tex., Midland–Odessa Div., Judge Alan D. Albright)
Filed: 2024-09-26 | Status: Active (post-Markman; IPRs instituted; trial set for 2026-11-16)

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-09-26 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). ACS sued Intel in the W.D. Tex. Midland–Odessa Division, asserting five cluster-computing patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,333,768 ("'768"), 11,563,621 ("'621"), 11,570,034 ("'034"), 11,811,582 ("'582"), and 12,021,679 ("'679"), with claim charts attached as exhibits. (Unified Patents docket portal; RPX News, 2024-09-27; Bloomberg Law, 2024-09-27.) The accused instrumentalities are Intel Xeon Scalable Processors (Skylake-SP through 6th-gen), Habana AI accelerators (Goya, Gaudi, Gaudi 2, Gaudi 3), and servers/workstations incorporating them. ACS sought damages, willfulness, and an injunction. (RPX News, 2024-09-27.)
• 2024-09-26 — Related case. ACS filed a parallel suit against AMD the same day (7:24-cv-00244-ADA), asserting the same five patents. (Dkt. 16 Notice of Related Case, 2024-10-14; RPX News.)
• Campaign context. This is ACS's second campaign: it previously sued NVIDIA in D. Del. (1:19-cv-02032), which was dismissed/stipulated-settled in April 2023 after PTAB denials. ACS is inventor-controlled (Zvi Tannenbaum; co-inventor Dean Dauger). (RPX News, 2024-09-27; Mondaq reprint, 2024-10-21.)
• 2024-10 through 2024-11 — Intel appearances/pro hac vice. Intel entered appearances (Dkts. 21–23, 2024-11-18/20) and filed multiple pro hac vice motions for Munger, Tolles & Olson attorneys (Dkts. 24–29, 2024-11-22). ACS's pro hac vice counsel (Crowell & Moring's David Lindner/Jon Gurka; Barcelo Harrison & Walker's Reynaldo Barcelo) were admitted by order on 2024-10-16 (Dkts. 17–19).
• 2025-01-22 — First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 34). Per the FAC, ACS asserts claims 1 and 30 of the '034 patent (plus claims of the other four patents; e.g., claim 1 of '768, '621, '582, '679). (Ex Parte amended-complaint analysis; Intel's Answer at Dkt. 41.)
• 2025-02-05 — Intel's Answer & Counterclaims (Dkt. 41). Intel answered the FAC with a jury demand and filed counterclaims against ACS (denying infringement, pleading invalidity/unenforceability-type defenses and a declaratory-judgment counterclaim). (Justia docket; Unified Patents portal; PTAB Ex. 2023.)
• 2025-02-25 — ACS's Answer to Counterclaims (Dkt. 42). (Unified Patents portal.)

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• No motion to dismiss or transfer identified in available docket sources. The amended scheduling order set a 2025-02-19 deadline for transfer motions; no transfer motion appears in the retrieved docket records (Justia snapshot is partial). I could not confirm whether a § 1404(a) transfer motion or Rule 12 motion was ever filed — treat that as unverified.
• 2025-03 (approx.) — Discovery dispute over preliminary infringement contentions (Dkt. 55 ruling). Intel moved to strike/compel supplementation of ACS's Preliminary Infringement Contentions (PICs), arguing they failed to identify where "cluster node module" and "user interface" limitations are found. Judge Albright denied Intel's request to strike (relying on ACS's agreement to supplement PICs within 60 days of Intel's technical-document production), but ordered ACS within 21 days to amend its PICs to specifically identify the "cluster node module" ('768 cl. 4; '034 cl. 3; '679 cl. 3) and the "user interface" ('034 cl. 8; '679 cl. 8) and where those modules sit in the accused software/source code. (Order, WDTX 7:24-cv-00245 Dkt. 55, PDF via edtexweblog.) Intel's technical documents were due 2025-03-19 under the schedule.
• No stay-pending-IPR motion identified. Intel's IPR petitions were filed 2025-04-29 (see § 6); I found no evidence in the sources retrieved of a district-court stay motion, and none had been granted as of the latest records reviewed.
• No summary-judgment motions yet — consistent with a trial set for 2026-11-16 and a motions deadline around July 2026 (per the parallel AMD scheduling order).

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• 2025-03 — Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 54). Claim-construction exchanges: terms (2025-05-05), proposed constructions (2025-05-19), extrinsic evidence (2025-05-27), meet-and-confer (2025-06-02), Intel opening brief (2025-06-09), ACS response (2025-06-30), Intel reply (2025-07-14). (Amended Scheduling Order, Dkt. 54, filed as PTAB Ex. 2004 in IPR2025-00915.)
• 2025-08-18 — Markman Hearing (Dkt. 79). Judge Albright held the claim-construction hearing; per the minute entry, "STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL HEARD. WRITTEN ORDER FORTHCOMING." (Court Reporter Kristie Davis.) (Dkt. 79 NEF, 2025-08-18.) The substance of any written claim-construction order is not in the sources I retrieved — I cannot report the constructions adopted. The terms in play per the IPR petitions and discovery order include "peer-to-peer architecture," "cluster node module," and "user interface." Notably, the IPR institution decision on the '034 patent (2025-11-07) indicates the PTAB was considering its own construction of "peer-to-peer architecture" for the parallel proceeding.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• 2025-01-22 — ACS Preliminary Infringement Contentions served (per schedule), covering all five patents with charts for Xeon and Habana products. (Schedule; PTAB Ex. 1022, filed in IPR2025-00913.)
• 2025-03-19 — Intel technical-document production deadline (software and docs sufficient to show operation of accused products). ACS's agreement to supplement PICs within 60 days of this production was central to Judge Albright's denial of Intel's motion to strike (Dkt. 55).
• 2025-03 (late) — PIC supplementation order (Dkt. 55): as described above, ACS was ordered to pinpoint the accused "cluster node module" and "user interface" structures — a strategically important win for Intel in forcing ACS to commit to specific infringement theories early.
• 2025-04-09 — Intel's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions due (charts, § 101/112 arguments, prior art production).
• 2025-04-28 — Intel's Sotera stipulation (district-court notice). Intel stipulated to the Court that if the PTAB institutes IPR2025-00915 on the '621 patent, it will not pursue invalidity in this case on § 102/103 grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR — a classic tool to blunt Fintiv-based discretionary denial. (Intel's Notice of Sotera Stipulation for the '621 Patent, 2025-04-28.)
• Discovery cutoff ~2026-04-01; dispositive motions ~2026-07-10 (per the companion AMD scheduling order, which mirrors the Intel schedule; the Intel docket confirms trial 2026-11-16).

5. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial

• No trial has occurred. Jury trial is set for 2026-11-16 in Midland before Judge Albright (pretrial conference 2026-10-21), per the amended scheduling order and the Acting Director's 2025-09-19 IPR decision referencing the trial date. No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion exists.

6. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (IPRs) and Effect on Litigation

Prior history (NVIDIA campaign): IPR2021-00019 and IPR2021-00020 challenging the '768 patent were denied institution (2021-05-05); three other IPRs on family patents ('289, '612, '877) were instituted then terminated after ACS dismissed those patents in the NVIDIA case. (RPX News; PTAB petition Ex. 1041.)

New Intel/AMD IPRs (2025):

• '768 patent — no IPR instituted (discretionary denials). Intel filed IPR2025-00794 and IPR2025-00795 (2025-03-28; challenging claims 26–29, 35–39). AMD filed IPR2025-00862/00863. The Acting Director denied institution discretionarily (IPR2025-00795 closed 2025-08-14; rehearing from Director-review denial denied 2025-10-31). The IPR2025-00913 institution decision lists all four as denied or pending rehearing. Net effect: the '768 patent remains fully litigated in the district court without PTAB estoppel risk from an instituted IPR.
• '034, '679, '621, '582 — IPRs instituted. On 2025-04-29, Intel and AMD jointly filed IPR2025-00913 ('034, claims 1–30), IPR2025-00914 ('679), IPR2025-00915 ('621, claims 1–30), and IPR2025-00916 ('582), all based primarily on the 1996–97 "MultiMATLAB" prior art (Menon, Trefethen, IBM RS/6000 SP manuals, POE, and the MPI standard).
• 2025-09-19 — Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied ACS's request for discretionary denial (Fintiv) in all four cases and referred the petitions to the Board (Paper 13). Key reasoning: the patents were recently issued (no settled expectations), the § 325(d) arguments were unpersuasive, and the projected FWD date (2026-11-27) vs. trial date (2026-11-16) was a wash. (Director Decision, 2025-09-19.)
• 2025-11-07 — Institution granted in IPR2025-00913 ('034). The Board instituted review of all claims 1–30 of the '034 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Intel/AMD would prevail (Menon + Trefethen + RS6000 + POEref; MPIref added for claims 26/29). (Decision Granting Institution, Paper 16.)
• Institution granted in IPR2025-00914, -00915, -00916 as well — IP Verse (updated 2026-04-14) lists all four as "Trial Instituted." A consolidated scheduling order issued 2025-11-20; Final Written Decisions are due ~2026-11-27, roughly two weeks after the district-court trial date.
• Effect on litigation: The Sotera stipulations (at least for '621, and consistent with the joint-petition strategy) mean that if/when FWDs issue, Intel and AMD are estopped from re-litigating instituted § 102/103 grounds in the district court — effectively channeling the invalidity fight to the PTAB for the four instituted patents. The '768 patent, by contrast, has no instituted IPR, so Intel can press invalidity on it in W.D. Tex. without estoppel. No stay of the district court case was identified in the sources reviewed.

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• No settlement, dismissal, judgment, verdict, or appeal to date. The case is active, approximately 13 months out from the 2026-11-16 jury trial.
• Present posture: Markman hearing held (2025-08-18) with written claim-construction order pending/issued (not located in public sources); discovery ongoing (cutoff ~April 2026); four of five asserted patents under instituted IPRs at the PTAB (FWDs due 2026-11-27); '768 patent unencumbered by an instituted IPR.
• Caveat on aggregator data: one docket aggregator (Ex Parte/RPX Insight) labels the case "Closed," which is inconsistent with the 2025-09-19 Director Decision and 2025-11-07 institution decision describing the case as pending with a 2026-11-16 trial date; I treat that "Closed" flag as an aggregator error.

Sources: Justia docket (7:2024cv00245); Unified Patents docket portal; RPX Insight/News (2024-09-27); Bloomberg Law (2024-09-27); W.D. Tex. Dkt. 55 order (PDF via edtexweblog); Dkt. 54 Amended Scheduling Order (PTAB Ex. 2004); Dkt. 79 Markman minute entry (2025-08-18 NEF); PTAB Director Decision (IPR2025-00913/914/915/916, Paper 13, 2025-09-19); PTAB Institution Decision (IPR2025-00913, Paper 16, 2025-11-07); Intel's Sotera Notice (2025-04-28); IP Verse PTAB case pages (IPR2025-00795, -00913); DocketAlarm copies of PTAB papers.

Unverified items (flagged): the specific terms/constructions in any written Markman order; whether Intel ever filed a transfer motion or stay motion (none surfaced in the records retrieved); the precise scope of Intel's counterclaims beyond a declaratory-judgment posture.

I'll search multiple angles to locate actual press coverage of this litigation.

Initial results are mostly primary documents. Let me search specifically for press and trade coverage.

Let me search trade press and news outlets specifically.

Press & Analysis Coverage — What I Could (and Could Not) Find

Bottom line: I located essentially no independent news reporting on this specific case. Searching the case caption, the party names in combination with Intel/AMD, and the asserted patent numbers returned almost exclusively primary-source and litigation-database material — the W.D. Tex. docket via Justia and the Unified Patents litigation portal, the complaint/answer and PTAB exhibits hosted on USPTO PTAB and Docket Alarm, the RPX Empower and Patexia litigation databases, the Ex Parte AI-generated complaint analysis, and the Stanford NPE database entry for the companion AMD case. None of these are press articles; they are docket aggregators, filing repositories, or automated litigation analytics. I did not surface a single Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, JD Supra, or mainstream-outlet article reporting on ACS v. Intel in the searches I ran.

What this means, and a flag on the prior sections. The previously generated "Case Overview" section attributed several specific press items to this case — notably an RPX News piece titled "Inventor-Controlled Plaintiff Reboots Cluster Computing Campaign" (Sept. 27, 2024) and a Bloomberg Law report of the same date. My own searches retrieved RPX's litigation-document repository and its Empower case page (dated 09/26/2024, "Docket updated daily"), but I could not independently retrieve the full RPX news article or the Bloomberg Law article, so I cannot verify their headline wording, their characterization, or any figures they may have reported. Per the operating rules, I am not able to confirm or link those items as press coverage of this case. Treat the earlier references to RPX and Bloomberg Law coverage as unverified in this pass — they may well exist behind paywalls or on pages my searches did not surface, but I did not find them here and will not assert their contents.

On reported numbers and industry reaction. Consistently, I found no press-reported damages figure, settlement amount, or market-impact estimate for the Intel case. The only concrete monetary figure in any source I retrieved is procedural — the $405 complaint filing fee noted on the Justia docket. The AMD companion case (7:24-cv-00244-ADA) was described in ACS's PTAB papers as having proceeded to an AMD answer and scheduling order before the IPR terminations, but no outlet reporting a settlement amount or terms surfaced; the terminations appear only in PTAB filings, not in press. Analyst takes and executive statements — the kind of commentary the task asks me to distinguish from the court record — were likewise absent from the results, aside from strategic framing embedded in the parties' own filings (e.g., Intel's § 314(a)/national-security and Fintiv arguments in the IPR record, and ACS's advocacy against discretionary denial).

Assessment. This appears to be a case with substantial litigation-industry database presence (RPX, Unified Patents, Patexia, Stanford NPE, PTAB trackers) but very little journalistic coverage in the mainstream or premium patent press that my searches could reach. If the earlier sections' RPX and Bloomberg Law citations are accurate, those two outlets' 2024-09-27 filing-week items are likely the primary press record — but I could not verify them, and I found no follow-on coverage of the Markman ruling, the IPR institutions, or the AMD resolution. Anyone relying on a press summary here should verify the RPX and Bloomberg Law items directly (both are typically paywalled) before treating them as sourced.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
• This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
• Complaint analysis | 7:24-cv-00245 | Advanced Cluster Systems Inc v. Intel Corp | Ex Parte
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Intellectual Property Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• From: Director_Discretionary_Decision To: Lindner, David; Director_Discretionary_Decision cc: andy
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
• IPR2025-00913 | Intel Corp v. Advanced Cluster Systems Inc | Ex Parte
• Ex. 1042 | IPR2025-00794 | Intel Corp v. Advanced Cluster Systems Inc | Ex Parte

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 7:24-cv-00245-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Based on the docket (D.I. 1, 16, 17–19, 45, 79), the PTAB mandatory-notice papers in the parallel IPRs (IPR2025-00913/-00915, May 20, 2025), and firm/ECF records, ACS is represented by a Crowell & Moring team, a California boutique (Barcelo, Harrison & Walker), and Texas local counsel at Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC. I found no indication of ACS in-house counsel of record; ACS is a small company (founded by Zvi Tannenbaum) that appears to rely entirely on outside counsel.

Lead / substantive counsel

1. David P. Lindner — Lead Counsel (designated in PTAB proceedings; leads the district-court team)

• Firm: Crowell & Moring LLP, 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Ste. 3600, Chicago, IL 60611
• Admitted pro hac vice in this case by order dated Oct. 16, 2024 (D.I. 18); designated Lead Counsel for ACS in the PTAB IPRs (IPR2025-00913/-00915 Mandatory Notices, May 20, 2025)
• Note: Crowell & Moring IP partner; also leads ACS's parallel patent cases and IPR defenses against Intel and AMD (IPR2025-00794/-00795/-00913/-00915), including arguing before Judge Albright at the 8/18/2025 Markman hearing (D.I. 79).

2. Jon W. Gurka — Backup/Of Counsel-level litigation counsel

• Firm: Crowell & Moring LLP, 3 Park Plaza, Floor 20, Irvine, CA 92614
• Admitted pro hac vice Oct. 16, 2024 (D.I. 19); designated Backup Counsel in the PTAB IPRs
• Note: Experienced IP litigator (Crowell & Moring partner) focused on patent infringement and IPR work; part of the ACS/Intel and ACS/AMD litigation team.

3. Reynaldo C. Barcelo — Backup/Local (California) counsel

• Firm: Barcelo, Harrison & Walker, LLP, 2901 W. Coast Hwy, Ste. 200, Newport Beach, CA 92633
• Admitted pro hac vice Oct. 16, 2024 (D.I. 17); designated Backup Counsel in the PTAB IPRs; on the court's ECF service list (D.I. 79)
• Note: Founding partner of the Newport Beach IP boutique; patent trial lawyer with substantial Hatch-Waxman and ITC/patent litigation experience; handles the ACS family of cases alongside Crowell.

Texas local counsel (W.D. Tex. required for PHV admissions)

4. Mark D. Siegmund — Local Counsel (Texas)

• Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC ("CJSJ"), Bridgeview Center, 7901 Fish Pond Rd., 2nd Floor, Waco, TX 76710
• Filed the Notice of Related Case (D.I. 16, Oct. 14, 2024) and ACS's Answer to Intel's Counterclaims (D.I. 45, Feb. 25, 2025); on ECF service list (D.I. 79)
• Note: Veteran W.D. Tex. patent litigator (moved to CJSJ from Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love in 2023); has represented DynaEnergetics, Intellectual Ventures, and others in high-stakes patent cases in Albright's court.

5. William D. Ellerman — Local Counsel (Texas)

• Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, Waco, TX
• Filed the original Complaint on Sept. 26, 2024 (D.I. 1); on ECF service list (D.I. 79)
• Note: Texas IP litigator at CJSJ; handles filing and day-to-day local-court matters in the ACS/Intel and ACS/AMD cases.

Additional Crowell & Moring attorneys on the ECF service list (D.I. 79)

The Markman-hearing minute entry (D.I. 79, 8/18/2025) confirms the following Crowell & Moring attorneys receive case notices as counsel of record for ACS, though the docket I reviewed does not show the full scope of their substantive appearances:

• Andrew Mcelligott (amcelligott@crowell.com)
• Kainoa Asuega (kasuega@crowell.com)
• Michelle Wang (michellewang@crowell.com)

Caveats

• The district-court docket does not contain a single document formally captioning "Lead Attorney for Plaintiff"; the lead designation above comes from ACS's PTAB Mandatory Notices (IPR2025-00913/-00915, filed May 20, 2025), where Lindner is Lead Counsel and Gurka and Barcelo are Backup Counsel, plus the PHV orders (D.I. 17–19).
• I could not access the PACER docket sheet beyond the free sources (Justia, Unified Patents, PTAB exhibits) to confirm every appearance, and no attorney for ACS appears to have withdrawn.
• No filings in this case are sealed that would affect counsel identification; all counsel above are publicly on the docket.

Key sources: D.I. 1 (Complaint, filed by Ellerman), D.I. 16 (Notice of Related Case, Siegmund), D.I. 17–19 (PHV orders for Barcelo, Lindner, Gurka), D.I. 45 (Answer to Counterclaims, Siegmund), D.I. 79 (Markman minute entry w/ ECF notice list), PTAB IPR2025-00913/-00915 Patent Owner Mandatory Notices and Power of Attorney (May 20, 2025), Justia docket for 7:2024cv00245, Unified Patents portal for 7:24-cv-00245.

I'll research Intel's counsel of record in this case using multiple search strategies.

Good start — I'm finding Intel's appearance docket. Let me dig deeper into firm affiliations and roles.

Now let me confirm the Munger Tolles team and Kevin Yang's affiliation.

Based on the available docket and firm records, here is Intel's counsel of record in Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, No. 7:24-cv-00245-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Intel is represented by a two-firm team: Morrison & Foerster LLP (Texas-licensed local/lead counsel who file in the W.D. Tex.) and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (admitted pro hac vice, handling the substantive patent work). The parties' service list confirms the split: counsel were served at Intel-ACS@mto.com and BNash@mofo.com (ACS Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Ex. 1022 in IPR2025-00913).

Morrison & Foerster LLP

1. Brian C. Nash — Lead Texas counsel / local counsel; Practice Group Chair, MoFo Global IP Litigation Group; Managing Partner, MoFo Austin

• Office: 300 Colorado Street, Suite 1800, Austin, TX 78701 (TX Bar No. 24051103)
• Filed Intel's extension of time (Dkt. 20, Oct. 24, 2024) and all six pro hac vice motions for the Munger Tolles attorneys (Dkts. 24–29, Nov. 22, 2024). A registered patent attorney with an engineering background; bio notes 200+ cases litigated in Texas alone, including a dispositive claim-construction win before Judge Albright for a Fortune 50 semiconductor company on an FPGA patent and a final written decision holding all claims unpatentable in an IPR for a Fortune 50 semiconductor client (MoFo bio; Legal 500).
• Source: Justia docket; mofo.com/people/brian-nash.

2. Heather E. Takahashi — Counsel (MoFo, Austin)

• Office: 300 Colorado Street, Suite 1800, Austin, TX 78701
• Appeared for Intel on Nov. 18, 2024 (Dkt. 21) and signed Intel's Answer to the Amended Complaint with jury demand and counterclaims (Dkt. 41, entered Feb. 5, 2025). Previously worked with Nash on Intel's Sotera stipulation in IPR2023-00864 (Intel v. Iida) in W.D. Tex., evidencing ongoing Intel/MoFo district-court-IPR coordination.
• Sources: Justia docket; Unified Patents docket portal; Docket Alarm exhibit (IPR2023-00864, Ex. 1047).

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP

All six MTO attorneys were admitted pro hac vice via motions filed by Brian Nash on Nov. 22, 2024 (Dkts. 24–29). Firm websites and the court's CM/ECF notices confirm the MTO affiliation.

3. Kevin Han Yang — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: 560 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 (kevin.yang@mto.com)
• Appeared Nov. 18, 2024 (Dkt. 22); was Intel's point of contact on Judge Albright's chambers emails regarding Markman scheduling (PTAB Ex. 2006 in IPR2025-00915, showing his MTO signature block). Intellectual-property litigator at MTO.
• Sources: Justia docket; PTAB exhibit.

4. Faye Paul Teller — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: MTO (Los Angeles/San Francisco); appeared Nov. 20, 2024 (Dkt. 23). Law360's MTO attorney profile lists her on this case. Experienced patent trial lawyer at MTO (former Irell & Manella partner).
• Sources: Justia docket (Dkt. 23); Law360 firm profile.

5. Gregory P. Stone — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: MTO, Los Angeles. Motion to appear pro hac vice granted via Dkt. 27. MTO's senior appellate and trial partner (former chair of MTO's litigation practice; argued before the U.S. Supreme Court), providing appellate-grade firepower.
• Source: Justia docket (Dkt. 27).

6. Ted T. Kang — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: MTO (San Francisco/Los Angeles). Pro hac vice motion at Dkt. 29. Law360 lists him on this case; MTO IP litigator with semiconductor/electronics experience.
• Sources: Justia docket (Dkt. 29); Law360.

7. Peter E. Gratzinger — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: MTO (Los Angeles). Pro hac vice motion at Dkt. 28. MTO partner focusing on complex commercial and IP litigation.
• Source: Justia docket (Dkt. 28).

8. Evan J. Mann — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: MTO. Pro hac vice motion at Dkt. 26. MTO associate/counsel-level IP litigator.
• Source: Justia docket (Dkt. 26).

9. L. Ashley Aull — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: MTO. Pro hac vice motion at Dkt. 25. Law360 lists her on the case; MTO IP litigator (former Winston & Strawn).
• Sources: Justia docket (Dkt. 25); Law360.

10. Adam W. Kwon — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Office: MTO. Pro hac vice motion at Dkt. 24. MTO IP litigator.
• Source: Justia docket (Dkt. 24).

Caveats

• Lead counsel designation: The docket entries I retrieved do not expressly label a single "lead trial counsel." Functionally, Nash (TX-licensed) is the attorney of record who filed in the W.D. Tex. and signed the extension motion; Takahashi signed the Answer; the MTO team handles the substantive patent work and PTAB coordination. If the court's standing order required a formal lead/local counsel designation, it would appear in the docket's designation entries, which I could not fully retrieve here.
• In-house counsel: Intel's complaint mentions Shireen Bacon, Associate General Counsel/Director of Patents at Intel, but only as a person with knowledge (witness category), not as counsel of record; I found no in-house appearance on the docket.
• Coverage date: The appearance docket is current through roughly late 2025 (markman minute entry Aug. 18, 2025, Dkt. 79); any attorney substitutions, withdrawals, or later appearances after that date would not be captured in the sources reviewed. No filings in this case appeared to be sealed on the appearance issue.
• Unverified item: "Of counsel" designations within MTO/MoFo (partner vs. of counsel) are inferred from firm profiles and Law360, not from the court's docket itself.