Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Equil IP Holdings LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting. Note the metadata frames this as an IPR at the PTAB, so I'll verify both the PTAB proceeding and any parallel district court action.

Good foundation. Now let me pin down the '575 patent itself, the IPR outcomes and dates, and the settlement mechanics.

Let me verify the parallel district court track, the reexamination, and the third IPR's denial.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (Cambridge, MA; NASDAQ: AKAM) is the world's largest content delivery network and a major cloud/edge-computing and web-security provider; in this dispute it appears as both an accused infringer and a counter-plaintiff. Its adversary, Equil IP Holdings LLC, is a Delaware limited-liability company with no apparent operations of its own — a patent-enforcement vehicle that acquired the "Equilibrium Patents" by assignment on December 17, 2021 from Equilibrium Technologies / Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Equilibrium, and whose manager is Sean Barger, the founder of Equilibrium. This is therefore not a classic pure-NPE fact pattern: Equil is the monetization arm for the patent portfolio of a genuine (if small) Sausalito, CA operating company whose MediaRich Server / MediaRich 6 on-the-fly media-rendering products were sold to customers including Walmart, Disney, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros., The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the U.S. Department of Energy. The two sides had a prior commercial relationship — Equilibrium participated in Akamai's "Technology Partner Program," and Akamai's own patent prosecutions repeatedly cited the Equilibrium patents (more than twenty Akamai-filed applications, per the amended complaint, Ex. 1016 in the parallel IPR), which underpins Equil's willfulness theory.

Accused technology and patents. In the co-pending district court action, Equil accused Akamai's Intelligent Edge platform — specifically services built on Image & Video Manager and Adaptive Media Delivery, i.e., Akamai's edge-side image/video optimization and transcoding features — of infringing three patents from one priority family traced to Application No. 09/425,326 (filed October 21, 1999): (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,792,575, "Automated processing and delivery of media to web servers" (issued Sept. 14, 2004; inventors Samaniego, Offner, Thewlis, Boyd; 9 claims) — the oldest and broadest member, claiming a process of parsing a web page for proprietary media tags, generating an optimized web media object on demand, caching it, converting the proprietary tag to standard HTML, and serving the modified page; (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,495,242 (divisional; issued July 23, 2013) — adaptive/transcoded media delivery claims; and (3) U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745 (continuation; issued Oct. 13, 2015) — claims to developing transformation operations that optimize media playback across multiple device types by reusing a previously generated intermediate "rendition" rather than regenerating it. The technical through-line is the modern CDN/edge practice of generating device-optimized media "on the fly" and caching the result. Notably, the fight ran in both directions: Akamai separately sued Equilibrium (Automated Media Processing Solutions) in D. Del. on U.S. Patent No. 8,543,667 ("Policy-Based Content Insertion") over Equilibrium's TweekIT product.

Procedural posture and venue. The case here, IPR2023-00329, was filed January 10, 2023 alongside two companion petitions — IPR2023-00330 (the '242) and IPR2023-00332 (the '745). The Board instituted trial on the '575 on July 21, 2023 and then terminated the proceeding on October 30, 2023 on the parties' joint motion under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), before any final written decision, with the settlement agreement kept business-confidential (Paper 16; panel of APJs Lebovitz, Weinschenk and Fenick). Akamai was represented by Ropes & Gray (James L. Davis, Jr., Scott McKeown, Daniel W. Richards); Equil by Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza (Christopher T. Bovenkamp), with Sterne Kessler and Mauriel Kapouytian Woods also appearing. The companion '242 IPR was likewise terminated on settlement in late 2023, while IPR2023-00332 (the '745) was institution-denied. The parallel litigation, Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00677-RGA (D. Del., filed May 24, 2022, Judge Richard G. Andrews), has an unusual trajectory: the '575 and '242 were dismissed with prejudice (consistent with the IPR settlements), leaving only the '745, which proceeded to claim construction argued April 18, 2024 and decided July 2, 2024 (D.I. 135), where Judge Andrews applied Finjan v. SonicWall to require that a single "host computer" perform all claimed steps. Venue matters here in the familiar D. Del. sense — it is the nation's busiest patent district, Equil IP Holdings is itself Delaware-organized, and the mirror-image Akamai-filed case (22-1531) was coordinated before the same judge, giving both sides one forum and one Rule 16 scheduling order.

Why it is notable. Three things stand out. First, no tribunal ever reached the merits of the '575: the IPR settled post-institution but pre-final-decision and the district court claims were dismissed with prejudice, so the 1999-priority claims — cited by 200+ later patents and allegedly material prior art against Akamai's own applications — remain intact and judicially untested, which is significant for any edge/CDN operator facing similar assertions. Second, the case illustrates the "parallel PTO proceeding as stay lever" pattern: after the IPRs resolved, Judge Andrews stayed both Delaware cases on February 19, 2025 pending ex parte reexamination and administratively closed them (D.I. 194 in 22-677; D.I. 80 in 22-1531), expressly retaining jurisdiction and instructing the parties to notify the court when reexamination concludes — a procedural limbo rather than a merits loss for either side. Third, the litigation produced a notable inventorship/inequitable-conduct side fight: Akamai alleged that Barger's 2023 petition to correct inventorship of the '009 patent (adding himself as an inventor, which removed that patent as prior art in the IPR) constituted inequitable conduct, and Judge Andrews addressed those defenses in orders dated March 6, 2024 (D.I. 75) and February 14, 2025 (D.I. 192), a twist that tied the PTAB outcome directly to the district court pleadings.

Sourcing caveats. The IPR termination facts, panel, counsel and dates are drawn from the Board's October 30, 2023 termination decision (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00329/); the patent sketch from the '575 specification (Google Patents, US006792575B1) and the February 14, 2024 and 2025 Delaware orders. I could not independently verify who requested the ex parte reexamination(s), the current status of the reexaminations, or the terms of the confidential settlement agreement, and I did not confirm from PACER whether IPR2023-00330 was instituted before it settled. Note also a mismatch worth flagging: the case metadata labels this matter "settled," which accurately describes IPR2023-00329, whereas the underlying district court case was not settled on the merits — it was stayed and administratively closed pending reexamination and remains subject to reopening. The '745 Markman opinion and post-2024 docket entries should be re-verified against PACER/CourtListener before reliance.

I'll research this case carefully. Note that the case number IPR2023-00329 is a PTAB proceeding number, so I need to check whether there's an underlying district court action and how the IPR relates to it.

I have strong initial results. This is a coordinated dispute: the PTAB IPR (IPR2023-00329) plus a Delaware district court action. Let me dig into the district court docket, the sibling IPRs, and the final disposition.

重要框架说明

所引用的案号——IPR2023-00329——是PTAB的双方复审，而非地区法院的民事案件。提到的"专利侵权诉讼"是特拉华州的相关民事诉讼：

• Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.，第1:22-cv-00677-RGA号（D. Del.）——Equil的侵权诉讼（主张'745、'242和'575专利）。
• Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Equilibrium，第1:22-cv-01531-RGA号（D. Del.）——Akamai的反诉（主张'667专利）。

两案均由Andrews法官协调审理，并安排合并陪审团审判。IPR2023-00329是Akamai针对'575专利发起的PTAB一方。以下按时间顺序按时叙述；对于可核实之处，我引用了案卷条目。

---

1. 起诉与初步诉状

关于第一份答辩状/反诉状：我无法核实Akamai在22-677案中答辩状和宣告式判决反诉的具体案卷号和提交日期；可以确定的是，Akamai提出了无效/不侵权抗辩（后来事实上的争议围绕不当行为/手脚不干净和§325(d)/发明人资格问题展开）。修正起诉状（2022-08-03）使得2022-07-22的驳回动议实际上失去意义。

---

2. 审前实质动议

PTAB（2023年1月10日）： Akamai通过Ropes & Gray（James L. Davis, Jr.；Scott McKeown；Daniel W. Richards）提交了三份复审请求：

• IPR2023-00329——'575专利（权利要求1）
• IPR2023-00330——'242专利（权利要求9）
• IPR2023-00332——'745专利（权利要求1–7）

2023-01-26送达了提交日通知。Equil的PTAB律师为Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox（Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Richard M. Bemben, Michael D. Specht）、Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza（Christopher T. Bovenkamp）和Mauriel Kapouytian Woods。

地区法院（2023-02-03）——修订后的日程命令：

• 事实证据开示截止日：2024-06-14；文件开示基本完成：2024-02-08
• 初步侵权权利要求书：2023-05-05；无效内容：2023-06-05
• Markman听证会：2024-04-18
• 初次专家报告：2024-06-28；反驳报告：2024-08-09；专家证言录取截止日：2024-09-27
• 处理性动议截止日：2024-11-07
• 庭前会议：2025-03-14；8天陪审团审判：2025-03-24（两案合并审理）
• 强制亲自调解

发明人资格冲突（2023年）： IPR提出了关于'009专利的发明人资格问题。Equil在USPTO提出申请（37 C.F.R. § 1.324）以更正发明人，予以批准（作为Equil证据2012提交），双方就§325(d)以及Samaniego的现有技术地位进行了初步回复/再回复简报。这一人为的发明人资格争议直接影响了Akamai关于Samaniego作为印刷出版物的论点。

PTAB裁决（2023-07-21）——同一合议庭（Lebovitz, Weinschenk, Fenick）：

• IPR2023-00329（'575）：启动审理。
• IPR2023-00330（'242）：启动审理。
• IPR2023-00332（'745）：拒绝启动——合议庭认定Akamai未就任何被挑战权利要求确立合理胜诉可能性。Sterne Kessler将此宣传为一次胜利。

不当行为/手脚不干净——2024-03-06判决意见： Andrews法官驳回了不当行为/手脚不干净抗辩，认为其未能充分指控被指控的虚假陈述如何影响专利有效性，且欺诈指控未满足第9(b)条的特定性要求（据报道见Delaware Business Court Insider，案件摘要发表于2024-03-18）。

未决的简易判决： 我未发现任何作出裁决的处置性动议——日程将处置性动议安排在2024-11-07，但案件在庭前会议前即被中止。

---

3. Markman / 权利要求解释

• 听证会：2024-04-18（3小时，无证人）。
• 意见：2024-07-02，Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Techs., Inc.，第22-677-RGA号，D.I. 135（对'667和'745专利共同作出的权利要求解释）。

关键裁决（对双方均有重大影响）：

• '745专利，权利要求1——合议庭同意Andrews法官的观点，即**"方法在主机中……"具有限定作用**（双方在口头辩论中均同意）；序言的其余部分不具有限定作用。适用Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc.，84 F.4th 963（Fed. Cir. 2023），以及Salazar和Traxcell，法院认定权利要求1要求在主机中由至少一台计算机执行所有方法步骤。这缩小了Equil的权利主张（支持Akamai的非侵权抗辩）。
• '667专利——就"server"术语，法院同意Akamai的意见，认定"服务器"可以是一个程序（即两个软件服务器可以位于同一可编程处理器上），驳回了Equilibrium关于两个服务器必须是独立远程计算机的论点。

---

4. 具有战略意义的证据开示里程碑

• 文件开示基本完成，2024-02-08；事实证据开示截止，2024-06-14。
• 专家报告于2024年6月至9月进行；专家证言录取截止于2024-09-27。
• 最具战略意义的"证据开示"事件是PTAB的平行程序：Akamai的复审证据——包括Madisetti声明（Ex. 1003）、Samaniego（Ex. 1007）、Tso（Ex. 1004）、Huang（Ex. 1005）——以及Equil的初步回复证据（Jones声明，Ex. 2001；'009专利发明人资格更正决定，Ex. 2012）在22-677/22-1531诉讼与IPR之间同时进行。专利有效性由此获得了两条独立的检验途径。

---

5. 审判、裁决和审后动议

没有进行审判，没有裁决，也没有审后动议（JMOL/新审/律师费）。 审判原定于2025-03-24进行，但从未开庭——案件在庭前会议和审判前即被中止并行政关闭。

---

6. 最终处置/当前状态——平行PTAB程序及其影响

（a）PTAB和解——IPR2023-00329和IPR2023-00330

• 2023-10-24： 合议庭授权提出联合终止动议。
• 2023-10-26： 双方提出联合终止动议。在IPR2023-00330中，双方陈述和解"解决了双方之间关于'242专利的所有相关争议，包括本程序以及专利权人在相关地区法院诉讼中关于'242专利的主张"，并且"预计双方之间不会就'242专利进行进一步诉讼"。
• 2023-10-30——IPR2023-00329的终止决定（Paper 16）：在启动后基于和解而终止；和解协议（Ex. 2015）被作为商业机密处理，并根据35 U.S.C. § 317(b)与'575专利文件分开保存。未作出最终书面决定，也未对实质问题作出裁决（"本命令不构成最终书面决定"）。
• IPR2023-00330按同样方式终止（和解，保密）。

对地区法院诉讼的影响： 这次2023年10月的和解从特拉华州案件中移除了'575和'242专利——Markman意见指出Equil主张了'745专利"以及此后已被驳回的另外两项专利（参见D.I. 62）。因此，22-677案收窄为仅剩'745专利。

（b）地区法院中止及行政关闭（2025年）

在'745专利的IPR被拒后，Akamai转向了单方复审。Akamai请求中止地区法院诉讼等待复审结果，法官准予中止：

• 2025-02-19： 两案均中止，待USPTO单方复审结果——22-677案D.I. 194；22-1531案D.I. 80。（2025-02-14的法院意见似乎与中止/复审裁定有关；我将这一关联视为推断。）
• 随后的命令：两案均"行政关闭"，指示双方"在复审程序解决后立即通知法院，以便重新打开案件并采取其他适当行动"。这是一项程序性关闭，而非基于实质问题的判决；管辖权得到保留，未对侵权、无效或损害赔偿作出认定。

（c）'745专利复审结果——Equil胜诉

• Akamai提交了单方复审第90/019,461号，针对'745专利，主张其因相对相关专利的显而易见的重复专利而无效。
• 2025-07-08，Sterne Kessler宣布USPTO维持了所有被挑战权利要求的有效性——这是对Equil有利的第二次实体问题胜利（此前IPR2023-00332启动被拒）。

---

汇总表

---

当前状态（截至2026-09-29）

• IPR2023-00329（'575专利）：终止——和解（最终）。 这与案件元数据中的"settled"状态相符。未对实质问题作出裁决。
• 地区法院（22-677 / 22-1531）：无实体判决。 自2025年2月起行政关闭，等待USPTO复审；由于2025年'745复审已结束（权利要求维持有效），该关闭理论上可能被解除，但我未发现任何经核实的报道表明任一案件在2025年中期至2026年间被重新启动或和解。据报道，22-677案在关闭前已接近审判（开庭日2025-03-24）。
• 和解： 唯一记录在案的结案文书是2023年10月，仅涵盖'575和'242专利的PTAB和解；'745专利的主张似乎未和解，只是被中止。

注意事项/未核实事项

• IPR2023-00329中提起的具体权利要求（根据修正起诉状，我将其理解为权利要求1）——我未直接核实请求书。
• 第一份答辩状/反诉状的日期和案卷号（22-677案）。
• 驳回动议的裁定（很可能因修正起诉状而失去意义）。
• 2024-03-06和2025-02-14意见的具体案卷号（2024-03-06意见与不当行为/手脚不干净裁定相对应；2025-02-14意见似乎与复审中止有关，根据PatSnap引用的法院意见页面——ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/equil-ip-holdings-llc-v-akamai-technologies-inc）。
• 行政关闭命令的确切日期及其案卷号（PatSnap引用PACER：22-677案D.I. 194；22-1531案D.I. 80）。
• 地区法院案件是否曾被重新启动：我无法核实2025年之后的任何进展；根据已有记录，当前状态为行政关闭。

I'll research this IPR proceeding to identify counsel of record for the petitioner (Akamai Technologies, Inc.).

Let me get more detail on petitioner Akamai's IPR counsel and the related district court filings.

Let me confirm the petitioner's mandatory notices and any additional IPR counsel.

Bottom line

There is a threshold characterization issue you should know about before using this list: IPR2023-00329 is an inter partes review, not a district court infringement action, so the parties are styled "Petitioner" (Akamai Technologies, Inc.) and "Patent Owner" (Equil IP Holdings LLC) — not plaintiff/defendant. The case metadata supplied to me lists Akamai as the plaintiff-side party, and Akamai is indeed the party that initiated this proceeding. So the answer below covers Akamai's counsel of record. Because your question says "plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case," I've also included the actual infringement plaintiff's counsel roster from the parallel Delaware action (Equil sued Akamai), in case that is what you intended.

---

A. Akamai Technologies, Inc. — party that filed IPR2023-00329 ("plaintiff" side per case metadata)

The Board's own Termination Decision (Paper 16, Oct. 30, 2023) identifies the counsel of record for Petitioner Akamai:

• Service address of record in the IPR: akamai-equil-ropes-ipr-service@ropesgray.com (per the Certificate of Service filed by Patent Owner in the companion IPR2023-00330).
• Institution & disposition: Trial was instituted July 21, 2023 (Paper 10); the proceeding was terminated on joint motion after settlement on Oct. 30, 2023 (Paper 16), before any final written decision. Settlement agreement filed as Ex. 2015 and kept confidential.
• Also on Akamai's side in the parallel Delaware litigation (not confirmed as IPR counsel of record): James R. Batchelder and Colin P. Dunn (Ropes & Gray), plus Delaware local counsel Adam W. Poff, Robert M. Vrana, and Alexis N. Stombaugh (Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE). I am flagging these as related, but not documented in the IPR record — do not treat them as IPR counsel of record.

---

B. Equil IP Holdings LLC — the actual infringement plaintiff (D. Del. C.A. No. 22-677-RGA)

For completeness, the plaintiff that sued Akamai for infringement of the '575 patent (and its siblings) was represented by:

---

Sourcing and caveats

• Primary documents: PTAB Termination Decision, IPR2023-00329, Paper 16 (Oct. 30, 2023) (lists counsel of record for both sides); Patent Owner's Certificate of Service / Updated Exhibit List and Updated Power of Attorney in the companion IPR2023-00330 (which lists Petitioner's service contacts as "James L. Davis (Lead Counsel)," "Scott McKeown (Back-Up Counsel)," "Daniel W. Richards (Back-Up Counsel)"); First Amended Complaint, Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00677-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2022); Delaware Business Court Insider case digest for the same action.
• Not verified / do not treat as fact: I could not retrieve Akamai's original Petition mandatory notices or power of attorney for IPR2023-00329 specifically; the counsel identification above rests on the Board's termination decision caption and the cross-referenced -00330 service list. I also could not confirm whether any in-house Akamai attorneys (e.g., from Akamai's legal department) were listed as back-up counsel.
• No sealed-material issue: counsel names here come from public PTAB filings; the settlement agreement (Ex. 2015) is the confidential item, not the appearances.
• Firm/office locations are drawn from the signature blocks and service lists in the filings cited; individual attorney registration numbers are given only where they appeared in the public PTAB documents.

If by "plaintiff" you meant Akamai, use Section A (Ropes & Gray — Davis, McKeown, Richards). If you meant the infringement plaintiff, use Section B (Potter Anderson; Mauriel Kapouytian Woods; Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza; Sterne Kessler for PTAB).

I'll research the defense side of the parallel Delaware infringement action (where Akamai is the defendant) and cross-check the PTAB respondent side.

Good — I've confirmed the defense roster. Let me verify docket-level appearances, firm details, and whether Akamai in-house counsel appeared.

Let me verify the remaining defense-side names and the IPR-specific Patent Owner counsel of record.

Framing: which "defendant"?

In IPR2023-00329 there is no plaintiff or defendant — the parties are Petitioner (Akamai) and Patent Owner/respondent (Equil). The phrase "defendant" only fits the parallel infringement action, Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00677-RGA (D. Del.), where Akamai is the defendant. The prior "Plaintiff representatives" section already covered Akamai's IPR counsel (Section A) and Equil's side (Section B), so this section focuses on the Akamai defense roster in the district court — the actual defendant-side counsel of record — and flags the respondent-side IPR counsel only where it differs from what was already listed.

---

A. Defendant Akamai Technologies, Inc. — counsel of record, D. Del. No. 22-677-RGA

Lead / trial counsel — Ropes & Gray LLP

Not a district-court appearance (flag): Scott A. McKeown (Ropes & Gray, Washington, D.C.) is Akamai's IPR back-up counsel in IPR2023-00329/-00330 but does not appear on the 22-677 defense roster in the DBCI/docket records I retrieved. Treat him as PTAB-only unless a later PHV motion says otherwise. Similarly, Jolene L. Wang (Ropes & Gray, New York) appears on Akamai's service list in the coordinated case 22-1531 but I did not confirm a PHV appearance in 22-677.

Delaware local counsel — Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP (Wilmington)

Firm-level note: Young Conaway's IP section is also staffed by Anne Shea Gaza and Pilar G. Kraman, who are the firm's Chambers/IP Stars-ranked Delaware patent lawyers and frequent co-signatories on Young Conaway Akamai filings — but I found no indication they appeared in 22-677. Do not attribute them to this case without a docket check.

In-house counsel

I found no Akamai in-house attorney listed on the 22-677 docket, in the DBCI appearance entry, or on the Rule 26 service lists. All appearances documented are Ropes & Gray + Young Conaway. If Akamai legal-department counsel participated, they did so behind the scenes.

---

B. The respondent side in IPR2023-00329 (Equil as Patent Owner) — cross-reference only

If your "defendant" is meant in the IPR sense (Patent Owner), the roster is the one already given in the prior section's Section B, which I re-verified: Christopher T. Bovenkamp (Reg. No. 44,551, Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, Dallas) as Lead Counsel and Ararat Kapouytian (Reg. No. 40,044, Mauriel Kapouytian Woods, New York/San Francisco) as Back-up Counsel, per Equil's Power of Attorney and Mandatory Notices in the companion IPR2023-00330 (Jan. 30–31, 2023), with Jason A. Fitzsimmons (Reg. No. 65,367), Richard M. Bemben and Michael D. Specht of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (Washington, D.C.) also appearing. That is a genuine addition to the earlier summary: the -00330 mandatory notices confirm Bovenkamp/Kapouytian as the appointed PTAB counsel of record, while Sterne Kessler is the substantive PTAB team. In the district court, Equil's lead was David E. Moore (Potter Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington) with Mauriel Kapouytian Woods and Charhon Callahan as of counsel.

---

C. Verification trail

• D.I. 7 (Dec. 2, 2022) — Akamai's PHV motion for Batchelder, Davis, Richards; So Ordered same day by Judge Andrews; PHV counsel added to ECF noticing Dec. 5, 2022 (docket text via Unified Patents / Patexia dockets for 1:22-cv-00677).
• D.I. 9–10 (July 22, 2022) — Akamai's Rule 12(b)(6)/(b)(7) motion to dismiss and opening brief, signed by Adam W. Poff — confirms Poff as Delaware counsel from the outset.
• Feb. 3, 2023 Rule 16 minute entry — "Counsel for Akamai Technologies, Inc.: A. Poff."
• D.I. 26/27 (Apr. 28 / May 1, 2023) — stipulated protective order filed by Poff in both 22-677 and 22-1531.
• Delaware Business Court Insider case digest, published 2024-03-18 (for the Mar. 6, 2024 inequitable-conduct opinion) — the authoritative appearance line: "for defendant: Adam W. Poff, Robert M. Vrana, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; James R. Batchelder, James L. Davis, Jr., Daniel W. Richards, Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA; Colin P. Dunn, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY" (https://www.law.com/delbizcourt/case-digests/).
• 22-1531 D.I. 73 (July 2024 service notice) — Young Conaway signature block "Adam W. Poff (No. 3990), Robert M. Vrana (No. 5666), Alexis N. Stombaugh (No. 6702) … Attorneys for Akamai Technologies, Inc." (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.80844/gov.uscourts.ded.80844.73.0.pdf).
• Markman opinion, D.I. 135 (July 2, 2024) — reflects Akamai's winning Finjan argument (D.I. 102 at 5 is Akamai's brief); (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79015/gov.uscourts.ded.79015.135.0.pdf).
• Poff biography — https://www.youngconaway.com/Adam-W-Poff/; Stombaugh biography — https://www.youngconaway.com/content/uploads/2022/07/astom.pdf.

D. Caveats

• The case is administratively closed and stayed (D.I. 194, Feb. 19, 2025, pending ex parte reexamination). I found no withdrawal notices or substitutions, but because the docket has been dormant since early 2025, counsel should be re-verified on PACER before any filing or service. Firm affiliations are as of the 2024 filings; lateral moves after that are possible and I did not screen for them.
• I could not retrieve the 22-677 docket sheet directly from PACER (paywalled); the appearance data above comes from CourtListener/Justia RECAP documents, the DBCI digest, and Unified Patents/Patexia docket text.
• I did not independently confirm which Ropes & Gray attorney argued the April 18, 2024 Markman hearing, or which attorney argued the July 21, 2023 IPR2023-00332 institution denial. Those are inferences from the counsel-of-record lists, not verified facts.
• Nothing here is sealed — counsel names are public; the confidential item in this dispute remains the IPR settlement agreement (Ex. 2015 in IPR2023-00329).