BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC

A threshold framing note: IPR2022-01528 is not itself a district-court infringement suit—it is an inter partes review before the PTAB (the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board). It is, however, the pivotal validity battle within a parallel infringement action between two large operating companies in the warehouse-club space. The patent owner is Walmart Apollo, LLC, a Delaware LLC and Walmart Inc. subsidiary (Bentonville, AR) that holds and asserts Walmart's retail-technology patents; in the underlying suit Walmart Apollo is joined by co-plaintiff Sam's West, Inc. (the Sam's Club operating entity, described in the complaint as exclusive licensee). The petitioner/accused infringer is BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Westborough, MA, and one of the nation's largest warehouse-club chains. Neither side is an NPE or university—this is a retailer-vs.-retailer enforcement campaign over mobile self-checkout.

Underlying infringement dispute and accused technology. On March 22, 2022, Sam's West and Walmart Apollo sued BJ's in Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-GJK (later -WWB-RMN), Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, before Judge Wendy W. Berger (with Magistrate Judges David A. Baker and then Robert M. Norway) (complaint at Dkt. 1, CourtListener; infringement contentions, Ex. 1026 to the IPR petition). Walmart alleged BJ's mobile app "Express Pay"—rolled out in late 2021 after a pilot at BJ's Port Orange, Florida store, which supplied specific personal jurisdiction—was "an apparent copy of Sam's Club's Scan & Go, merely changing the in-app colors and changing the name." Four patents were asserted: the '435 patent (U.S. 10,803,435, "Method for Self-Checkout with a Mobile Device," Nelms et al., issued Oct. 13, 2020), plus the related '133, '187, and '188 patents. Technically, the '435 patent covers converting a smartphone into a mobile point-of-sale terminal: a self-checkout app lets the shopper scan item barcodes with the phone's camera, maintain a virtual shopping cart, tender payment in-app, and have a server complete the transaction and return an electronic receipt (with dependent claims adding a machine-readable/QR code rendered on the phone and scanned by an exit scanner, and server-side synchronization of the order with a "virtual terminal sales application"). In this IPR, BJ's challenged only independent claim 15 and dependents 16–19; claims 1–14 were challenged in companion IPRs (IPR2022-01563 and -01564), while a fourth petition (IPR2022-01561) was denied institution.

Procedural posture and significance. BJ's filed this petition on September 22, 2022; the PTAB panel—Administrative Patent Judges Neil T. Powell (authoring judge), Patrick R. Scanlon, and Mitchell G. Weatherly—instituted review on April 12, 2023 and issued a Final Written Decision on April 11, 2024 (Paper 37) holding claims 15–19 unpatentable as anticipated by and/or obvious over Korean publication Yong (KR 10-2007-0087811) and U.S. 8,751,316 (Fletchall), combined with Xavier, Cason, and Lin (Unified Patents portal; Patexia summary; oral-argument papers). The district court case was stayed pending the PTAB proceedings (Dkt. 108 stay order; Dkt. 139 lift-stay motion, June 2024). Walmart Apollo appealed all three '435 IPR final decisions to the Federal Circuit (Nos. 2024-1952/53/54), which affirmed on April 13, 2026 in a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment (per curiam: Moore, C.J., Mayer and Lourie, JJ.) (CAFC opinion PDF). A June 22, 2026 joint status report confirms the parties are lifting the stay and that Sam's/Walmart will amend to drop the '435 counts (Dkt. 168). The case is notable for several reasons: it is a high-profile instance of Walmart using its Apollo patent-holding arm offensively against a direct competitor over Scan & Go-style "scan-and-pay" technology—an increasingly standard mobile-commerce feature across big-box retail; BJ's responded with a coordinated five-petition IPR campaign (four against the '435 family plus IPR2022-01471 against the related '133 patent), which produced a split outcome—all challenged '435 claims were invalidated across the three instituted IPRs, while no challenged claims of the '187/'188 patents were found unpatentable; and the proceedings required the PTAB to grapple with priority-date and written-description issues tied to the '435 family's 2010 provisional lineage. The Federal Circuit's affirmance effectively ends the '435 counts in the district litigation, leaving the case to proceed (post-stay) on the surviving '187/'188 (and possibly '133) claims—though the precise scope of the remaining counts as of the date of this summary is not something I could fully verify from public dockets.

Scope note and case identification

The docket in your metadata — IPR2022-01528 — is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement suit. The infringement litigation that gave rise to it is Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla., Orlando Div.), filed 2022-03-22, in which Walmart Apollo's '435 patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,803,435, "Method for Self-Checkout with a Mobile Device") was one of four asserted patents (along with the '133, '187, and '188 patents). The parties are reversed in the two fora: BJ's is the IPR petitioner and district-court defendant; Walmart Apollo (with licensee Sam's West) is the IPR patent owner and district-court plaintiff. What follows covers the infringement action, the parallel IPRs, and the appeal, in chronological order.

---

1. District-court filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-03-22 — Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC filed the complaint for patent infringement (jury demand; injunctive relief), alleging BJ's infringed four patents through the BJ's Mobile App and its "Express Pay" self-checkout functionality (Complaint, Doc. 1; claim charts at Doc. 1-5). Assigned to Judge Wendy W. Berger, with Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (later Gregory J. Kelly, then Robert M. Norway). (CourtListener docket; Docket Report at Doc. 1; complaint text at courtlistener.com/docket/63179289/1/.)
• 2022-04-29 — BJ's filed its first Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Doc. 35).
• 2022-05-23 — Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend (Doc. 37); BJ's opposed (Doc. 48).
• 2022-06-08 — MJ Baker granted leave to amend and denied the first motion to dismiss as moot (Doc. 49).
• 2022-06-13 — First Amended Complaint filed (Doc. 52); a corrected FAC followed on 2022-09-07 (Doc. 83). The FAC asserted claims 1–4, 6–13, and 15–17 of the '435 patent (among claims of the other three patents). (Infringement contentions, Exhibit to IPR petition; Order at Doc. 108.)
• 2022-06-27 — BJ's filed a second Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the FAC (Doc. 54). I found no indication that BJ's filed counterclaims; its initial posture was dismissal plus the later stay request, though I could not fully verify the answer docket within available sources.

2. Early motion practice and discovery

• 2022-06-20 — Initial disclosures and Plaintiffs' Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions were served; interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs were propounded (First Joint Status Report, Doc. 56).
• 2022-09-22 to 09-29 — BJ's filed a coordinated wave of IPR petitions against the '435 patent (see §5), and the district court received repeated notices of those filings.
• 2022-09-26 — BJ's moved to stay the district case pending IPR (Doc. 91). Plaintiffs opposed on 2022-10-11 (Doc. 96), arguing BJ's delay and weak IPR prospects; BJ's replied.
• 2022-09-29 — The parties filed a joint notice of partial resolution of Plaintiffs' short-form motion to compel (Docs. 85, 94), the only significant discovery dispute surfaced before the stay.
• 2022-11-01 — Oral argument on the stay motion before MJ Baker (transcript at Doc. 117).
• 2022-11-21 — MJ Baker's Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to stay (Doc. 108). The court stayed proceedings on the '187, '188, and '435 patents pending PTAB review, finding the simplification factor "weighs heavily in favor of maintaining the stay" (59 claims across the three patents were under PTAB review). The court did not stay work on the '133 patent claims (the IPR on the '133 patent had not been instituted).
• 2023-02-02 — District Judge Berger adopted the R&R (Doc. 109) and denied BJ's motion to dismiss (Doc. 54) without prejudice, and the clerk administratively closed the case pending the IPRs (Doc. 114; docket text: "The Clerk is directed to administratively close the case").

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• The case reached the threshold of claim construction but no Markman ruling was ever issued:
  • 2022-09-23 — Joint Claim Construction Statement (Doc. 88);
  • 2022-10-21 — Plaintiffs' Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 102) with the Joel Chao-Lee Lin declaration (Doc. 101);
  • 2022-11-22 — BJ's Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 112), filed even after the stay order at the court's direction.
• The CMSO had set a Markman hearing for 2023-01-18, but the 2022-11-21 stay (Doc. 108) and 2023-02-02 administrative closure (Doc. 114) intervened. I found no evidence of a substantive claim-construction order, and the later stay-lift orders confirm the case never got past that stage before the IPR outcome mooted the '435 claims.

4. Post-stay motion practice (denied lift of stay)

• 2023-06-27 — Plaintiffs moved to lift the stay at least as to the '133 and '435 patents (Doc. 124), arguing the '133 patent was "free and clear" after PTAB denied institution of IPR2022-01471.
• 2023-07-31 — Motion to lift the stay denied by MJ Norway (Doc. 131). The court reasoned that simplification still favored the stay — the PTAB was reviewing 59 claims of the '187/'188/'435 patents, the patents shared specifications and terms (e.g., "the server"), and a Federal Circuit appeal could still simplify the case. (See gov.uscourts.flmd.399980.131.0.pdf.)

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings (decisive effect)

BJ's filed multiple IPRs; the ones bearing on the '435 patent are the core of your docket:

• IPR2022-01471 (filed 2022-08-29) — challenge to the related '133 patent; institution denied (noted in Doc. 131).
• IPR2022-01528 (filed 2022-09-22) — BJ's petition challenging claims 15–19 of the '435 patent on anticipation (Fletchall, Yong) and obviousness (Fletchall/Lin, Yong/Xavier, etc.) grounds (Paper 2; expert declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos, Ex. 1002). Institution granted 2023-04-12 (Paper 11; panel: APJs Scanlon, Powell, Weatherly).
• IPR2022-01561 (filed 2022-09-29) — '435 patent challenge; institution denied 2023-04-12 (same day as the -01528 institution).
• IPR2022-01563 and IPR2022-01564 (filed 2022-09-29) — additional '435 challenges; both instituted; the -01564 petition addressed claims 1–14 and raised priority/written-description issues against the 2010 provisional application.
• IPRs were also filed on the '187 and '188 patents (instituted; the PTAB later found no challenged claim unpatentable there — Joint Status Report, Doc. 142).

Key IPR2022-01528 milestones:

• 2023-01-13 — Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 8); Petitioner's reply (Paper 9, 2023-02-15) and PO sur-reply (Paper 10, 2023-02-22).
• 2023-06-06 — Board granted BJ's motion to submit supplemental information (Paper 18) to buttress the authenticity/certified translation of the Korean Yong reference (Exs. 1027–1030) after Walmart challenged it.
• 2023-07-19 — Patent Owner Response (Paper 20) with the Dr. Tim A. Williams declaration; cross-examination notices followed (2023-08-17, 09-18); Petitioner's Reply filed 2023-10-11; PO Sur-Reply 2023-11-28.
• 2024-04-05 — Oral hearing (transcript, Paper 36).
• 2024-04-11 — Final Written Decision (Paper 37): all challenged claims 15–19 of the '435 patent were found unpatentable (anticipation and/or obviousness over Fletchall, Yong, Lin, Cason, and Xavier, per the grounds set out in the later notice of appeal). FWDs issued the same day in IPR2022-01563 and -01564, with the PTAB finding all challenged '435 claims unpatentable across the three instituted IPRs (Doc. 142 status report).

6. Post-IPR district-court motion practice and the Federal Circuit appeal

• 2024-06-12 — BJ's moved to lift the stay in the district court (Doc. 139); Plaintiffs opposed on 2024-06-26 (Doc. 141). As of the 2024-07-29 Joint Status Report (Doc. 142), the court had not ruled.
• 2024-06-12 — Walmart Apollo filed its Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit from the three '435 FWDs (IPR2022-01528, -01563, -01564), listing seven appealed grounds including the anticipation/obviousness findings on claims 15–19 (P-TACTS paper; Jones Day for Walmart Apollo; Vorys for BJ's).
• Federal Circuit Nos. 2024-1952, 2024-1953, 2024-1954 (consolidated), Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., with the USPTO Director (John A. Squires) intervening. Argued by Jennifer L. Swize (Jones Day) for Walmart, Michael V. Messinger (Vorys) for BJ's, and USPTO Solicitor's office for the Director.
• 2026-04-13 — The Federal Circuit AFFIRMED per curiam under Rule 36 (nonprecedential; panel: Chief Judge Moore, Judges Mayer and Lourie). (cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1952.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.4-13-2026_2674995.pdf.)

7. Present posture and expected final disposition

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee award ever occurred — the case was stayed before Markman and never resumed on the merits.
• 2026-06-22 — Joint Status Report (Doc. 168; case now No. 6:22-cv-00587-AGM-RMN): the parties report the Federal Circuit's 2026-04-13 affirmance; no further review was sought; on 2026-06-17 they agreed to a schedule to lift the stay, with Plaintiffs committing to amend the complaint to withdraw all '435 patent counts (the claims having been cancelled by the affirmed FWDs); BJ's would then have 45 days to answer or otherwise respond, followed by a proposed new scheduling order for the remaining patents ('133, '187, '188).
• As of 2026-09-10 the case appears to remain in that posture — stayed/administratively closed, awaiting the court's order lifting the stay and the contemplated amendment dismissing the '435 claims. The practical effect of the IPR outcome is the complete elimination of the '435 patent from the litigation; the remaining dispute concerns the three other patents, on which the PTAB found the challenged claims patentable.

---

Key takeaways for the '435 patent

1. Forum-shifting worked for BJ's: the district court stayed everything (Docs. 108, 114, 131) while BJ's ran five IPRs against the four asserted patents.
2. The IPR outcome was decisive for the '435 patent: claims 15–19 (the only claims at issue in IPR2022-01528) plus the claims in -01563/-01564 were all found unpatentable (FWDs 2024-04-11), and the Federal Circuit affirmed (2026-04-13).
3. The district court never reached the merits on the '435 patent — no claim construction ruling, no trial; the plaintiffs have stipulated to withdraw the '435 counts (Doc. 168).

Source caveats

• I could not independently verify (within search limits) whether BJ's ever filed formal counterclaims in the district action; the docket text I located shows motions to dismiss and to stay rather than a counterclaim pleading. Treat that point as unconfirmed.
• The 2022-06-08 order (Doc. 49), the 2022-11-21 stay order (Doc. 108), the 2023-02-02 administrative-closure order (Doc. 114), and the 2023-07-31 stay-denial order (Doc. 131) are the best-documented "substance" rulings; the 2024-07-29 (Doc. 142) and 2026-06-22 (Doc. 168) status reports supply the end-state facts. All are accessible via the CourtListener docket at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63179289/.

I'll research the counsel of record in this PTAB proceeding. Note that this is an inter partes review (IPR2022-01528), not a district court infringement case, so "plaintiff" maps to the Petitioner, BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., and "defendant" maps to Patent Owner Walmart Apollo, LLC.

I have solid primary-source confirmation from PTAB filings. Let me do a bit more verification on each attorney's background and check whether any additional counsel appeared (e.g., in-house or updated notices).

Threshold framing

IPR2022-01528 is not a district-court infringement case—it is an inter partes review before the PTAB. There is no formal "plaintiff"; the party the case metadata labels "Plaintiff" is BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., which is the Petitioner (the IPR challenger of U.S. Patent No. 10,803,435), and Walmart Apollo, LLC is the Patent Owner. I therefore treated BJ's as the "plaintiff-side" party. (BJ's also appears as a defendant in related district-court litigation over the same patent family, e.g., Sam's West Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., M.D. Fla. No. 6:22-cv-00587, where the same Vorys team appears—so the label matters for precision.)

Counsel of record for BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. (Petitioner) — IPR2022-01528

The PTAB service/updated-mandatory-notice filings in the record (e.g., Petitioner's updated mandatory notices dated May 24, 2023 and October 26, 2023; Petitioner's notice adding back-up counsel dated June 15, 2023) list the following counsel of record for the Petitioner, all from Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (service address: BJS-Sams-IPRs@vorys.com):

Lead counsel

• Michael V. Messinger — Lead Counsel, Reg. No. 37,575
  • Firm/location: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, 1909 K Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006.
  • Experience note: Partner and former USPTO patent examiner (~6 years, optoelectronics); the firm bio highlights "significant experience as lead counsel in complex inter partes review proceedings" and he argued the related Federal Circuit appeal (Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1952, argued for appellee BJ's; Rule 36 affirmance dated April 13, 2026).

Back-up counsel

• William H. Oldach III — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 42,048

  • Firm/location: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, 1909 K Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006.
  • Experience note: Partner focused on patent/trademark litigation and appellate work (district courts, TTAB, ITC); represented BJ's on the Federal Circuit appeal and has handled PTAB IPRs as lead/back-up counsel since at least 2013–2014 (e.g., IPR2013-00448/438 for Clio USA).

• Rex W. Miller II — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 63,284

  • Firm/location: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, 52 E. Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43215.
  • Experience note: Partner whose practice spans IP litigation and post-grant proceedings; per firm bio he has "represented both intellectual property owners and accused infringers in district court litigation, in Patent Office proceedings (including post-grant inter partes reviews), and at the ITC"; also listed on the Federal Circuit appeal for BJ's.

• Igor D. Ozeruga — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 72,399

  • Firm/location: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, 50 S. Main Street, Suite 1200, Akron, OH 44308.
  • Experience note: Added as additional back-up counsel for Petitioner in these IPRs by notice dated June 15, 2023 (filed with the approval of lead counsel Messinger). I did not locate a published biography to substantiate notable past cases; he appears on PTAB filings as a Vorys IP practitioner.

Additional notes / caveats

• No in-house counsel for BJ's appears as counsel of record on the PTAB filings I found; the PTAB docket is served through Vorys (BJS-Sams-IPRs@vorys.com). I found no evidence of a separately appearing in-house or local-counsel designation in this IPR (PTAB practice uses "lead" and "back-up" counsel rather than local counsel).
• Related district-court counsel: In the parallel M.D. Fla. litigation, additional Vorys attorneys appeared for BJ's (e.g., Alycia N. Broz, Mitchell A. Tobias, Emily J. Taft from Columbus, plus Cleveland-office signatories on a June 12, 2024 filing). Those are district-court appearances, not counsel of record in IPR2022-01528, and I have not included them as IPR counsel.
• Patent Owner's counsel (for contrast): Walmart Apollo was represented by Jones Day (Matthew W. Johnson, lead; Joseph Beauchamp, Joshua R. Nightingale, Stephanie M. Mishaga, et al.), and Jennifer L. Swize of Jones Day argued Walmart's unsuccessful Federal Circuit appeal.
• All attorney names, firm/office data, Reg. Nos., and roles above come from the PTAB filings themselves (updated mandatory notices and power-of-attorney/service papers retrieved via PTAB's public document access and Docket Alarm) and the Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment in Appeal No. 24-1952; no filings relevant to counsel appeared to be sealed.

Bottom line: BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. (the "plaintiff"/Petitioner) was represented by Michael V. Messinger (lead) with back-up counsel William H. Oldach III, Rex W. Miller II, and Igor D. Ozeruga, all of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (Washington, DC; Columbus, OH; and Akron, OH offices).

Threshold framing

IPR2022-01528 is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district-court infringement case. The case metadata's "defendant" label maps to the Patent Owner, Walmart Apollo, LLC (the IPR respondent). There is a single Patent Owner in this proceeding; Walmart Apollo was represented exclusively by Jones Day (USPTO Customer Number 20583). No in-house counsel for Walmart appears as counsel of record on the PTAB docket. All roles below are PTAB "lead" and "back-up" counsel designations (PTAB practice does not use "local counsel").

Primary sources relied on: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices and Power of Attorney (papers 3–4, filed Sept. 29, 2022), Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (paper 23, filed July 20, 2023), Patent Owner's Request for Oral Argument (Nov. 29, 2023), the LEAP practitioner correspondence (Jan. 4–5, 2024), cross-notices and stipulation filings listing service addresses, and the Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment in Appeal No. 24-1952 (April 13, 2026). Related-case filings (e.g., IPR2022-01471, IPR2022-01496) confirm the identical Jones Day roster across the Walmart Apollo/BJ's IPR campaign.

Counsel of record for Walmart Apollo, LLC (Patent Owner / "defendant") — IPR2022-01528

Lead counsel

• Matthew W. Johnson — Lead Counsel, Reg. No. 59,108
  • Firm/location: Jones Day, 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
  • Note: Jones Day IP litigator who signed Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices/Power of Attorney and nearly all substantive Patent Owner filings (including the Request for Oral Argument); he also submitted declarations in the proceeding (Ex. 2002 and Ex. 2017, dated July 19, 2023) and remained on the Federal Circuit appeal team.

Back-up counsel

• Joseph M. Beauchamp — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 46,544

  • Firm/location: Jones Day, 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 3300, Houston, TX 77002.
  • Note: Jones Day IP partner on the Walmart Apollo PTAB and appellate team; appears on every Patent Owner service list in these IPRs and on the Federal Circuit brief in Appeal No. 24-1952.

• Joshua R. Nightingale — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 67,865 (per the Patent Owner's Request for Oral Argument signature block)

  • Firm/location: Jones Day, 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
  • Note: Appears on Patent Owner service lists throughout the proceeding and was among counsel on Walmart's Federal Circuit appeal.

• Stephanie M. Mishaga — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 75,378

  • Firm/location: Jones Day, 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92121.
  • Note: Participated substantively in the January 11, 2024 consolidated oral hearing as a LEAP practitioner (request granted by PTAB Hearings on Jan. 5, 2024, with her eligibility certification on file); was a Jones Day associate at the time.

• Hannah E. Mehrle — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 78,643

  • Firm/location: Jones Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114.
  • Note: Named in Patent Owner's Power of Attorney and on all service/stipulation lists for these IPRs (email hmehrle@jonesday.com).

• Christian A. Roberts — Back-up Counsel, Reg. No. 81,158 (added by Updated Mandatory Notices)

  • Firm/location: Jones Day, 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
  • Note: Added as additional back-up counsel for Walmart Apollo in this IPR family by Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices dated July 20, 2023 (paper 23 in IPR2022-01528; the parallel updated notice in related IPR2022-01496, same date, expressly "seeks to add Christian A. Roberts as backup counsel"); cc'd on the January 2024 oral-hearing correspondence for IPR2022-01528/-01563/-01564 and on the Federal Circuit brief.

Related appellate counsel (not PTAB counsel of record)

• Jennifer L. Swize — argued Walmart's appeal, Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., Appeal Nos. 24-1952/24-1953/24-1954 (Fed. Cir.). Jones Day, Washington, DC. She argued for appellant Walmart; the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's Final Written Decision by Rule 36 judgment on April 13, 2026. Also on the appeal brief: Joseph Beauchamp (Houston), John R. Boule III (Jones Day, Los Angeles), Matthew Johnson, Joshua Nightingale, Christian Roberts (Pittsburgh), and Stephanie Mishaga (San Diego) — per the Rule 36 judgment's counsel listing.

Caveats

• In-house counsel: No Walmart in-house attorney appears as counsel of record before the PTAB. The Patent Owner's Power of Attorney was executed on Walmart Apollo's behalf by a corporate signatory (Sue Xia, whose signature block reads "Title: Lead Counsel" on the parallel Jones Day POA in IPR2022-01471); she is not a practitioner of record in IPR2022-01528, and I did not find a bio to confirm her role, so treat her only as the POA signatory.
• Registration numbers: Johnson (59,108), Beauchamp (46,544), Mishaga (75,378), Mehrle (78,643), and Roberts (81,158) are confirmed in the Jones Day POA/updated-notice filings. Nightingale's number (67,865) comes from the OCR'd signature block of the Nov. 29, 2023 Request for Oral Argument; it is consistent across filings but I could not independently verify it from a second clean source.
• No district-court "local counsel" designation applies here; the parallel district-court matter (Sam's West Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., M.D. Fla. No. 6:22-cv-00587) has separate appearance records not covered by this PTAB docket.

Bottom line: Walmart Apollo, LLC (the "defendant"/Patent Owner) was represented by Matthew W. Johnson (lead counsel) with back-up counsel Joseph M. Beauchamp, Joshua R. Nightingale, Stephanie M. Mishaga, Hannah E. Mehrle, and Christian A. Roberts (added July 2023) — all of Jones Day (Pittsburgh, Houston, San Diego, and Cleveland offices), with Jennifer L. Swize (Jones Day, Washington, DC) handling the unsuccessful Federal Circuit appeal.