BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and posture. BlackBerry Limited — the Waterloo, Ontario-based former Research In Motion, which exited handset hardware in 2016 and repositioned itself as an enterprise cybersecurity/embedded-software company — sued Facebook, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries WhatsApp Inc. and Instagram, LLC in the Central District of California on March 6, 2018. The 117-page, seven-patent complaint (Dkt. 1; amended complaint at Dkt. 15, Apr. 4, 2018) accused the defendants' messaging and social apps — Facebook, Messenger, Messenger Lite, Workplace Chat, Pages Manager, WhatsApp Messenger and Instagram, together with their backend and advertising platforms — of "co-opt[ing] BlackBerry's innovations" that BlackBerry called "table stakes" for modern messaging, and sought injunctive relief plus enhanced damages for willful infringement. BlackBerry is an operating company rather than a classic NPE/PAE, but the suit was the centerpiece of a deliberate licensing-and-litigation monetization campaign launched in 2016 (BLU, then Avaya), and was followed by parallel actions against Snap (No. 2:18-cv-02693, filed April 2018) and Twitter (No. 2:19-cv-01444, filed February 2019). The case was assigned to Judge George H. Wu (Western Division, Los Angeles, Courtroom 9D), with Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson, and the Facebook and Snap cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. Counsel were James R. Asperger of Quinn Emanuel for BlackBerry and Heidi L. Keefe, Mark R. Weinstein, Matthew J. Brigham and Michael G. Rhodes of Cooley LLP for the Facebook defendants. Facebook's public response was notably combative — deputy GC Paul Grewal said the suit "sadly reflects the current state of its messaging business" and that Facebook would "fight" (Ars Technica; IPWatchdog).

The asserted patents and accused technology. The original complaint pleaded seven patents; by the time of the October 1, 2019 summary-judgment ruling the operative complaints asserted nine. The three patents in this case's metadata are representative of two very different theories. U.S. 7,372,961 ("Method of public key generation") claims a bias-avoiding technique for generating a cryptographic key: draw a seed SV from a random-number generator, hash it to get H(SV), test whether H(SV) is less than the order q before any modular reduction, reject and repeat if not, and use the accepted value as the key k. BlackBerry accused the OpenSSL library's bn_rand.c key generation — used in the defendants' encrypted messaging — pointing to code excerpts in the complaint; Facebook's later summary-judgment papers argued BlackBerry's sole asserted claim (claim 2) was both not infringed and § 101-ineligible, and that BlackBerry's belated attempt to switch its infringement theory from the md variable to buf after expert discovery should be excluded (Dkt. 633). U.S. 8,296,351 and U.S. 8,676,929 (both "System and method for pushing information to a mobile device," shared specification) claim a "proxy content server" that aggregates content and advertising into "channels" and pushes selected information to a mobile device based on a feedback signal such as location (the '351), and, in the '929, on a time-based "triggering event" with "meta tags" embedded to identify ads. Those two were accused against Facebook's targeted-advertising platform, including scheduled ads in Facebook Watch and Live (complaint analysis). The other asserted patents covered unread-message icon badges ('634), photo-tag autocomplete ('173), conversation timestamps ('713), battery-efficient status updates keyed to the recipient application's state ('236), IM/game integration ('250), and per-thread notification muting ('120).

Why it matters. The case is a well-documented case study in three things. First, Alice/§ 101 as a case-killer after full claim construction: Judge Wu twice denied Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on eligibility grounds as premature (Dkt. 68, Aug. 21, 2018), but on October 1, 2019 (Dkt. 487) he granted the consolidated summary-judgment motion in part, holding claims 1, 2, 14, 20 and 21 of the '351 and claims 1, 9 and 16 of the '929 invalid as directed to the abstract idea of sending ads or content based on a triggering event, with no inventive concept — while denying the challenge as to the '120 and '173 patents as a closer call under Core Wireless. Second, Rule 54(b) and IPR sequencing: the parties stipulated to a Rule 54(b) final judgment on the '351 and '929 (Dkt. 490–491, Nov. 26, 2019) to permit an immediate appeal, and Facebook, having waited until the last day of the § 315(b) bar to file IPR2019-00940/00941, later saw the Board deny a follow-on petition (IPR2020-00391) largely because an Article III court had already entered final judgment — an early, notable application of discretionary-denial reasoning in the Fintiv line (PTAB papers). BlackBerry noticed appeal on December 11, 2019, and Law360 reports that on December 10, 2020 the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of four BlackBerry patents (I could not independently verify the appeal number or opinion citation). Third, the narrowing and quiet end: defendants' renewed stay motion (Dkt. 501) was granted in part for IPR-subject patents; the '236 patent was invalidated in a July 23, 2020 order (Dkt. 673); and on February 16, 2021, after Law360 reported (Jan. 15, 2021) that the parties had "agreed to end" the dispute, the remaining claims — including the '961 count — were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation. No settlement terms or payment were disclosed. A related oddity worth flagging: when BlackBerry dismissed the Twitter case with prejudice in January 2020, the parties stipulated to vacate the order invalidating the '351 and '929 as to Twitter — showing how aggressively the parallel campaign was being managed.

Sourcing caveats. Docket entries, the October 1, 2019 order, the Rule 54(b) judgment and the December 2019 joint IPR status update are well documented in the public record. I did not verify the Federal Circuit's December 2020 opinion citation, the precise list of patents still live at the February 2021 dismissal, or whether any consideration passed in the termination; those points should be confirmed against PACER and the Federal Circuit docket before being treated as settled. Note also that the three patents listed in the case metadata are a subset — the litigation as filed and as litigated involved seven to nine patents, so any description of this case as a "three-pat

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the motion-to-dismiss ruling, the PTAB proceedings on each patent, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Now the Federal Circuit appeal and the 2020 summary judgment round.

Overview of the litigation's arc

This case was not a single trial-bound infringement action but a consolidated multi-patent campaign that was resolved almost entirely on § 101 at the pleading and summary-judgment stages, with a parallel PTAB track that produced only one institution. Of the three patents flagged for this entry, the '351 and '929 were held ineligible and became final on a Rule 54(b) judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit; the '961 (the cryptography patent) was the one BlackBerry asset that outlasted both the IPR and summary-judgment phases, and it ended only via stipulated dismissal with prejudice.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

A related third case, BlackBerry Ltd. v. Twitter, Inc. (No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS) was listed as related; the '351 patent was ultimately held ineligible there as well.

---

2. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2019-02-28 — BlackBerry serves the declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin on claim construction of the '961 patent (later filed as Dkt. 110-2), signaling that the '961 terms (the rejection-sampling key-generation limitations of claims 1/2, e.g., "output H(SV)," "order q") were genuinely disputed and would not be resolved on the papers.

• 2019-04-05 (corrected; entered 2019-04-11) — Corrected Final Ruling on Claim Construction (Dkt. 157). The public record establishes the following outcomes for the '351/'929 family:

  • "channels" → stipulated to mean "memory locations" (a stipulation Facebook later used decisively at § 101 step two);
  • "default," "static," and "dynamic" advertising information → stipulated to correspond to well-known real-world advertising categories;
  • "proxy content server" and "meta tag" → no construction necessary, with the court observing that even BlackBerry's proffered constructions added nothing to the plain claim language.

  These constructions effectively foreclosed BlackBerry's "inventive concept" argument before summary judgment.

• Late 2019–2020 — A second, supplemental claim construction round on U.S. 8,429,236 terms "mode selector" and "message generator", including an in-chambers order directing the parties to address why 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 should *

I'll start by checking the supplied article list and then search for actual press coverage of this litigation.

The supplied article list appears unrelated to this case — I'll verify that below. First, more targeted searches for actual coverage.

Press coverage of BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.

A note on the supplied article list first. None of the ten items in the news index relates to this litigation. I verified the two PCMag year-end roundups — "The Final Shutdown" and "404 Forever", both dated December 2025 — and they are consumer-tech obituaries (Skype, Windows 10, GPT-4, Zelle, EA Origin, the Dyson Zone); there is no BlackBerry, Facebook, or patent-litigation content in them. The remaining entries (epsteininbox.com, TechCrunch on ForceField, ITIF on Chinese industrial policy, and two Digiday AI-briefing pieces) are equally off-topic. The index appears to be mismatched to this case; I ignored it and searched the docket, trade press, and business press directly.

Filing and early rulings (2018–2019). Reuters reported on 2018-03-06 that BlackBerry sued Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram in Los Angeles federal court, quoting the complaint's allegation that the "Defendants created mobile messaging applications that co-opt BlackBerry's innovations." Reuters framed the suit as part of CEO John Chen's monetization strategy, noted BlackBerry's portfolio of "more than 40,000 global patents," and — notably — recorded BlackBerry spokeswoman Sarah McKinney's insistence that litigation was "not central to BlackBerry's strategy," while Facebook deputy GC Paul Grewal countered that the suit "sadly reflects the current state of its messaging business" and that BlackBerry, "[h]aving abandoned its efforts to innovate," was "looking to tax the innovation of others." IPWatchdog (Steve Brachmann, 2018-03-24) ran the most detailed early inventory, listing all seven asserted patents including U.S. 7,372,961 ("Method of Public Key Generation," described as a method for generating a cryptographic key that "avoids a potential bias"), and reporting that BlackBerry sought an injunction against Messenger, Messenger Lite, Workplace Chat, Pages Manager, WhatsApp Messenger and Instagram plus enhanced damages under § 284 for willful infringement. No damages figure was pleaded — Mealey's (2018-03-09) and Justia likewise reported the complaint without a number. Courthouse News (Martin Macias Jr., 2018-08-23) covered Judge Wu's denial of the § 101 motion to dismiss, reporting that he "kept intact the bulk of Blackberry's patent infringement claims," threw out the timestamp patent ('713) as covering "the abstract idea of displaying a timestamp based on the rule of whether a predetermined duration of time has passed," and dismissed the willful-infringement allegations without prejudice.

The October 2019 § 101 ruling. The trade press treated the ruling as a turning point for the whole campaign rather than for this docket alone. Law360's case feed summarizes the 2019-10-02 development as a California federal judge having "declared claims from six BlackBerry patents invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court's Alice decision, giving a leg-up to Facebook, Twitter and Snap as they proceed in infringement litigation," and separately reports the 2019-09-05 argument at which "[f]acebook, Twitter and Snap urged a California federal judge to toss BlackBerry's infringement suits … saying BlackBerry's mobile messaging and targeted advertising patents are invalid because they don't contain inventive concepts." The most substantive public analysis is RPX (RPX Empower), which recounts the procedural history — the June 2018 Rule 12(b)(6) challenges to the '351, '929, '634 and '120 patents; Judge Wu's August 2018 denial as to all but Snap's '713 challenge, relying on Core Wireless and Berkheimer; then the July 2019 second round in which the court struck the parties' separate summary-judgment motions "citing 'reasons of judicial economy and case management' and the filings' collective page count" and ordered a consolidated motion within seven days. RPX also records the defendants' central analogy — that the '351/'929 claims were directed to "collecting and sending ads or other content to a user based on location or time of day," no different from a business "sending coupons for a free dessert on a customer's birthday." Reporting here goes beyond the record in one respect worth flagging: Law360's and RPX's "six patents" figure aggregates across the consolidated Facebook, Snap and Twitter actions and across several orders, whereas this docket's October 1, 2019 order addressed the '351, '929 and '120 (and, separately, the '173 and Snap's '327/'084) — consistent with the prior sections of this case entry. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg, Verge or Ars Technica piece on the October 2019 ruling itself.

The January 2021 settlement and its market impact. Bloomberg (Susan Decker, 2021-01-15, syndicated via BNN Bloomberg and Infobae) broke the settlement: BlackBerry "said it's settled a dispute with Facebook Inc. over patent royalties for terms that weren't disclosed," with BlackBerry spokeswoman Karen Clyne stating, "We have resolved our disputes pursuant to a confidential agreement and have no further comment," and Facebook spokesman Jay Nancarrow declining comment. Bloomberg characterized Facebook's litigation posture as "a successful campaign to challenge BlackBerry patents" and noted Facebook's own voice-messaging suit "was put on hold last month to allow settlement talks to proceed." S&P Global Market Intelligence (2021-01-18) repeated the Bloomberg report and confirmed "[t]he financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed," though its summary is garbled on chronology (it says "Facebook sued BlackBerry in 2018 … Facebook's case was filed months after BlackBerry sued Facebook"). The Globe and Mail reported that BlackBerry's Toronto-listed shares "climbed 8.9 per cent Friday to close at $12.48" and that the company "told a California court on Thursday to drop its infringement case" — slightly ahead of the record, since the stipulation was filed 2021-02-13 and Judge Wu's dismissal order entered 2021-02-16; the same article tied the news to BlackBerry's sale of "90 patents to … Huawei." TheStreet reported shares "jumped 16% to $10.61" and quoted the same Clyne statement. Reporters plainly went beyond the record in reading the share move as a signal: Benzinga wrote that "[d]etails of the agreement aren't known, but investors appear to be speculating that decision is in BlackBerry's favor," and The Motley Fool calculated the stock was "up 87% in a week" on no further disclosure, while Investor's Business Daily pointedly noted that "BlackBerry had not issued a news release or made a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the matter" — a useful corrective to any inference that consideration was confirmed. No outlet reported a damages award, a royalty rate, or any settlement figure; consistent with the prior sections, none appears ever to have been disclosed. Separately, TechCrunch (2018-09-05) covered Facebook's countersuit in N.D. Cal. and noted the irony of Facebook's Grewal attacking a suit that mirrored Facebook's own later filing.

Where accounts diverge or are thin. Three gaps stand out. First, the counsel attributions in early press are unreliable: Courthouse News quotes "Snap attorney Yar Chaikovsky of Paul Hastings" challenging the timestamp patent at the same hearing where Facebook's motion was argued, reflecting the consolidated pretrial posture rather than the Facebook docket — the same confusion flagged in the defendant-representatives section above. Second, the patent counts in press summaries (seven asserted at filing per Reuters and IPWatchdog; nine by the summary-judgment stage; "six patents invalidated" per Law360/RPX across the campaign) cannot be reconciled to this docket alone, and none of the coverage tracks the '961 count specifically — the '961 is mentioned in the 2018 filing coverage but essentially disappears

Sources

• 黑莓起诉Facebook 称后者涉嫌侵犯其消息发送专利
• BlackBerry sues Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram over patent infringement - BlackBerry sues Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram over patent infringement
• Blackberry Patent War Mostly Survives Attack by Facebook, Snap - Blackberry Patent War Mostly Survives Attack by Facebook, Snap
• BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al - February 13, 2020
• BlackBerry suing Facebook for patent infringement - Spring Law Limited
• Facebook sues BlackBerry over patent infringement of voice-messaging tech | TechCrunch - Facebook has accused BlackBerry of stealing its voice-messaging technology in its instant messaging app
• BlackBerry Sues Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp for Willful Infringement of Mobile Communications Patents - BlackBerry Sues Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp for Willful Infringement of Mobile Communications Patents
• Facebook Names Blackberry in Lawsuit Over Patent Infringement of Voice-Messaging Technology
• BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. FACEBOOK INC (2019) | FindLaw - The same, however, could be said of the more detailed claims invalidated by the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, which r...
• After serving its Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions on October 4, BlackBerry further explained its good cause for the s...
• Blackberry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. - On the other hand, however, the Court again agrees with BlackBerry that there are some holes in Facebook Defendants' analogies t...
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA **AMENDED**

I found strong initial data. Let me verify the full attorney roster on the docket and gather details on individual counsel.

Let me pull the full docket attorney listing and check for any additional firms (e.g., local counsel) and verify individual bios.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited — BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: BlackBerry was represented throughout by a single firm — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — with no separate local-counsel or second firm appearing on the docket. Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office (865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor) satisfied the local-appearance requirement, with the case team drawn from that office plus Redwood Shores and San Francisco. In-house support came from BlackBerry Corporation's Deputy General Counsel. The CM/ECF docket flags James R. Asperger as "LEAD ATTORNEY."

---

1. Core trial team (verified on the C.D. Cal. docket)

2. Further attorneys listed as BlackBerry counsel in the court's published rulings

These names appear in the counsel listing of Judge Wu's October 1, 2019 final rulings, 487 F. Supp. 3d 870 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (Dkt. 371), and therefore were of record at the summary-judgment stage:

3. In-house counsel

4. Appellate counsel (Federal Circuit No. 20-1256, BlackBerry v. Facebook)

Per the court's December 10, 2020 Rule 36 judgment (appeal of the § 101 invalidity ruling on the '351 and '929 patents):

• Sanford Ian Weisburst — Quinn Emanuel, New York — argued the appeal for BlackBerry.
• Richard A. Lowry — Quinn Emanuel, Washington, D.C. — appellate briefing.
• Also on the brief: Asperger, Mishra, Schmidt (Los Angeles), Johnson (Redwood Shores), Nardinelli (San Francisco).

Note: appellate counsel are not "counsel of record" on the district-court docket; Weisburst and Lowry appear only in the Federal Circuit filings.

5. PTAB / IPR counsel (separate track — not district-court counsel of record)

In the parallel IPRs Facebook filed against the patents-in-suit (e.g., IPR2019-00516, IPR2019-00923, IPR2019-01597), BlackBerry's Patent Owner mandatory notices designate:

• James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729) — Quinn Emanuel, New York — lead PTAB counsel
• Sam Stake (pro hac vice), Ogi Zivojnovic (Reg. No. 69,516), John McKee (Reg. No. 65,926) — back-up PTAB counsel

Sources: BlackBerry's Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2019-00516 (Apr. 13, 2020).

---

Caveats on sourcing

• Firm, office, and bar numbers above are drawn directly from the caption blocks of filed C.D. Cal. papers (Dkt. 65, 550, 671, 681) and from the CourtListener/PACER docket entries. The docket sheet on Docket Alarm confirms Asperger as "LEAD ATTORNEY" and lists McGah, Jaffe, Johnson, and Zado as plaintiff's counsel.
• No sealed-counsel issue: although substantial portions of the summary-judgment record were filed under seal (the Court's Oct. 1, 2019 order notes redactions), the counsel lists are public in every instance, so no attorney identification rests on sealed material.
• Unverified items: Bar numbers for Nardinelli and Flood, Bird's and Watson's precise bar numbers, and the exact date Miles Freeman left Quinn Emanuel are not confirmed. Kapgan and Tse are verified only in the related N.D. Cal. action, not this docket.
• No local-counsel firm found. Unlike many C.D. Cal. patent cases, no separate Los Angeles local-counsel firm (e.g., a Fitzgerald Knaier-type arrangement) appears for BlackBerry; that role was filled by Quinn Emanuel's own L.A. office. (By contrast, Snap Inc. did use Fitzgerald Knaier as local counsel.)

Let me pull the docket's "represented by" listings for the defendants and check the early appearances.

Let me verify the early appearances and whether any in-house or additional attorneys appeared.

Counsel of Record for the Defendants

Bottom line: the three Facebook-family defendants (Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, LLC) were represented throughout by Cooley LLP, with a four-partner core team out of Cooley's Palo Alto and San Francisco offices. Cooley acted as both trial and appellate counsel — no separate local counsel and no in-house attorney of record appears in the public filings. The team is confirmed by the signature blocks and the Keefe declaration identifying Cooley as "counsel of record in this action for Defendants Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and Instagram, LLC" (Dkt. 633-3).

Core trial team (Cooley LLP)

Additional Cooley appearances and appellate counsel

• Lowell D. Mead (SBN 223989), Cooley LLP, Palo Alto — signed the June 7, 2018 motion to dismiss and remained on the case caption through 2019.
• Dena Chen, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto — appellate briefing; listed on the Dec. 10, 2020 Federal Circuit judgment.
• Phillip E. Morton, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC — appeared pro hac vice; listed in the counsel block of the October 1, 2019 § 101 ruling, 487 F. Supp. 3d 870 (FindLaw text).
• Elizabeth Lee Stameshkin and Andrew Mace, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto — listed among defense counsel in the same October 1, 2019 opinion.
• Elizabeth Prelogar (Washington, DC) — listed in the Federal Circuit's December 10, 2020 judgment as additional counsel for appellees Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram. The judgment gives only "Washington, DC" and does not name her firm; I did not independently verify her affiliation at the time, so treat that detail as unsourced.

Points to flag (including one likely confusion in secondary sources)

1. No separate local counsel. Cooley's Palo Alto/San Francisco partners carried C.D. Cal. admissions themselves (all have California bar numbers), and no L.R. 83-2.3 local-counsel designation or separate LA firm appears in the defense signature blocks. Cooley's own Southern California presence was not used in the filings I reviewed.

2. No in-house counsel of record found for Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram. Every defense filing I located is signed by Cooley. This contrasts with BlackBerry's side, where in-house deputy GC Edward R. McGah, Jr. appears on the briefs alongside Quinn Emanuel (Dkt. 550). I cannot rule out a sealed or pro hac vice in-house appearance.

3. Do not attribute Yar R. Chaikovsky (Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto) to the Facebook defendants. Some search-index snippets (and the counsel block printed in the reported 487 F. Supp. 3d decision, which covers both consolidated cases) list him alongside the Cooley team, and one CourtListener snippet appears to show him "added to party Facebook, Inc. … Instagram, LLC." The actual papers are unambiguous: Chaikovsky signed as "Attorney for Defendant Snap Inc." on the consolidated § 101 motion and the stay motion (Dkt. 239; Dkt. 161), and the Federal Circuit judgment confirms he argued for Snap, not Facebook. His Paul Hastings colleagues Philip Ou and David Okano likewise appear for Snap. Since Snap was consolidated with this case only for pretrial purposes, Chaikovsky belongs to the Snap defense team — a common source of error because the two dockets share filings.

4. Distinguish the N.D. Cal. declaratory action. Cooley also represented Facebook as plaintiff in Facebook, Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., No. 4:18-cv-05434 (N.D. Cal.), where Benjamin S. Lin, Matthew David Caplan and Mark Anthony Zambarda filed notices of appearance (PACER Monitor). Those are N.D. Cal. appearances, not C.D. Cal. counsel of record in 2:18-cv-01844, and should not be listed as such.

5. Party-name cleanup. The complaint named both Instagram, Inc. and Instagram, LLC; the caption in later filings still carries both, but the parties filed a "Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Instagram, Inc." in 2019, and from mid-2019 forward Cooley's signature blocks read "FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., and INSTAGRAM, LLC" (e.g., Dkt. 560).

6. Appellate counsel of record is the same team. BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., Nos. 2020-1256, 2020-1258 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2020) (per curiam, Rule 36 affirmance) — Keefe argued; Brigham, Chen, Weinstein and Prelogar on the brief (Justia). This fills the gap flagged in the case overview: the appeal number is 20-1256 (consolidated with 20-1258, the Snap appeal).

Sourcing caveat: the counsel list above is reconstructed from document signature blocks and the reported opinion's counsel block, not from a PACER "attorneys for defendant" docket report. Cooley's internal case team was almost certainly larger (associates who signed nothing appear nowhere), and any attorney who appeared and later withdrew before the February 16, 2021 dismissal would not be captured. A PACER docket report for 2:18-cv-01844 would settle the complete list.