Litigation

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink

closed

2:20-cv-00160

Filed
2020-05-27
Terminated
2020-07-21

Patents at issue (1)

RE44904

Summary

CommWorks Solutions, LLC filed suit in E.D. Tex. against AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink, asserting RE44904. The case was closed on 2020-07-21, a short life consistent with early settlement or dismissal.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case to verify the details against public sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case documents and parties.

Case Overview and Background — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink, No. 2:20-cv-00160 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a patent-assertion vehicle with no product or service business — there is no manufacturing, R&D, or operating footprint for CommWorks in the record, and it appears in this campaign solely as an assignee/licensor. Unified Patents has described CommWorks as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC," and a later CommWorks corporate disclosure filed in a 2023 case identified its corporate parent as Brainbox Innovations, LLC (Unified Patents; CommWorks Rule 7 disclosure, CommWorks v. Extreme Networks, 6:23-cv-00835). The portfolio it asserts is a family of early-2000s broadband and wireless-networking patents (e.g., the '249 patent was filed May 18, 2001; the '465 patent June 11, 2002) that CommWorks acquired and re-asserted across the ISP and networking-equipment markets. In this case CommWorks was represented by Dmitry Kheyfits and Andrey Belenky of Kheyfits Belenky LLP together with Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis (the Stafford Davis Firm), a Tyler-based firm that functioned as local E.D. Tex. counsel; Brandon Gregory Moore and Catherine Bartles also appeared in the campaign. Defendant AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink is a broadband internet service provider — the complaint treats it as a service provider that buys and deploys third-party network equipment and sells broadband and Wi-Fi service to subscribers (Compl. ¶¶ 20–23, 68–70, RPX litigation document 13799070). In other words, the suit targets an end user/operator of accused technology, not its manufacturer. (I could not independently verify NextLink's corporate footprint or headquarters within this research; treat any such characterization beyond the complaint as unsourced.)

Patent asserted and accused technology. The case record designates RE44,904 as the patent at issue. RE44,904, titled "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," issued May 20, 2014 as a reissue in the same family as CommWorks' '465 patent (reissue application 13/171,882). Asserted claim 7 is a method claim that recites: detecting that a received frame is a priority frame based on information in the frame; extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in the frame; comparing the extracted pattern to a search pattern; transmitting the frame in a transmit period reserved for priority frames when the patterns match; and adjusting the duration of that reserved period based on statistics about previously sent priority frames (Compl. ¶ 70). The technical sketch is essentially the IEEE 802.11e / Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) EDCA priority mechanism — reading User Priority/QoS Control bits out of a frame and mapping them to priority access categories. The accused instrumentalities for this count are "[w]i-Fi enabled modems and routers and Wi-Fi services, such as the Nextlink Calix GigaCenter wireless router" (Compl. ¶ 70). One important caveat: although this system's metadata lists RE44,904 alone, the complaint as filed appears to have been a nine-count, multi-patent assertion — RPX reports nine patents-in-suit for this docket, and the complaint text includes, among others, Count I on the '249 patent (accusing Ciena devices running SAOS and Juniper devices running Junos OS implementing IEEE 802.3ah and RFC 4090) and a Count IX on the '904 Reissue, with the '315 patent also appearing. The single-patent designation in the case metadata should therefore be read as narrower than the pleading; the family otherwise includes the '249, '465, '664, '285, '596, '807, '979, '315 and RE44,904 patents asserted across the campaign.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed May 27, 2020 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (docket entry dated 5/28/2020). NextLink was served June 2, 2020 with an answer due June 23, 2020; appearances were filed by Belenky, Moore and Kheyfits in mid-June. CommWorks filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 17, 2020, and Judge Gilstrap signed an order dismissing the case without prejudice on July 21, 2020, with the AO 120 form mailed to the PTO the same day — roughly 56 days in litigation (Justia docket; UniCourt docket). The venue mattered: in 2020 Marshall Division/Gilstrap remained one of the most active and plaintiff-favorable patent forums in the country, with a local-counsel requirement that explains the Stafford Davis appearance. The case is notable chiefly for its place in a coordinated NPE campaign: CommWorks sent NextLink notice letters on April 17 and April 24, 2020 identifying infringed claims and inviting licensing discussions before filing (Compl. ¶¶ 17–19), and filed near-simultaneous suits against other rural/regional ISPs — Skybeam, Mediacom, Cable One, and Consolidated Communications. That ISP-focused strategy later expanded to Wi-Fi and broadband silicon and equipment vendors (Extreme Networks, Zyxel, Adtran, CommScope/ARRIS, u-blox, AVM, NXP, STMicroelectronics, Axon, Broadcom, EarthLink). The portfolio's hook is that WMM/802.11-2007+ and WPS functionality are effectively mandatory in Wi-Fi CERTIFIED hardware, giving an unusually broad royalty base — which also explains the defensive response: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination of the '249 patent (control no. 90/014,909, granted December 23, 2021) and an IPR against CommWorks' 8,923,846 patent (IPR2021-01297), in which the PTAB held all challenged claims unpatentable on February 13, 2023. I found no IPR, PGR, or reissue challenge specifically targeting RE44,904 in this research, so any linkage between this case and a PTAB challenge to the '904 patent would be speculation; the reissue's own prosecution history (a broadening vehicle) and the possibility of reissue estoppel are the more concrete doctrinal risks for CommWorks on that patent.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a chronological picture.

Let me dig into the complaint details, the parallel PTAB proceedings, and the broader campaign.

Let me look for PTAB proceedings on these patents and the overall campaign filings.

I hit a research cap partway through, so this is a partial-recovery answer. Below I separate what is actually docket-sourced from what remains unverified.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink, No. 2:20-cv-00160 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a 56-day "file-and-settle/dismiss" case. There is no merits adjudication of any kind — no answer, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no appeal. The only substantive court action was Judge Gilstrap's order dismissing the case without prejudice.

1. Filing & initial pleadings

  • 2020-05-27 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). CommWorks Solutions, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink. The complaint was accompanied by a large exhibit set (the docket index shows at least 22 numbered exhibit attachments), plus:
    • Dkt. 2 — Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120), mailed to the USPTO Director.
    • Dkt. 3 — Plaintiff's corporate disclosure statement.
  • 2020-05-28 — Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Marshall Division); the standard E.D. Tex. magistrate-judge consent notice issued.
  • 2020-06-02 — Service on NextLink; answer due 2020-06-23. (Dkt. 4, Summons Returned Executed, filed 2020-06-08.)
  • 2020-06-16 — Three plaintiff-side appearances (Dkt. 5–7): Andrey Belenky, Brandon Gregory Moore, Dmitry Kheyfits.

Answer / counterclaims: None. No answer, no Rule 12 motion, and no counterclaims appear on the docket. The case terminated before NextLink's answer deadline was even reached (answer due 2020-06-23; dismissal notice filed 2020-07-17). The docket shows no appearance by defense counsel.

Pre-suit notice (from the complaint): CommWorks alleged it sent a notice letter and email dated 2020-04-17 identifying the patents and accused products, and a follow-up on 2020-04-24 enclosing an NDA and inviting licensing discussions, and that it received no response. (CommWorks used the identical April 17, 2020 letter template across its 2020 campaign — the same date appears in its complaints against EarthLink, Cable One, and others.)

⚠️ Important discrepancy on the patents at issue

Your case metadata lists only RE44,904. Third-party litigation databases treat this docket as asserting nine patents:

I could not verify from a primary source whether all nine patents were formally asserted against NextLink or whether the metadata's single-patent designation reflects a lead patent. Treat the nine-patent list as the fuller, better-sourced account and the RE44,904-only designation as incomplete.

On RE44,904 itself: entitled "Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection," reissued 2014-05-20 (reissue application 13/171,882). CommWorks pleaded that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and recited technical improvements in distinguishing priority traffic without deep packet inspection — i.e., pre-emptive Alice § 101 pleading.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, no motion for preliminary injunction. The case did not survive long enough for the E.D. Tex. scheduling order and its motion deadlines to bite.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

None. No Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order. No claim terms from any asserted patent were construed in this docket.

4. Discovery milestones

None recorded. The case closed roughly two weeks before the answer deadline and well before the Rule 26(f) conference, initial disclosures, infringement contentions, or invalidity contentions would have been due.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date was set; no verdict; no JMOL/new-trial motion; no § 285 fee motion. No injunction issued.

6. Final disposition (the operative event)

  • 2020-07-17 — Dkt. 8: Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (signed by A. Belenky), with a proposed order attached.
  • 2020-07-21 — Dkt. 9: ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, signed by Judge Gilstrap.
  • 2020-07-21 — Dkt. 10: AO 120 notice filed at termination; mailed to the USPTO Director.

Sources: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-commworks-solutions-llc-v-amg-technology-investment-group-llc-dba-netlink-[506649](/patent/506649) and https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2020cv00160/197838

Significance of "without prejudice": Unlike CommWorks' later exits, which were often with prejudice (e.g., its joint dismissals against Extreme Networks on 2024-05-17 and CommScope/ARRIS in 2:23-cv-00510, and its Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal against NXP in 2025), the NextLink dismissal preserves CommWorks' right to re-assert against NextLink. There is no res judicata effect, no license finding, no admission of invalidity or non-infringement, and no public settlement terms.

Why it likely closed in 56 days: The most defensible inference is a quick confidential resolution — a settlement/license struck on the heels of the April 2020 notice letters — or an administrative/venue-driven withdrawal. I found no filing, press release, or court order confirming a settlement payment or license. Any statement that NextLink took a license is an inference, not a sourced fact.

Appeal: None. The case is closed and no Federal Circuit appeal exists.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on RE44,904 — or on the other eight portfolio patents — tied to this litigation or disclosed in any of the sources I reached. Concretely:

  • No PTAB proceeding was referenced on the docket (there was no stay motion, which is what a parallel IPR normally triggers).
  • The lifecycle makes it impossible: an IPR petition cannot be filed before the complaint, and this case was dismissed 56 days after filing — well before a § 315(b) one-year bar could even begin to run for NextLink (June 2021 at the earliest) and before any petition could realistically be drafted.
  • The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for RE44,904 lists only the district-court assertions (Consolidated Communications 2:20-cv-00159; Charter 6:22-cv-00156; Ubee 6:23-cv-00064; Extreme Networks 6:23-cv-00835) — no PTAB tab was surfaced: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/re44904

Caveat: absence of evidence in my search is not proof of absence. My search budget was exhausted, and I did not run a complete keyword sweep of the PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Case Tracking System (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) or Docket Navigator for the '904 patent. A full PTAB check on RE44,904 and its eight companion patents (particularly any petitions by Ciena, Juniper, Cisco, or the equipment vendors who would have indemnity exposure to the ISPs CommWorks was suing) should be treated as open and unverified. The asserted patents are owned by CommWorks (parent: Brainbox Innovations, LLC, per the 2025 EarthLink § 7.1 disclosure), and the vendor/indemnitor IPRs, if any, would more likely have targeted the roughly contemporaneous and longer-lived campaign cases rather than this one.

8. Strategic context worth noting

  • The 2020-05-27 filing date places NextLink squarely in a coordinated CommWorks litigation wave. A companion case, CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.), was filed the same day, and further suits followed in S.D.N.Y. (Mediacom, RCN, Sept. 2020), W.D. Tex. (Charter, 2022; Ubee, Extreme Networks, 2023), N.D. Ala. (Adtran, 2023), and C.D. Cal./E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex. (Axon Networks, Texas Instruments, DrayTek, EarthLink, NXP, 2024–2025).
  • The campaign's structure is telling: CommWorks asserts against end-user ISPs and against chipset makers for the same Wi-Fi/QoS functionality (WMM, WPS, 802.11-2007+ QoS). Against chipmakers it accuses specific silicon (e.g., Broadcom BCM4392, STMicro CW1100/SPWF04S, TI CC3xxx/WL18xx); against carriers it accuses Ciena SAOS and Juniper Junos deployments. That dual-track theory — user infringement by carriers plus indirect infringement by silicon vendors — is the portfolio's core monetization engine.
  • Posture today: closed as of 2020-07-21, dismissed without prejudice, no live appeal. CommWorks retains the ability to re-sue NextLink on the same patents/accused products.

Chronology at a glance

Date Event Source
2020-04-17 CommWorks notice letter/email to NextLink (alleged) Complaint
2020-04-24 Second letter + draft NDA (alleged) Complaint
2020-05-27 Complaint filed (Dkt. 1); AO 120 (Dkt. 2); corp. disclosure (Dkt. 3) Docket
2020-05-28 Assigned to Judge Gilstrap Docket
2020-06-02 NextLink served; answer due 2020-06-23 Dkt. 4
2020-06-16 Plaintiff appearances (Dkt. 5–7) Docket
2020-07-17 Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 8) Docket
2020-07-21 Order dismissing without prejudice (Dkt. 9); AO 120 at termination (Dkt. 10) Docket

No Markman. No claim construction. No IPR stay. No trial. No verdict. No appeal.

If you want, I can run the targeted PTAB docket sweep that got cut off (RE44,904 and the eight companion patents against Ciena/Juniper/Cisco/STMicro et al.) and confirm whether any parallel IPR ever existed — that's the one material gap in this analysis.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

I have the complaint signature block. Now let me verify the appearances docket and attorneys' backgrounds.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC — CommWorks v. AMG Technology Investment Group (d/b/a NextLink), No. 2:20-cv-00160-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented by a two-firm team — the Kheyfits Belenky LLP boutique (Austin, TX and New York, NY) as lead/primary patent counsel, and The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler, TX) as local counsel. Six attorneys are named across the papers; four formally appeared on the docket. No in-house counsel appeared. The case died early — voluntary dismissal without prejudice on July 17, 2020 (Dkt. 8), dismissal order July 21, 2020 (Dkt. 9), AO-120 form (Dkt. 10) — so the appearance record is thin and no adversarial filings by plaintiff's counsel exist beyond the pleadings and dismissal notice.

Counsel table

# Name Role (as reflected in this docket) Firm / office Experience note
1 Andrey Belenky Primary/lead plaintiff counsel in this case — filed the notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 8, 7/17/2020); appeared Dkt. 5 (6/16/2020) Kheyfits Belenky LLP, New York, NY (1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Fl. at the time) Prolific NPE-side patent litigator; CommWorks' recurring counsel across its campaigns (CommScope, Sangoma, Mel NavIP, KT Imaging, LaserDynamics). Formerly practiced as Kheyfits P.C.
2 Dmitry Kheyfits Counsel; appeared Dkt. 7 (6/16/2020) Kheyfits Belenky LLP, Austin, TX (then 108 Wild Basin Rd., Ste. 250; later 12600 Hill Country Blvd., Ste. R-275) Firm co-founder; designated "Lead Counsel" in other plaintiff-side patent suits (e.g., Complex Memory LLC v. Renesas, N.D. Cal. 5:18-cv-04103); Fordham Law; also represented Personalized Media Communications
3 Brandon Gregory Moore Counsel; appeared Dkt. 6 (6/16/2020) Kheyfits Belenky LLP, Austin, TX Member of the Kheyfits Belenky CommWorks/Mel NavIP plaintiff teams in E.D. Tex.
4 Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis Local counsel — signed and filed the complaint (Dkt. 1, 5/27/2020), corporate disclosure (Dkt. 3), and proof of service (Dkt. 4) The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, Tyler, TX (815 S. Broadway Ave.) Texas Bar No. 24054605; Baylor Law '06; firm markets E.D. Tex. patent-plaintiff and "local counsel services"; appears for NPE plaintiffs such as Smart Lock, Motiva Patents, Freedom Patents
5 Catherine Susan Bartles Named plaintiff counsel on the complaint signature block; no separate notice of appearance located in this case The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, Tyler, TX Texas Bar No. 24104849; Stafford Davis Firm patent-plaintiff team (e.g., Smart Lock, Motiva Patents)
6 Hanna G. Cohen Named plaintiff counsel on the complaint signature block; no separate notice of appearance located in this case Kheyfits Belenky LLP, New York, NY Frequent Kheyfits Belenky pro hac vice counsel in NPE patent suits (KT Imaging, Mel NavIP, others)

Sourcing and role caveats

  • Primary source is the complaint's signature block (Dkt. 1), which reads: "/s/ Stafford Davis … THE STAFFORD DAVIS FIRM, PC … Dmitry Kheyfits … Brandon G. Moore … KHEYFITS BELENKY LLP … Andrey Belenky … Hanna G. Cohen … KHEYFITS BELENKY LLP … Attorneys for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC." Text retrieved via RPX Insight: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13799070
  • Appearance entries (from the docket mirrors): Dkt. 5 – Notice of Attorney Appearance by Andrey Belenky (6/16/2020); Dkt. 6 – by Brandon Gregory Moore (6/16/2020); Dkt. 7 – by Dmitry Kheyfits (6/16/2020). Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2020cv00160/197838 and https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-commworks-solutions-llc-v-amg-technology-investment-group-llc-dba-netlink-506649
  • I did not designate a formal "lead counsel." E.D. Tex. docket sheets do not carry a lead-counsel designation for this case, and docket mirrors list only "Plaintiff Attorneys" (Davis, Moore, Belenky, Kheyfits). The role attributions above are functional inferences from who signed which filing — Belenky signing the voluntary dismissal is the strongest signal of de facto lead in this matter. Treat "lead" vs. "of counsel" as inferred, not docket-certified.
  • Bartles and Cohen signed the complaint but I found no notice of appearance by either on this docket. They may have been listed as part of the trial team without entering an appearance before the case was dismissed. This is a limitation of the mirrored docket; PACER's full attorney/party report was not directly queried.
  • No in-house counsel for CommWorks (a Georgia LLC, Alpharetta, GA; described by Unified Patents as an NPE Subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC) appear in the record.
  • Patent scope note: The case metadata lists only RE44904 (the '904 Reissue, Count IX of the complaint, directed to Wi-Fi priority-frame handling against Calix GigaCenter routers), but the complaint actually asserted nine patents-in-suit per RPX's case page (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-197838-commworks-solutions-v-amg-technology-investment-group-llc-d-b-a-netlink). This matters for counsel research because the same two-firm team appeared for CommWorks in parallel 2020 suits (e.g., CommWorks v. Cable One, No. 2:20-cv-00158, where the docket also lists Bartles, Belenky, Cohen, Davis, Kheyfits, Moore).
  • Current-contact caution: Firm addresses changed over the life of the campaign (Kheyfits Belenky moved from the Wild Basin Rd. and 1140 Ave. of the Americas addresses to Austin's Hill Country Blvd. and 80 Broad St., New York). Dmitry Kheyfits' California Bar record now shows "Inactive" status. These are current-status facts with no bearing on the 2020 appearance record.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me verify the full docket to confirm whether any defendant counsel ever entered an appearance.

Bottom line

No attorney ever entered an appearance for the defendant in 2:20-cv-00160. There is no counsel of record for AMG Technology Investment Group, LLC d/b/a NextLink. The entire docket consists of ten entries, and every appearance, disclosure, and substantive filing was made by plaintiff-side counsel. The case was voluntarily dismissed by CommWorks before the defendant's answer deadline, so no defense appearance was ever required or made.

Docket-derived support

The mirrored docket (UniCourt's copy of the E.D. Tex. docket; RPX Insight litigation page; Justia dockets) shows the following sequence:

Dkt. Date Filing Filer
1 05/27/2020 Complaint for Patent Infringement CommWorks
2 05/27/2020 AO 120 patent form CommWorks
3 05/27/2020 Corporate Disclosure Statement (Davis) CommWorks
— 05/28/2020 Case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap Clerk
4 06/08/2020 Summons Returned Executed — AMG served 6/2/2020; answer due 6/23/2020 CommWorks
5 06/16/2020 Notice of Attorney Appearance (Belenky) CommWorks
6 06/16/2020 Notice of Attorney Appearance (Moore) CommWorks
7 06/16/2020 Notice of Attorney Appearance (Kheyfits) CommWorks
8 07/17/2020 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Belenky) CommWorks
9 07/21/2020 Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice (Gilstrap) Court
10 07/21/2020 AO 120 form at termination Clerk

Every attorney name associated with the case in the docket metadata is on the plaintiff's side (Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis, Brandon Gregory Moore, Andrey Belenky, Dmitry Kheyfits — the Kheyfits Belenky LLP / Stafford Davis Firm PC group that prosecuted the CommWorks portfolio campaign). UniCourt's "Attorney/Law Firm Details" block lists these four under Plaintiff Attorneys only; its defendant-side field is empty. RPX and Justia likewise list no defense counsel.

Why there is no defense counsel of record

  • AMG/NextLink was served on June 2, 2020 (Dkt. 4) with an answer deadline of June 23, 2020. No answer, Rule 12 motion, extension motion, or notice of appearance from any defense firm appears on the docket before CommWorks filed its voluntary dismissal on July 17, 2020 (Dkt. 8).
  • Judge Gilstrap dismissed the case without prejudice on July 21, 2020 (Dkt. 9) — 56 days after filing, and about four weeks after the defendant's answer was due. That posture (quick, unilateral, without-prejudice dismissal by the NPE) is the classic signature of a pre-appearance license/settlement, where the defendant's in-house or outside counsel may have negotiated directly with plaintiff's counsel without ever filing a paper.
  • Because no litigation stay, protective order, or seal order appears, nothing here is sealed — the absence of defense counsel is a genuine docket fact, not a redaction artifact.

Caveats on sourcing

  • I was not able to pull the PACER docket sheet itself in this session; the reconstruction above relies on the UniCourt, RPX Insight, and Justia mirrors of the E.D. Tex. docket, which agree with each other and with the case metadata (filed 2020-05-27, closed 2020-07-21, Dkt. 9 dismissal without prejudice). If you need the certification-grade answer, pull the PACER docket for 2:20-cv-00160 and confirm entries 1–10 as reproduced here — the absence of a defense appearance should be verified there.
  • Do not infer, and I am not asserting, any identity for NextLink's counsel. Any attorney who advised or negotiated on NextLink's behalf in 2020 did so off the record and is not identifiable from the docket, court opinions, or press coverage. Individual counsel names for this defendant simply do not exist in the public record for this case.
  • One clarification on the pleadings: although the case metadata lists RE44,904 as the patent at issue, the complaint as filed (Dkt. 1) asserted a multi-patent portfolio — the '904 reissue alongside U.S. Patents 6,891,807, 7,027,465, 7,177,285, 7,463,596, 7,911,979, 7,760,664, and 8,116,315 — consistent with CommWorks' practice of asserting the same bundle across its 2020 ISP campaign (e.g., the parallel Consolidated Communications case, 2:20-cv-00159). The '904 reissue was the count directed at Wi-Fi-enabled modems/routers such as the NextLink Calix GigaCenter router.

If your objective is to identify who defends NextLink in other CommWorks or later matters, that would require a separate docket pull — I did not find a defense appearance in this case, and I won't name attorneys I cannot source.