CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to give you an accurate, sourced overview.

Let me dig into the specific docket and CommWorks' identity.

Let me verify the docket disposition and the patent set.

Parties

CommWorks Solutions, LLC (plaintiff) is a patent-assertion entity, not an operating company. Its Rule 7.1 disclosures identify its corporate parent as Brainbox Innovations, LLC, and related-party disclosures in the campaign identify Invention Investment Fund I LLC and Invention Investment Fund II LLC — Intellectual Ventures vehicles — as interested parties (see the CommWorks v. Linksys/Belkin Notice of Interested Parties, C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-09229, Dkt. 3; and E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716, Dkt. 2). Litigation-data providers tag CommWorks as an NPE, and IPWatchdog reported (Sept. 22, 2021) that Altice USA's declaratory-judgment actions alleged CommWorks (with DataCloud Techs. and DigiMedia Tech.) was part of a "coordinated patent assertion campaign driven by Brainbox," in which IV retained a security interest and a backend on licensing revenue. CommWorks was previously formed in Georgia (Alpharetta/Fulton County per its later complaints) and, despite the telecom-sounding name, its public filings show a licensing vehicle, not a Wi-Fi or networking manufacturer. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (defendant) is the Taiwanese multinational behind the ASUS brand — a top-tier PC/motherboard vendor and a major consumer networking player (ASUS Router, ZenWiFi mesh, ROG/Republic of Gamers), whose routers, repeaters and adapter cards are imported and sold throughout the U.S.

Accused technology and asserted patents

The complaint attacks ASUS's Wi-Fi product line — "ASUS Wi-Fi Routers, ZenWiFi WiFi System, and ROG devices," plus devices/SoCs supporting particular Wi-Fi features — and the infringement theory is feature-based rather than whole-product-based: Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) push-button provisioning, Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/802.11-2007+ QoS, and AiMesh multi-hop mesh (third-party complaint analysis of ¶17 and the claim-chart exhibits). One publicly posted (AI-generated) complaint summary also names specific exemplars — ASUS Lyra Trio, CM-32 and PCE-AC56 adapter — and two antenna patents not seen in CommWorks' other suits, so I treat the product list as indicative rather than documented. The metadata flags U.S. 6,891,807 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued May 10, 2005, app. 10/341,847 filed Jan. 13, 2003; at least claim 17 asserted in sister cases), which is the keystone of the WPS time-based provisioning family and maps to the ~120-second WPS push-button window: '807 itself (AP logic tracking a device's operation and provisioning only if it occurs within an "activatable time interval"), plus continuations 7,177,285, 7,463,596 and 7,911,979. The QoS/WMM side is covered by 7,027,465 ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" — extract a bit pattern at a predetermined frame offset, compare to a search pattern, flag the frame as priority) and its reissue RE44,904; the broadband/OSI-layer QoS side by 6,832,249 ("Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System…Flow Priority," aimed at 802.3ah / ITU-T G.984-type gear); and the mesh side by 9,554,304 ("Scalable Media Access Control for Multi-Hop High Bandwidth Communications," aimed squarely at AiMesh). The remaining asserted patents in the campaign's union — 7,760,664 and 8,116,315 — appear only in the EarthLink complaint's claim-chart exhibits, so I cannot give a verified one-line technical sketch for them; that same union of ten patents (the '249, '465, '807, '285, '596, '664, '979, '315, '304 and RE44,904) is the most likely composition of this case's ten asserted patents (the complaint attached ten evidence-of-use exhibits, A–J), though a competing source pair (docket-derived IPC data showing antenna classes H01Q1/24 and H01Q3/02) hints that two of the ten may instead be antenna patents.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters

Filed November 14, 2024 in the E.D. Tex., Marshall Division (case number prefix "2:") and docketed as 2:24-cv-00931-JRG before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with a jury demand; the case is now shown as Closed by litigation-data providers (RPX Empower; Ex Parte), although one aggregator listed it as "pending judge assignment." The venue choice is deliberate: the Marshall Division is one of the country's most experienced patent dockets with firm trial settings, and CommWorks filed a cluster of these suits there in 2024–25 (e.g., AVM, 2:25-cv-00026; DrayTek, 2:25-cv-00024; EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716) before spreading to W.D. Tex. (Marvell 7:25-cv-00354; STMicro 7:25-cv-00363; Microchip 7:26-cv-00043), C.D. Cal. (Broadcom 2:25-cv-02998), E.D. Va. (u-blox 1:25-cv-02504) and D. Minn. (Digi 0:26-cv-03949). Venue for a foreign defendant like ASUS turns on in-district sales/use and has repeatedly been contested in EDTX, so an early §1400(b)/transfer fight was foreseeable. The case is notable as one strand of a coordinated, feature-level Wi-Fi assertion campaign that reaches both chipmakers and device makers across the Wi-Fi supply chain — a royalty theory built on standardized, ubiquitous functionality (WPS, WMM and mesh) rather than a single product — and because CommWorks' complaints preemptively brief § 101 eligibility, telegraphing Alice as a recurring defense theme. Two practical dynamics likely drove the early closure: several asserted patents are old enough that the WPS family is at or near end of term (the '807's 2003 priority date implies expiration around early 2023 absent PTA/PTE, and CommWorks pleads infringement "until its expiry" on family members), making this a past-damages exercise; and CommWorks' demonstrated pattern of rapid exits — Texas Instruments (2:25-cv-00439, dismissed with prejudice), STMicroelectronics (7:25-cv-00363, with prejudice), Marvell (7:25-cv-00354, voluntary dismissal), AVM (2:25-cv-00026, dismissed without prejudice by Judge Gilstrap on June 19, 2025) and TRENDnet (with prejudice, mutual costs) — suggests settlement rather than adjudication. IPR linkage exists at the portfolio level rather than confirmed for this case: Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 (U.S. 8,923,846, not asserted here) is the verified example, and Unified filed a series of CommWorks challenges in 2021.

Sourcing caveats / open items. (1) I could not locate a primary docket entry, opinion, or news report identifying the specific closing event in 2:24-cv-00931 — "Closed" rests on aggregated data (RPX Empower, Ex Parte, Patentpia), and I found no verdict, judgment, claim-construction opinion, or Rule 41 dismissal order for this case. (2) The ten-patent list is reconstructed from the union of CommWorks' campaign complaints and one third-party complaint summary; the two antenna patents (U.S. 6,456,242 "Conformal Box Antenna," 6,456,245 "Card-Based Diversity Antenna") attributed to this complaint by that summary are unverified against a primary document and are inconsistent with CommWorks' other filings, so treat the patent roster and the Lyra Trio/CM-32/PCE-AC56 exemplars as provisional. (3) The Rule 50(b)/Rule 59 and attorney's-fee motions and the amended final judgment I encountered in searching are from a different Judge Gilstrap ASUS case (Force Mos Technology v. ASUSTeK, 2:22-cv-00460-JRG, terminated June 11, 2025) and are not events in this case; do not conflate them. (4) I did not verify counsel of record, the '807's exact expiration date (PTA/PTE unknown), or any ASUS-specific PTAB filings.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and legal news sources.

I have initial hits. Now let me pull the specific docket and outcomes.

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

Let me get the specific docket for this case to confirm which counsel entered appearances.

Let me look for the complaint signature block and the CourtListener docket.

Bottom line on verification

I could not retrieve the actual docket-sheet entries for C.A. No. 2:24-cv-00931 (the complaint, notices of appearance, or pro hac vice motions) within this research session. The free aggregators that carry this case (Ex Parte's AI Lab docket, Patentpia, RPX Empower, Docket Alarm) show the case as filed 11/14/2024 in E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap with "Closed" status, and Patentpia's party table lists the plaintiff-side firm and lead-counsel fields as blank ("-"), i.e., no counsel data captured. So the identification below is built from the plaintiff's parallel CommWorks campaign dockets, which are unusually consistent, rather than from a confirmed appearance in this specific case. I flag each item's source.

Counsel representing CommWorks Solutions, LLC

CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a patent-holding plaintiff (Patentpia flags it as an NPE) asserting the 3Com-derived "time-based wireless access provisioning" / "contention-free traffic detection" family plus antenna and mesh-MAC patents. Across its active E.D. Tex. filings it is represented by the same Atlanta/Austin boutique, sometimes with a second firm signing the complaint.

Related-firm note (not this case's counsel): In CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Digi International Inc., 0:26-cv-03949 (D. Minn.), the plaintiff is represented by Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, with Cortney S. Alexander moving pro hac vice — i.e., CommWorks retains local/fee-sharing counsel outside Texas. If this ASUS matter was dismissed or transferred before an appearance was docketed, a similar arrangement may have been used.

Caveats you should carry forward

1. No docket confirmation for 2:24-cv-00931. I did not see a verified "Notice of Attorney Appearance" or pro hac vice order on this docket. Treat the table as a high-confidence inference from the plaintiff's uniform representation pattern in the same campaign, not as a PACER-verified appearance list.
2. The case is closed. The metadata says Closed; I could not confirm whether it closed via voluntary dismissal, settlement/license, or transfer, and therefore cannot confirm whether formal appearances were ever filed. If it resolved very early, there may be no counsel of record beyond the complaint signature block.
3. Local counsel. E.D. Tex. practice generally requires a member of the bar of this court to appear; Rozier Hardt McDonough's Austin office and Kheyfits Belenky's N.Y. office suggest any Texas local-counsel designation would be handled through the Austin office. I did not find a separate Tyler/Marshall local-counsel firm named in this matter.
4. No in-house counsel identified. CommWorks is an NPE without reported in-house litigation staff in the public record; I found none and am not inventing one.
5. Patent count discrepancy. The case metadata lists only the '807 patent, but the complaint as analyzed asserts a 10-patent set (including 6,456,242; 6,456,245; 9,554,304; 7,177,285; 7,027,465; 7,911,979; 7,463,596; and RE44,904) against ASUS Wi-Fi/WPS/AiMesh products such as the RT-BE86U, Lyra Trio, CM-32 and PCE-AC56. That discrepancy may explain why a single-party case shows as closed quickly (patent-by-patent narrowing/dismissal).

Recommended next steps to harden this

• Pull the PACER docket for 2:24-cv-00931 directly (Docket 1 signature block; any Dkts. 2–10 notices of appearance; any R. 12 dismissal or notice of voluntary dismissal) — that is the only way to convert the above from inference to fact.
• Check CourtListener's RECAP entry for this case number and the E.D. Tex. "Attorney Appearance" report to capture the exact filing dates and any pro hac vice grants.
• Cross-check the defendant side (Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff — Charles M. McMahon, Chicago; and Texas counsel such as Gregory Thompson / Melissa Smith) to confirm the case was actively litigated before closing.

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

Let me get the actual docket sheet and appearance entries for this specific case.

Let me try to pull the docket sheet directly from CourtListener and Justia.

Bottom line first: sourcing limitation

I could not retrieve the docket sheet or attorney-appearance entries for 2:24-cv-00931 itself. The public aggregators that index this case (Ex Parte AI Lab's case page, RPX Empower's litigation page, Patentpia, Justia's IP docket browse) show only case metadata — filing date 11/14/2024, NOS 830, Judge Gilstrap, status Closed, 10 patents-in-suit including the '807 patent — and none of them expose the "attorneys/represented by" fields. PACER/RECAP text for this docket was not reachable through search. So I cannot name counsel of record for ASUSTeK in this case with a docket-entry citation, and I will not guess at names.

I also want to flag a real possibility that bears on the answer: the case is shown as Closed only months after filing. If it was closed by voluntary dismissal (a common pattern for the Nov. 2024 CommWorks wave, and for CommWorks cases generally) before ASUSTeK filed an answer or notice of appearance, there may be no defense counsel of record at all in 2:24-cv-00931. That question can only be resolved from the docket's appearance entries.

What I can source: ASUSTeK's regular patent-defense team in E.D. Tex. / Judge Gilstrap matters

These are verified from actual docket text embedded in USPTO/IPR exhibit PDFs and from firm publications. They are not confirmed as appearances in 2:24-cv-00931 — treat them as the high-probability candidate team, subject to docket confirmation.

*From the docket of Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00460-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap)* — docket reproduced in PTAB exhibits (Excelliance MOS v. Force MOS, IPR2025-01433, Exs. 1027/2021):

Corroborating firm-side evidence for Benesch as ASUS's patent counsel: Benesch's own site/publication states that Charles McMahon (Partner), Thomas DaMario (Senior Managing Associate), Kathleen Lynch (Associate), and Ziyong "Sean" Li (Partner) represent ASUSTeK in a Federal Circuit appeal from a $10.5M patent verdict against ASUSTeK (Law360 coverage, June 2025). Another USPTO filing lists Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff as counsel for ASUSTeK in ASUS v. Videolabs, No. 22-cv-00720-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Sources: beneschlaw.com press/people PDFs; ptacts.uspto.gov petition downloads.

*A different team appeared for ASUSTeK in General Video, LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 5:24-cv-00126-RWS (E.D. Tex., Judge Schroeder)* — appearances Dkts. 19, 20 (03/25/2025) and filings by "Thompson" in Apr.–May 2025: Robert J. Benson, Jeffrey Lance Johnson, and Gregory Thompson. This shows ASUS does not use a single, invariant defense team across all E.D. Tex. suits, which is another reason not to assume the Force MOS lineup carried over into 2:24-cv-00931.

What is not supported

• I found no evidence of any specific attorney filing an appearance in 2:24-cv-00931 — no notice of appearance, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, and no pro hac vice application. Any such names would have to come from the docket.
• I found no indication of in-house ASUS counsel appearing in this matter (ASUS typically appears through outside counsel; in-house names are not in the public record I could reach).
• I did not verify a local-counsel appointment specific to this case.

How to confirm definitively (next steps)

1. PACER / RECAP docket for 2:24-cv-00931: pull entries titled "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance," "Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice," "Corporate Disclosure Statement," and the "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" (if any). The filer signature block on the dismissal notice would identify plaintiff's counsel; a dismissal before appearance would confirm no defense counsel of record.
2. Check the docket's "Attorneys" / "represented by" panel (the format shown in the Force MOS excerpt above) for the definitive lead-attorney designation.
3. Cross-check the E.D. Tex. "lead counsel" convention: the judges in this district require designation of lead counsel, so the docket will expressly mark one.
4. If the case was dismissed and refiled (CommWorks frequently refiles after dismissal), the new case number's appearance entries are the operative ones.

If you can supply the PACER docket text (or a RECAP link) for 2:24-cv-00931, I'll name each attorney with the exact docket entry number, role, and firm.