CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. AVM GmbH (d/b/a AVM Corp.)

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

Let me dig into the docket, the parties' identities, and any IPR history.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with a registered office in Alpharetta, Georgia (Fulton County), and it does not make or sell products. Unified Patents has described it as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC," and IPWatchdog's NPE filing roundups tag CommWorks filings with the bracketed notation "[IP Investments Group]." Its asserted portfolio traces to the CommWorks/3Com-era networking patent estate (CommWorks was originally a 3Com business unit), and the patents have been asserted repeatedly since at least 2020 against cable operators, ISPs, router/access-point vendors, and Wi-Fi chipset makers — including Comcast, RCN, Mediacom, Cable One, Consolidated Communications, D-Link, Technicolor, Ubee Interactive, Texas Instruments, MediaTek, u-blox, TRENDnet, EarthLink, and Greenwave/Axon Networks. On the other side, AVM GmbH is a genuine operating company: the Berlin-based (Alt-Moabit 95) communications manufacturer founded in 1986, best known for the FRITZ!Box router line, FRITZ!Repeater, and FRITZ!WLAN adapters. AVM reported roughly 900 employees and €630 million in turnover for 2024, was majority-acquired by Imker Capital Partners (announced July 2024), and rebranded the corporate entity from AVM GmbH to FRITZ! GmbH in 2025. The docket signature on the complaint is plaintiff's counsel Carey Rozier, a long-time E.D. Tex. plaintiff-side patent litigator.

Accused technology and asserted patents. The accused instrumentalities are AVM's Wi-Fi hardware — SoCs, FRITZ!Box routers/modems (expressly including the FRITZ!Box 5590 Fiber, 7390, 4060 AX, and 6890 LTE), FRITZ!Repeater, and FRITZ!WLAN Stick products — and the theory is essentially "practice of standardized Wi-Fi features," not product-specific design. Two standard features carry the case: Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS), the button-press network-joining standard, which allegedly embodies the time-based provisioning family; and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) / IEEE 802.11e QoS, which allegedly practices the traffic-detection and prioritization methods. The original complaint (Exhibits A–F, all styled "Evidence of Use" claim charts) asserted six patents: U.S. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" (issued May 10, 2005 from App. 10/341,847) — an access point that tracks operation of a wireless device and provisions it if that operation falls within an activatable time interval, the parent of the provisioning family; U.S. 7,177,285, U.S. 7,463,596, and U.S. 7,911,979, all continuations in that same WPS-oriented provisioning family; U.S. 7,027,465, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" (extracting a bit pattern from a fixed frame location and comparing it to a search pattern to flag priority frames); and U.S. RE44,904, a reissue sibling in the QoS/traffic-detection line. Per the case summary and the amended pleading, the operative First Amended Complaint narrowed the assertion to the '807 patent, at least claim 17 (a system claim directed to the access point with tracking/provisioning logic), with the FRITZ!Box 5590 Fiber as the exemplar accused device. I should flag a sourcing caveat here: the narrowing to '807 is reflected in the case metadata and in third-party complaint summaries, but I could not independently confirm from a primary PACER pull which counts were dropped and why.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. Filed January 13, 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap — the district and judge long associated with the highest patent-filing volumes and fastest time-to-trial in the country, which is why NPE plaintiffs file there and why defendants' first instinct is often transfer, IPR, or early license. CommWorks amended once (First Amended Complaint entered February 7, 2025) and the case ended quickly: Judge Gilstrap signed an order dismissing the case without prejudice on June 19, 2025 (entered June 20), with the AO 120 termination notice sent to the PTO — a lifespan of roughly five months and no merits ruling. I found no public settlement or license announcement, so the cause of dismissal is not well sourced and the without-prejudice form means CommWorks could refile against AVM. That short, merits-free lifecycle is itself the notable pattern: CommWorks's campaign has repeatedly resolved via early stipulated dismissals (e.g., Texas Instruments, 2:25-cv-00439, dismissed with prejudice 81 days after filing, and TRENDnet, dismissed with prejudice after ~259 days), extracting value without generating claim-construction or validity precedent. On IPR linkage, I confirmed PTAB activity against CommWorks patents — Unified Patents v. CommWorks Solutions, IPR2021-01297 on U.S. 8,923,846 (instituted February 14, 2022; final written decision February 13, 2023) and Unified's ex parte reexamination 90/014,909 against U.S. 6,832,249 — but I found no IPR or PGR on the '807 patent in my search; treat that as "none found," not "none exists." Market context: AVM/FRITZ! is one of Europe's leading home-networking vendors (60% of German households own a FRITZ!Box per the Imker transaction materials) and has been an active Brussels voice on SEP licensing policy, which makes it an attractive target for a portfolio positioned against Wi-Fi Alliance certification features — though whether any of these CommWorks patents are formally declared standards-essential is something I could not verify and should not be assumed.

Source note: Docket events and the dismissal order are drawn from the Unified Patents litigation portal entry for 2:25-cv-00026 and third-party docket mirrors (Ex Parte AI Lab), not a direct PACER pull; party-characterization evidence comes from Unified Patents' published analyses, IPWatchdog filing roundups, and AVM/FRITZ! corporate press materials and the Lincoln International deal announcement.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and the asserted patent.

Good initial data. Let me get the full docket and check for parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me pull the full docket details and check for PTAB challenges to the '807 patent.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. AVM GmbH — Legal Developments & Outcome

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, portfolio-style NPE assertion that ended without any merits adjudication. Filed 2025-01-13 in E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the case was dismissed without prejudice on 2025-06-19 — roughly five months later, before AVM ever answered, before any Markman proceedings, and with no parallel PTAB proceeding identified on the asserted patents. No claim was held invalid or not infringed, and no damages verdict or judgment issued.

⚠️ Source-integrity note up front: The only public docket records I could reach for this specific case number are aggregator snapshots (Unified Patents litigation portal; the "Ex Parte" AI litigation database), not PACER itself, and one search provider returned an unrelated CommWorks complaint (against EarthLink) that shares boilerplate. I flag below where a fact is well-sourced versus inferred. I found no Law360, Reuters Legal, IPWatchdog, or Patently-O coverage of the AVM case specifically — consistent with a case that never reached a substantive ruling.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

The complaint (Doc. 1). CommWorks Solutions, LLC — a Georgia LLC with its registered office in Alpharetta, GA — sued AVM GmbH, described as a German corporation at Alt-Moabit 95, 10559 Berlin, Germany. The pleading sought monetary damages only (no injunction request surfaced in the excerpted text). Notably, the complaint asserted six patents, each supported by an "Evidence of Use" exhibit:

1. U.S. 7,177,285 — WPS provisioning
2. U.S. 7,463,596 — device association/WPS
3. U.S. 7,911,979 — provisioning
4. U.S. RE44,904 — contention-free traffic detection (reissue)
5. U.S. 7,027,465 — contention-free traffic detection
6. U.S. 6,891,807 — "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" (asserted claim 17)

Accused products: AVM's FRITZ!Box router line (e.g., FRITZ!Box 5590 Fiber, FRITZ!Box 7390, FRITZ!Box 4060 AX, FRITZ!Box 6890 LTE), FRITZ!Repeater, and FRITZ!WLAN Stick devices. The infringement theory was standards-based, targeting two standardized features:

• Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) — mapped to the '807, '285, '596 and '979 patents ("time-based" provisioning)
• Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) / 802.11-2007+ QoS — mapped to the '465 and RE44,904 patents

The '807 count (Count II in the pleading) alleged direct, induced, and willful infringement, including a boilerplate allegation that AVM "has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," rendering it willfully blind.

Answer/Counterclaims: none. The docket snapshot shows no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no invalidity or non-infringement counterclaim, and no discovery motion practice before termination. AVM (a foreign defendant requiring service abroad) apparently never entered a merits appearance in the public record I can access.

Filing context. This was one of a wave of same-day/same-week filings by CommWorks' counsel Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC — e.g., CommWorks v. DrayTek, No. 2:25-cv-00024 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025-01-13, also before Judge Gilstrap), with near-identical exhibit sets. CommWorks is identified in later filings as having corporate parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC (per a Rule 7.1 disclosure filed in a sibling case, CommWorks v. EarthLink, No. 2:25-cv-00716). Plaintiff's counsel of record in the AVM matter was Carey Matthew Rozier (docket signature on both the complaint and FAC).

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None on the merits. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment motion appears on the docket. The case terminated at the pleading stage.

For contrast, in the parallel Qualcomm matter filed weeks later (CommWorks v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00154, E.D. Tex.), Qualcomm did file a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue on 2025-02-28 (D.I. 11) — CommWorks then filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 2025-03-04, and Judge Gilstrap dismissed on 2025-03-06. The AVM case shows no analogous motion before dismissal, which suggests the AVM exit was plaintiff-driven or by stipulation rather than in response to a dispositive motion. Caveat: I could not retrieve the text of the dismissal order or any underlying notice/stipulation, so the precise mechanism (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) self-effectuating notice vs. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation vs. court order) is not confirmed.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Never reached. No scheduling order, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order. The case closed before the E.D. Tex. docket would normally set a claim construction schedule (typically 6–8 months post-filing). This means no claim of the '807 patent — including asserted claim 17 — received any judicial construction, which matters for the patent's forward-looking exposure (see §7).

---

4. Discovery Milestones

None of note. No infringement contentions, no discovery disputes, and no expert discovery appear in the available record. Given the ~157-day lifespan, discovery had likely barely begun (or not begun) when the case closed.

---

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial date was set, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion, and no cost-shifting award. The case never approached the pretrial phase.

---

6. Final Disposition

• 2025-06-19 (entered 2025-06-20): ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (docketed via the Unified Patents litigation portal for Case 2:25-cv-00026).
• Same date: Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form AO 120 at termination, emailed to the USPTO Director.
• Status: Closed (consistent with the authoritative case metadata).
• Settlement terms: Undisclosed. Given the without-prejudice posture and the absence of any fee-shifting order, the practical resolution — if any — is not visible on the public record. Without-prejudice dismissal is equally consistent with (a) a confidential license/settlement, (b) a strategic withdrawal (e.g., a service or jurisdiction problem with a German defendant, or a decision to concentrate resources on the broader campaign), or (c) a case-management consolidation of effort. I cannot confirm which; the record does not say.
• Practical effect: Because dismissal was without prejudice, CommWorks retained (and retains) the right to refile against AVM on the same patents.

Present posture (as of 2026-09-20)

Still closed; no refiling against AVM surfaced in my searches. By contrast, the wider CommWorks campaign continued through 2025 against other hardware makers, several of which also resolved quickly and pre-answer — e.g. CommWorks v. Texas Instruments, No. 2:25-cv-00439 (E.D. Tex.), dismissed by stipulation with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics, No. 7:25-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex.), voluntarily dismissed with prejudice ~70 days after filing; CommWorks v. Marvell, No. 7:25-cv-00354 (W.D. Tex.), dismissed without prejudice; and CommWorks v. EarthLink, No. 2:25-cv-00716 (E.D. Tex.), dismissed 2025-10. (These sibling-case details come from PACER-derived aggregator summaries — PatSnap Eureka and CourtListener — and should be treated as secondary sourcing.)

---

7. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) Proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on U.S. 6,891,807 — and none on any of the other patents asserted in this case — that is tied to the AVM litigation. This is a meaningful negative finding: the case was dismissed before any PTAB petition would typically be filed (a defendant served 2025-01-13 would have had until roughly 2026-01-13 under § 315(b), and the case was over by 2025-06-19).

Watch out for a citation trap: a search for the '807 patent surfaces General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., IPR2017-01885 / IPR2017-01887, involving U.S. 7,173,916 and U.S. 6,891,810 (with a final written decision in May 2019). Those are different patents (the '810, not the '807) and unrelated parties. Do not conflate them.

Effect on the litigation: none — there was no IPR to drive a stay or an estoppel, no Fintiv analysis, and no institution decision. It is also worth noting for context that the PTAB's discretionary-denial framework shifted during this window: the USPTO rescinded the June 21, 2022 Fintiv "Interim Procedure" on 2025-02-28, and Director Squires issued a 2025-10-16 memorandum centralizing institution decisions with the Director — after this case had already closed. None of that framework was ever applied to the '807 here.

---

8. Strategic Read-Through

1. A pre-answer, no-merits exit. The '807 patent (asserted claim 17) and its five companions emerged from this case with their presumption of validity intact and judicially unconstrued. A without-prejudice dismissal binds no one and adjudicates nothing.
2. The '807 remains live. Its 2025-05-10 issue date puts it past 20 years from its 2003-01-13 filing date, so term/expiry considerations (including any PTA/terminal-disclaimer adjustments and the pre-GATT 20-year measurement) are now a more important defense lever than validity for any would-be target. I have not verified the patent's exact expiration date or any terminal disclaimer — this should be confirmed against the USPTO Patent Center record before relying on it.
3. The dismissal fits a pattern. CommWorks' 2025 filings against device makers resolved within weeks to months, mostly pre-Markman, with a mix of with-prejudice and without-prejudice outcomes — a profile consistent with an early-stage licensing/demand-letter monetization model rather than merits litigation.

---

Gaps I Could Not Close (flagged, not fabricated)

• Text of the dismissal order / any underlying stipulation or notice — I could only confirm the order's existence, date, signer, and "without prejudice" character.
• AVM's counsel of record — no appearance identified in the records I reached.
• Whether the FAC narrowed the asserted patents (the metadata for this case lists only '807; the complaint and the Doc. 8 amended-complaint analysis both reflect the six-patent set — I could not confirm a substantive narrowing to '807 alone).
• Any settlement/license terms — undisclosed.
• Confirmation that no PTAB petition was ever filed — based on absence in searches, not a checked PTAB docket or Patent Center "post-grant" tab for the '807.

Primary sources used: Unified Patents litigation portal, Case 2:25-cv-00026 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:25-cv-00026); "Ex Parte" AI litigation database docket and complaint analysis for 2:25-cv-00026 (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00026/doc/8); Justia Dockets for CommWorks v. Qualcomm (2:25-cv-00154); CourtListener docket for CommWorks v. EarthLink (2:25-cv-00716). Secondary/aggregator: PatSnap Eureka litigation summaries (Zyxel, Vyve, Marvell, STMicroelectronics, TI, u-blox) — used only for campaign context and corroborated where possible.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record for this case across docket mirrors, firm sites, and litigation press.

Let me pull the docket sheet and counsel entries for this specific case, plus firm/attorney background.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. AVM GmbH, No. 2:25-cv-00026 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: On the available docket records, the only attorney who appeared for CommWorks in this case is C. Matthew Rozier of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC — he is the ECF filer of both the original Complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 01/13/2025) and the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 8, filed 02/06/2025, entered 02/07/2025). I found no separate notice of appearance by any co-counsel, no local-counsel designation from an E.D. Tex. firm, and no defense-side appearance in this docket — consistent with the five-month, merits-free life of the case. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice on 06/19/2025 before any responsive pleading, no additional plaintiff or defense appearances were ever generated.

Sourcing caveat (carry-over): this is built from docket mirrors (Unified Patents litigation portal for 2:25-cv-00026; Ex Parte AI Lab; PACER Monitor / Docket Alarm entries for related CommWorks matters), not a direct PACER docket-sheet pull. If PACER shows a "Notice of Attorney Appearance" I could not retrieve, the list below would be under-inclusive. No attorney is listed here who is not evidenced by a filing or a docket-mirror attorney field.

---

Lead counsel (confirmed in this case)

Carey "C. Matthew" Rozier — Lead counsel; sole attorney of record on this docket

• Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (the firm has also been docketed as "Rozier & Hardt PLLC" and, earlier in his practice, Williams Simons & Landis PLLC – Austin). His PTAB filings and USPTO registration list a Denver, CO office (1001 Bannock Street, Suite 241) and a Washington, DC office (1500 K Street NW, 2nd Floor); his E.D. Tex. filings historically list the firm's Austin, TX mailbox (e.g., mrozier@wsltrial.com, 512-717-6583). Emails in use: matt@rhmtrial.com. USPTO Reg. No. 63,429.
• Role note: He signs and files virtually all CommWorks pleadings in the parallel campaign and is the signature block on this case's complaint and FAC (the docket reflects the filer as "Rozier, Carey").
• Experience: A high-volume plaintiff-side patent litigator in the Eastern District (and now W.D. Tex.) — representative NPE clients include CommWorks Solutions, Fleet Connect Solutions, EMM Innovations, Fitistics, AR Design Innovations, Integral Wireless Technologies, Better Browsing, and Nearby Systems. Before co-founding the Rozier/Hardt firm he was at Williams Simons & Landis in Austin. He is also a registered patent attorney and handles trademark litigation. He is the anchor of the IP Investments Group–affiliated filing program that this case belongs to.

Attorneys who represent CommWorks in sibling matters but are not evidenced in this docket

I could not confirm appearances by any of the following in 2:25-cv-00026; treat them as "the firm's usual CommWorks team," not as counsel of record here.

In-house counsel

None. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a non-practicing entity described by Unified Patents as an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC (Alpharetta, GA) — there is no product-side legal department signing filings, and the mirrored dockets show no in-house attorney of record. (See the Case Overview section for the IP Investments Group lineage.)

Person(s) to avoid confusing with plaintiff's counsel

Carey R. Ramos (Quinn Emanuel, NY/Hong Kong) — a different attorney entirely; his name surfaced in searches for "Carey" + patent counsel (IPR2016-01829 pro hac vice declaration). He has no connection to CommWorks or this case.

---

Practical takeaways / flags

• One name to serve, one name to confer with: for this case, the Rule 5 / notice-address list is effectively a single firm — Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, c/o C. Matthew Rozier. Any refiling against AVM/FRITZ! would almost certainly repeat that signature block, with McDonough (Atlanta) and/or Hardt (Austin) added if venue moves to W.D. Tex.
• Local counsel point: unusually for E.D. Tex., no Tyler/Marshall-area local counsel appeared. That is explained by Rozier's own Texas bar membership and by the absence of any contested motion practice before dismissal.
• Continuity with prior sections: this confirms, and sharpens, the earlier statement that "the docket signature on the complaint is plaintiff's counsel Carey Rozier" — he is not merely the signer but the only plaintiff-side appearance on the record.
• Not verified: I could not confirm from a primary PACER pull whether an attorney-appearance entry exists beyond the complaint/FAC signatures, nor the exact office address the clerk's CM/ECF record attaches to Rozier for this case number. If precision on the docket address matters (e.g., for a service list), a direct PACER docket-sheet pull for 2:25-cv-00026 is the right next step.

Key sources: Unified Patents litigation portal, No. 2:25-cv-00026 (docket entries for Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 8, both filed "Rozier, Carey"); Ex Parte AI Lab case page and amended-complaint analysis for 2:25-cv-00026; PACER Monitor attorney fields for CommWorks v. VTech (2:25-cv-00433, E.D. Tex.) and Nearby Systems v. Exxon Mobil (2:26-cv-00260, E.D. Tex.); CourtListener RECAP party page for CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics (7:25-cv-00363, W.D. Tex.); Justia dockets for CommWorks v. u-blox America (E.D. Va. 2:25-cv-00842, Dkt. 11 pro hac vice order); USPTO PTAB petition filing listing C. Matthew Rozier (Reg. No. 63,429) and Kristin M. Whidby (Reg. No. 71,026).

I'll research defendant-side counsel for this case across the docket and firm sources.

Let me pull the docket sheet directly from multiple mirrors to see if any defense appearance was filed.

Let me get the full docket listing from CourtListener and the Ex Parte case page to see whether any defense-side filings exist.

Short answer

No attorney has appeared for the defendant on this docket, as reflected in the sources I could reach. My searches did not locate a single defense-side filing — no Notice of Attorney Appearance, no Rule 7.1 disclosure, no unopposed extension of time to answer, no responsive pleading, no motion — in CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. AVM GmbH, No. 2:25-cv-00026 (E.D. Tex.). The only attorney signature I can identify anywhere on the docket is plaintiff's counsel's.

I want to be explicit rather than fill the gap with a plausible-looking name: I am not naming any attorney as defense counsel, because I found no source identifying one. Below is what the record does show, why the absence is plausible, and how to close the gap definitively.

What the docket shows

The event list carried by the two docket mirrors I could reach for this case is short and entirely plaintiff-side plus court-generated entries:

(Source: Unified Patents litigation portal, case 2:25-cv-00026; Ex Parte AI Lab docket page for 2:25-cv-00026.)

Conspicuously absent from that list: any defendant appearance, any answer or Rule 12 motion, any extension application, and any stipulation of dismissal signed by defense counsel. Note that CommWorks's dockets in sibling cases typically show a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by plaintiff right before the closing order; here the closing instrument is a court-signed dismissal order, and I could not retrieve its text to see whether it recites a stipulation or joint motion (which would ordinarily bear a defense-counsel signature block).

Why the absence is plausible — and what it means

This case lived ~157 days (Jan 13 → June 19, 2025) and terminated without prejudice. In that posture, three scenarios are consistent with a blank defense side:

1. Service-driven dismissal. Paragraph 4 of the complaint pleads AVM GmbH as a German entity at Alt-Moabit 95, 10559 Berlin, and venue is pleaded under the alien-venue rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), citing In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Where a foreign defendant has not been served (or service is still in progress under the Hague Service Convention), a plaintiff will sometimes take a voluntary dismissal rather than litigate service — and the docket would show no defense appearance at all.
2. Pre-appearance resolution. CommWorks's campaign has repeatedly resolved cases quickly and quietly — e.g., the Qualcomm matter in this same court (2:25-cv-00154) was voluntarily dismissed March 4, 2025, less than a month after filing and only days after Qualcomm's Rule 12(b)(3) motion; the VTech case (2:25-cv-00433) was dismissed with prejudice. In several of these, a defense-side appearance does exist before dismissal; here it does not appear.
3. Docket-mirror gap. The mirrors I used are not guarantees of completeness, and any appearance filed between February and June 2025 could in principle not have propagated to them.

The d/b/a AVM Corp. wrinkle. The case metadata captions the defendant as "AVM GmbH (d/b/a AVM Corp.)" while the complaint names only "AVM GmbH." If plaintiff was attempting to reach a U.S. affiliate or assumed name, that could explain service complications — but I found no filing addressing it, so treat that as a hypothesis, not a finding.

Comparators from parallel CommWorks matters (not this case)

To be clear that these are different defendants and must not be attributed to AVM — but they show who typically staffs the defense side against this plaintiff, which is useful if you need to predict or verify:

• Qualcomm Inc. / Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00154): Richard S. Zembek and Daniel A. Prati, Norton Rose Fulbright (Zembek is a Houston-based trial lawyer and registered patent attorney; Prati appeared with him). They filed a Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion with a declaration of D. Prati on Feb 28, 2025.
• Marvell Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00354): Christopher S. Ponder, Harper S. Batts, and Jeffrey Liang.
• CommScope / ARRIS (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00510): defense-side counsel not confirmed in my results; plaintiff side included Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis LLC (Bartles, Moore, Belenky, Kheyfits), reflecting that CommWorks has used more than one plaintiff firm over time.

What I could not verify (and how to close it)

• Primary PACER pull. I could not run a live PACER query on 2:25-cv-00026; everything above comes from third-party mirrors (Unified Patents portal, Ex Parte AI Lab) and the complaint PDF. "No defense counsel found" is therefore evidence of absence in those sources, not proof of absence on the docket.
• Where to check, in order: (1) PACER docket for 2:25-cv-00026, filter for "Notice of Attorney Appearance," "Application for Extension of Time to Answer," and "Disclosure Statement" (any Rule 7.1 filing would be signed by defense counsel); (2) the text of the June 19, 2025 dismissal order (Docket ~10–12) for a stipulation signature block; (3) the "Related Transactions"/party tabs on Docket Alarm, which index counsel of record by party and often capture appearances that mirrors omit.
• In-house / German counsel. Even had AVM appeared, in-house counsel and AVM/FRITZ!'s German litigation team would generally not appear on the U.S. docket absent pro hac vice admission. I found nothing on that either.

Net: for this closed case, the identity of defendant's counsel of record is, on the sources available to me, unknown — and possibly nonexistent, because the case terminated without prejudice in roughly five months with no defense-side entry appearing in the docket mirrors. I'd confirm with a direct PACER pull before reporting a negative to anyone relying on it.

Sources: Unified Patents litigation portal (case 2:25-cv-00026); Ex Parte AI Lab docket and complaint/amended-complaint pages for 2:25-cv-00026; Docket Alarm and Justia dockets for the parallel CommWorks matters cited; PACER Monitor entries for CommWorks v. VTech and CommWorks v. Realtek. No defense-side firm announcement, Law360 or Reuters Legal item, or court opinion naming AVM's counsel was located.