Litigation

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc.

pending

6:22-cv-00156

Patents at issue (1)

RE44904

Summary

CommWorks Solutions, LLC filed suit in W.D. Tex. against Charter Communications, Inc. et al, asserting RE44904. Status was pending/other per Stanford NPE DB.

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 using web search to verify details.

Case overview: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00156 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a non-practicing patent-assertion entity (Stanford NPE Database classifies it as a "Non Practicing Entity"; RPX tags the case "NPE"). It is a Georgia LLC with a registered office in Alpharetta, GA, and its Rule 7.1 disclosure in the parallel cases identifies Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent and, in at least one filing, Invention Investment Fund I/IP LLC — the Intellectual Ventures divestiture vehicles (see, e.g., E.D. Tex. complaint in CommWorks v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716, and C.D. Cal. interested-parties notice in CommWorks v. Linksys, 2:23-cv-09229). CommWorks does not make or sell products; it acquires and licenses/enforces patents. In 2021, Altice USA filed declaratory-judgment actions in D. Del. against CommWorks and two sister entities, alleging a "coordinated patent assertion campaign driven by Brainbox" with an IV "backend"/security interest on licensing revenue (IPWatchdog, Sept. 22, 2021: https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/09/22/patent-filings-roundup-trio-actions-accuse-ip-investments-coordinated-campaign-intellectual-ventures-backend-judge-albright-cancels-one-141-wsou-asserted-patents-new-magnetar-entity-s/). Defendants are Charter Communications, Inc., the publicly traded cable/broadband operator behind the Spectrum brand, and its subsidiary Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC (Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv00156/[1162110](/patent/1162110)).

Accused technology. Consistent with CommWorks' other complaints against broadband providers (NextLink, EarthLink, RCN), Charter is accused over use/provision of Wi-Fi-capable CPE and Wi-Fi service — cable gateways/routers and access points that implement Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/IEEE 802.11e QoS (EDCA, QoS Control field priority handling) and, depending on which patents are asserted, Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality (see the parallel EarthLink complaint describing accused devices as "devices with Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and/or 802.11-2007+ wireless QoS functionality"). RPX's case page for 6:22-cv-00156 lists 5 accused products and 6 patents-in-suit (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1162110-commworks-solutions-v-charter-communications). Caveat: the case metadata I was given is authoritative and lists only RE44,904, but the Feb. 11, 2022 complaint's attachment pattern (Exhibits A–F plus Exhibits 1–18) matches CommWorks' standard six-patent "Evidence of Use" package, and Unified Patents separately confirms the '664 patent "has been asserted against eight companies, including RCN Telecom Services, LLC and Charter Communications" (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2022/7/5/commworks-[reexamination](/resources/patent-reviews)-granted). I could not locate the Charter complaint text itself to verify the precise accused product list or the full set of asserted patents, so treat the six-patent framing as well-supported but not confirmed here.

Patent. RE44,904, titled "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" (reissue application 13/171,882) — a reissue in the same family/title as U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465. Claim 1-type subject matter is a method for handling priority traffic in a wireless LAN: extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame, comparing it to a search pattern, identifying the frame as a priority frame on a match, forwarding it to a high-priority queue during a reserved transmit period, and adjusting the duration of that period based on statistics of sent priority frames — i.e., a technical sketch of the EDCA/TXOP-based QoS machinery standardized in 802.11e/WMM (see the '904 claim recitations in CommWorks' complaints, e.g. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15480058; PatSnap's CommWorks portfolio analyses). Note: the sources I retrieved identify RE44,904's reissue application number but do not expressly state its parent patent; the identical title and overlapping claim language with the '465 patent make parentage likely, but I am flagging that as an inference.

Posture and why it matters. Filed February 11, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, with an agreed extension setting answers for April 21, 2022; Charter/Spectrum Gulf Coast were represented by Deron Dacus, and CommWorks by Stafford Davis, Catherine Bartles, and Kheyfits Belenky personnel (Justia; UniCourt: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-commworks-solutions-llc-v-charter-communications-inc-et-al-[1135872](/patent/1135872)). W.D. Tex./Albright mattered because it was the highest-volume, fastest-moving patent venue of the period and remains a favored NPE forum. Status flag: the supplied metadata says "pending," but the last public docket retrievals for this case date to 2022, and RPX reports only 125 days in litigation — I could not verify a termination, transfer, stay, or settlement event, so the current posture should be treated as unconfirmed. Its notability is threefold: (1) it is one case in a large, IV-derived Brainbox/CommWorks assertion wave against ISPs and consumer networking hardware; (2) the patents read on mandatory-standard Wi-Fi features (WMM/EDCA, WPS, mesh), creating industry-wide exposure and SEP/F-RAND-adjacent questions because defendants are accused for using certified COTS equipment; and (3) CommWorks' portfolio is under sustained third-party PTAB/USPTO attack by Unified Patents — Unified's ex parte reexamination of U.S. 7,760,664 was granted July 1, 2022 (control no. 90/015,057), and Unified litigated IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846 — giving Charter a potential invalidity off-ramp and making the case a useful lens on how efficient-infringer and NPE-licensing dynamics played out in W.D. Tex.

Unverified items: the Charter complaint's specific accused products; whether RE44,904 was the sole or lead asserted patent; and the case's present disposition.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search across multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, PTAB proceedings, and later developments.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll research press coverage, starting with the known IPWatchdog article and searching multiple angles.

Sources

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 CommWorks Solutions in this case.

Now let me dig into the docket and the specific plaintiff-side attorneys.

Let me check the CourtListener docket for this specific case and verify each attorney.

Bottom line

CommWorks's plaintiff-side team in 6:22-cv-00156 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright) is a two-firm arrangement that has been repeated across CommWorks's entire assertion campaign: a Tyler, Texas local/lead firm (Stafford Davis's firm) that signs and files the pleadings, plus Kheyfits Belenky LLP (San Francisco/New York, with an Austin, TX office) as the patent-litigation counsel of record in the docket's attorney list.

Important sourcing caveat: the free public docket snapshots for this case (Justia, UniCourt, Docket Alarm) were last refreshed in March–April 2022, and the docket only shows one formal appearance (Dkt. 7, filed 2/14/2022) by a plaintiff's attorney. Everything else below rests on (a) the signed filings in this case, (b) the court's party/attorney registry as republished by UniCourt, and (c) signature blocks from CommWorks's parallel cases. I could not retrieve a post-March-2022 docket sheet, so there may be additional or substituted counsel (or withdrawals) not reflected here — that should be confirmed on PACER/CM-ECF.

Counsel of record — plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Attorney Role Firm / office Notes
Stafford Davis (Tex. Bar No. 24054605) Lead / filing counsel (not formally styled "lead counsel" on the docket) The Stafford Davis Firm, PC — 815 S. Broadway Ave., Tyler, TX 75701 (PACER firm entry: "Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis"); sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com Signed/filed the complaint (Dkt. 1), summons request (Dkt. 2) and Rule 7 corporate disclosure (Dkt. 4) in this case. He is CommWorks's recurring litigation counsel across its campaign — e.g., CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21-cv-00366 (W.D. Tex.); CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications, 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex., filed 5/27/2020); CommWorks v. CommScope, 2:23-cv-00510 (E.D. Tex.); CommWorks v. Open Text, 2:23-cv-00533 (E.D. Tex.).
Catherine (Susan) Bartles (Tex. Bar No. 24104849) Plaintiff's counsel — the only attorney with a formal Notice of Appearance in this case (Dkt. 7, 2/14/2022) The Stafford Davis Firm, PC — Tyler, TX Same firm/domain as Stafford Davis; co-signs CommWorks filings in related suits (e.g., 6:21-cv-00366 Dkt. 14; 2:23-cv-00510). Functions as the W.D. Tex./local-rule presence.
Dmitry Kheyfits (USPTO Reg. No. 57,244; Cal. Bar No. 321326) Plaintiff's counsel per the court's attorney registry for this case Kheyfits Belenky LLP — 4 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1400, San Francisco, CA 94111; 1140 Ave. of the Americas, 9th Fl., New York, NY 10036; Austin office at 12600 Hill Country Blvd., Ste. R-275, Austin, TX 78738 Named partner; long track record asserting NPE patents and defending parallel IPRs, e.g., LaserDynamics USA v. Ritek / v. ISOMEDIA (lead counsel), Complex Memory LLC v. Renesas, Personalized Media Communications IPR (IPR2020-00721).
Andrey Belenky (USPTO Reg. No. 59,194) Plaintiff's counsel per the court's attorney registry Kheyfits Belenky LLP — New York (1140 Ave. of the Americas, 9th Fl.; also 80 Broad St., 5th Fl.) Kheyfits Belenky partner; co-counsel with Kheyfits on LaserDynamics, Complex Memory, KT Imaging, Mel NavIP and other CommWorks-side matters; also handles PTAB work.
Brandon (Gregory) Moore Plaintiff's counsel per the court's attorney registry for this case Firm not verified — he appears as plaintiff-side counsel alongside Kheyfits/Belenky in contemporaneous CommWorks-family matters (e.g., Mel NavIP v. Toyota, CommWorks v. CommScope), but I could not confirm his firm of record from a primary filing in 6:22-cv-00156. Treat as unconfirmed. Flagged as unverified rather than guessed.
"Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis" Firm-level entry in the docket's attorney/party listing for plaintiff Firm registry entry associated with Stafford Davis's Tyler practice (signature blocks in CommWorks filings read "The Stafford Davis Firm, PC," Tyler, TX) The relationship between the PACER firm-registry name and the current "Stafford Davis Firm" branding is not documented in the sources I retrieved; noted for completeness rather than as a separate attorney.

No in-house counsel appears for CommWorks — it is a patent-holding/assertion entity (Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists it as an "acquired patents" asserter, with this case filed 2/11/2022 against Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC). Stanford NPE DB

Docket evidence relied on

Gaps I could not resolve (stated rather than filled in)

  1. No formal pro hac vice or lead-counsel designation for Kheyfits/Belenky appears in the retrievable docket for this case. Their names appear only via the court's attorney registry as republished by UniCourt; the corresponding appearance documents (if any) post-date the March 2022 snapshot.
  2. Brandon Moore's firm of record is unverified. He is listed in this case's plaintiff-attorney registry and in sibling CommWorks-family suits, but I did not find a primary filing in 6:22-cv-00156 bearing his signature or firm.
  3. Case posture: RPX reports "125 days in litigation," and the free dockets stop at March 10, 2022 (Stanford lists status as pending). I therefore cannot confirm from public sources whether any counsel withdrawal, substitution, stay, transfer, or dismissal occurred after that date. Verify current counsel on PACER before relying on this for a filing or service list.
  4. Patent scope discrepancy worth noting (affects which counsel/PTAB team matters): the case metadata lists RE44,904 ("Method for Contention-Free Traffic Detection") as the patent at issue, while RPX shows six patents-in-suit and Unified Patents' ex parte reexamination targeted U.S. 7,760,664 naming Charter as one of the asserted defendants. So the RE44,904-centric description in the case summary may be incomplete. RPX Insight · Unified Patents reexam notice

Defendant representatives

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

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

Let me dig into the docket further and identify the defense attorneys and their firms.

Let me look for the fuller docket, including later-appearing defense counsel and case resolution.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. et al., No. 6:22-cv-00156-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

Only one defense attorney is confirmed on the face of the publicly retrievable docket: Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, Texas), who appeared for both defendants — Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC. Because the free docket aggregators for this case are stale (last public refresh in March/April 2022), I cannot confirm whether additional lead/national counsel later entered an appearance. I found no such appearance and will not speculate about it.

Confirmed counsel

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Deron R. Dacus (TBN 00790553) Counsel for defendants Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC — the only defense attorney appearing in the retrievable record; functionally acting as lead/coordinating counsel at the pleading stage The Dacus Firm, P.C., 821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430, Tyler, TX 75701 · (903) 705-1117 · ddacus@dacusfirm.com Veteran E.D./W.D. Tex. patent litigator; Board Certified in Civil Trial Law (Texas Board of Legal Specialization). Identified in firm bio materials as lead trial attorney in Genband's $8.2M infringement verdict and in a $39M Lowrance patent verdict; has recently appeared for defendants including Apple (Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc., W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00373) and Verizon (WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00198), and for AT&T entities in PTAB filings.

Docket support: Dkt. 8, Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Complaint, filed Feb. 15, 2022 by "Dacus, Deron" on behalf of Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC (re Dkt. 1); clerk then reset both defendants' answer deadline to April 21, 2022. Dacus is likewise the sole defense attorney listed in the UniCourt party/attorney extract and in Docket Alarm/Justia docket sheets.

What I could not confirm (explicit gaps)

  • No second or national/lead counsel is visible. In W.D. Tex. patent cases, a defendant that retains a national IP firm typically adds that firm's attorneys by notice of appearance within days of the agreed-extension filing. The public docket snapshots available to me end March 10, 2022 (Justia: "This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2022") and April 12, 2022 (UniCourt update), i.e., before or right at the April 21, 2022 answer deadline. Whatever appearances, answers, or motions were filed after that date are not reflected in any free source I could reach, and PACER itself is paywalled. I therefore cannot state who signed the answer, any IPR-related filings, or any subsequent dismissal/stay papers.
  • No in-house counsel for Charter is named in any retrievable filing.
  • No local-counsel designation is stated on the record; Dacus (Tyler) is the only Texas counsel shown and appears to be serving in that capacity as well.
  • Do not treat Dacus's firm as necessarily the lead trial team — the record is simply too thin at this snapshot to assign a lead/of-counsel hierarchy.

Flagged discrepancy with the case metadata

The case metadata lists a single patent-in-suit, RE44904. Two independent sources suggest the asserted portfolio was larger: RPX Insight lists "6 Patents-in-Suit" for this docket, and the Feb. 11, 2022 Complaint (Dkt. 1) attached Exhibits A–F (six patent exhibits) alongside Exhibits 1–18. (The complaint text I could retrieve referencing "Count IV: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE44,904" with STMicroelectronics/CW1100 chips appears to come from a different CommWorks complaint against a chip supplier, not this Charter case — I have not attributed it.) I could not retrieve Dkt. 1 itself for this docket to resolve the count. Treat "6 patents" as unverified and the metadata's RE44904 as authoritative pending a PACER pull of Dkt. 1.

  • Separately, RPX shows "125 Days in Litigation," which would put the last tracked activity around mid-June 2022 — but I found no dismissal, stay, judgment, or transfer order for this docket. (The July 1, 2022 order granting a motion to dismiss that appears in a related AO-120 form belongs to CommWorks's separate case against Comcast, No. 6:21-cv-00366.) The "pending" status in the metadata is therefore not contradicted by anything I found, but it is also not affirmatively confirmed past April 2022.

Recommended verification steps

  1. PACER docket pull for 6:22-cv-00156-ADA (or CourtListener RECAP) for entries after April 21, 2022 — specifically any Dkt. 9+ notices of appearance, the answer/motion to dismiss, and any transfer to the Waco docket/consolidation.
  2. Check the W.D. Tex. attorney-admissions/ECF list and Charter's corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. after 8) for named outside counsel.
  3. Check PTAB for any IPR/PGR petitions against RE44,904 filed by or on behalf of Charter (the RE44,904 patent has been a recurring CommWorks assertion vehicle; Unified Patents has separately attacked CommWorks patents via ex parte reexamination, which may name different counsel).

Sources