CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. CommScope / ARRIS entities

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Case overview

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-00510 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division) was filed November 3, 2023 and terminated May 24, 2024 on a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice (Dkt. 40), with each side bearing its own fees, costs, and expenses; Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided (dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2023cv00510/225948; PatSnap litigation profile reproducing the dismissal order verbatim). The plaintiff, CommWorks Solutions, LLC, is a Georgia LLC with a registered office in Alpharetta (Fulton County) — a non-practicing entity. Its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent/apparent real party in interest, and Unified Patents describes CommWorks as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC," the Georgia monetization firm that took in roughly 3,800 patent assets divested by Intellectual Ventures LLC in late 2019–2020 (unifiedpatents.com; mondaq/RPX, "IPinvestments Kicks Off Multiple Campaigns Asserting Patents Among Thousands Received From Intellectual Ventures," June 10, 2020). The defendants are the CommScope/ARRIS corporate family: CommScope Holding Company, Inc., CommScope, Inc., CommScope Technologies LLC, ARRIS US Holdings, Inc., ARRIS Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Technology, Inc., and ARRIS Enterprises LLC — an operating group that builds carrier broadband-access infrastructure (PON/OLT hardware, cabinets, fiber connectivity) and consumer/enterprise premises equipment, and that absorbed the former ARRIS International broadband business. Plaintiff-side counsel included Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky) and The Stafford Davis Firm of Tyler (Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis), with appearances by Catherine Bartles and Brandon Moore; defendants were represented by Findlay Craft PC (Eric Hugh Findlay, Roger Brian Craft) (PatSnap/PACER-derived counsel listings).

The accused technology and the patents. The case metadata here identifies a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued Dec. 9, 2008 from App. No. 11/673,513), and the accused instrumentality as the CommScope XP6164S FLX OLT — a hardened 1RU, 16-port 10G shelf optical line terminal supporting GPON (2.5G/1.25G) and XGS-PON (10/10G, 10/2.5G), deployed in CommScope's FLX integrated next-gen PON cabinets (CommScope product datasheet, 1514349, rev. May 22, 2024). There is a sourcing caveat worth flagging: primary docket-derived trackers report that this case actually pleaded a seven-patent family, not one patent. RPX Insight's case page records seven patents-in-suit and multiple accused products for 2:23-cv-00510, and PatSnap's docket summary lists 7,027,465; RE44,904; 7,177,285; 6,832,249; 7,911,979; 6,891,807; and 7,463,596. A complaint-analysis summary of Dkt. 1 likewise describes two accused categories: (1) GPON/XGS-PON systems exemplified by the XP6164S FLX OLT, and (2) Wi-Fi gateways exemplified by the ARRIS NVG468MQ gateway, accused via its WPS and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) functionality (ai-lab.exparte.com complaint analysis for 2:23-cv-00510). One-line sketches, drawn from the patents and from CommWorks' parallel complaints asserting the same family: '596 — time-based wireless provisioning (tracking an operating parameter such as power-on or onset of signal transmission and auto-associating devices if it occurs within a defined interval, i.e., push-button-style WPS provisioning); '807 — the family's earlier "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" claim; '979 — a related provisioning-system/access-control-list variant; '249 — broadband communications over a multi-layer OSI network with a network monitor detecting a QoS event at layer N and re-provisioning at a lower layer (the theory mapped to PLOAM/Layer-2 monitoring in the OLT); '465 — detecting priority of data frames by extracting a bit pattern at a defined offset (WMM/QoS Control field priority detection); RE44,904 — the reissue of the '465 patent; and '285 — a Wi-Fi QoS/priority-detection family member (exact title not independently verified in this session). Titles for '596, '807, '979 (provisioning) and '465/RE44,904 ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection") are verified from commworks complaint text; '249's and '285's formal titles are not.

Procedural posture and why it matters. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas's Marshall Division before Judge Gilstrap — still the highest-volume, fastest-moving patent docket in the country and a historically plaintiff-friendly venue, which is why NPE campaigns default there despite TC Heartland venue tightening; the complaint used standard § 1400(b)/regular-place-of-business premises, and no venue motion was ever reached because the case ended in about seven months. The docket shows little more than the complaint (Dkt. 1), an unopposed answer extension (Dkt. 10), and a January 18, 2024 scheduling conference (Dkt. 12) before the joint dismissal — so there was no claim construction, no summary judgment, no trial, and no merits finding; the with-prejudice dismissal operates as the only finality (res judicata as to these defendants and products), consistent with a confidential license. Contextually the case is notable as one skirmish in a large, well-documented IV-divestiture-backed NPE campaign: the same six-to-seven-patent package was asserted in 2020–2022 against Charter, Comcast, RCN, Mediacom, D-Link, Technicolor, Consolidated Communications, Ubee and others, and CommWorks continued asserting the '596 patent after this dismissal (MediaTek, Aug. 2024; TI, 2025; AVM; Axon Networks; STMicroelectronics; NXP; and DWDM/OLT-oriented defendants). The campaign has drawn unusual defense-side coordination: Unified Patents filed IPRs and ex parte reexaminations against CommWorks assets, and on February 13, 2023 the PTAB issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,923,846 unpatentable, while a November 22, 2021 ex parte reexamination targeted the '249 patent (unifiedpatents.com). Separately, Altice USA filed 2021 declaratory-judgment actions in D. Del. alleging that the IP Investments/Brainbox assertions were a coordinated campaign and that IV retained a security interest and licensing "backend" — the kind of ownership/funding-disclosure dispute that became a central theme in 2023–2025 NPE policy debates. Market-wise, the accused products sit exactly at CommScope/ARRIS's strategic center: PON OLT/access infrastructure and Wi-Fi gateways, the technology that cable and telco operators were deploying at scale for 10G PON upgrades during the case's pendency.

Sourcing caveats. (1) The one-versus-seven asserted-patent discrepancy is unresolved; the metadata for this case names only the '596 patent, while RPX Insight and PatSnap both derive a seven-patent assertion from the docket/complaint — the latter sources should be verified against PACER Dkt. 1 and its exhibits before being relied on. (2) The "CommWorks" name evokes 3Com's former CommWorks division, but I found no source confirming an assignment chain to 3Com; the verified chain is Intellectual Ventures → IP Investments/Brainbox entities. (3) Several CommWorks complaints describe the '596 patent's infringement period as running only to its expiration in March 2021, which would mean the patent is expired and only back damages inside the six-year lookback remained available in this 2023 case — I could not confirm the expiration date from a primary USPTO record in this session, so treat it as likely but unverified. (4) No PTAB proceeding against the '596 patent was confirmed; Unified's verified challenges concerned the '846 and '249 patents.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

I have strong initial data. Let me dig into the docket, defendant responses, and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me get the specific docket and check for defendant responses and IPR activity.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co. et al. — Legal Developments and Outcome

Case No. 2:23-cv-00510 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), Judge Rodney Gilstrap — filed 2023-11-03, dismissed with prejudice 2024-05-24

Analyst's note on the patent count. The case metadata flags U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 (the "'596 patent") as the patent at issue, and the existing case summary describes it as the asserted patent. The public docket and complaint analysis, however, reflect that CommWorks asserted seven patents in the complaint — the '596 along with U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,832,249, 6,891,807, 7,027,465, 7,177,285, 7,911,979 and RE44,904 (RPX Insight; PatSnap; complaint analysis for Dkt. 1). I treat '596 as the anchor patent per the metadata, but the analysis below reflects the fuller seven-patent assertion because that is what the record shows. Per operating rules, I have not substituted the metadata for the docket; where they diverge I flag the divergence rather than reconciling it.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Parties and counsel (as docketed). Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia LLC whose Rule 7.1 disclosure names Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent — i.e., a non-practicing monetization entity. Its counsel were Dmitry Kheyfits and Andrey Belenky (Kheyfits Belenky LLP), with Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis and Catherine Susan Bartles of The Stafford Davis Firm (Tyler), plus Brandon Gregory Moore. Defendants were the seven CommScope/ARRIS entities (CommScope Holding Co., Inc.; CommScope, Inc.; CommScope Technologies LLC; ARRIS US Holdings, Inc.; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; ARRIS Technology, Inc.; ARRIS Enterprises LLC), represented by Eric Hugh Findlay and Roger Brian Craft of Findlay Craft PC. (UniCourt docket; PatSnap case record.)

The accused products. The complaint plead two product categories:

• CommScope XP6164S FLX Optical Line Terminal (OLT) — a carrier-grade G-PON/XGS-PON platform; accused primarily under the OLT/PON-facing patents (e.g., the '249 patent, independent claim 46, mapping the OLT's PLOAM-channel monitoring and Deactivate_ONU_ID messaging onto the OSI multi-layer claim elements).
• Arris NVG468MQ Gateway — a Wi-Fi residential gateway; accused under the wireless-provisioning/QoS patents (e.g., the '807 patent via its Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) provisioning, and the WMM-based contention-free-traffic-detection claims of RE44,904).

(Dkt. 1 analysis; RPX Insight lists 82 accused products across the seven patents.)

The '596 patent specifically. U.S. 7,463,596, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued 2008-12-09 from App. No. 11/673,513, filed 2007-02-09 — the same wireless-provisioning family as the '285 patent. CommWorks' standing pleading asserted that it owns "all substantial rights, interest, and title" and that § 287 marking preconditions were satisfied. (Dkt. 1; Stanford NPE Litigation Database patent page for 7,463,596, which lists this campaign.)

Defendant response. The defendants' responsive pleading is the least well-documented step in this record. The last PACER snapshot available (UniCourt, last updated 2024-01-02) shows only the granted extension (Dkt. 11) and the CMC setting order (Dkt. 12) — no answer or counterclaims yet on file. Given the case family practice (CommScope entities answered with invalidity/non-infringement defenses and declaratory-judgment counterclaims in the parallel TQ Delta matters — see, e.g., CommScope's Answer & Counterclaims in 2:21-cv-00310), an answer with invalidity counterclaims is the likely course here, but I could not confirm from a primary source that an answer or counterclaims were actually filed in 2:23-cv-00510. I am flagging this rather than attributing a filing I cannot source.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

The case's entire lifespan was 203 days (2023-11-03 to 2024-05-24). Within that window the only recorded motion activity is procedural:

• Motion for extension of time to answer (Unopposed) — Dkt. 10, granted Dkt. 11 (2023-11-28).
• Rule 16 case-management conference set for 2024-01-18 (Dkt. 12) — the moment at which a scheduling order (and thus deadlines for infringement contentions, invalidity contentions, and claim-construction briefing) would ordinarily have issued.

No motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary-judgment motion appears on the available docket. This is significant: consolidated CommScope/ARRIS entities in the parallel TQ Delta litigation routinely pursued § 1404(a) transfer (e.g., CommScope's counterclaim briefing arguing the case "properly belongs in the District of Delaware") and parallel IPRs. Neither the RPX litigation profile nor the PatSnap case record nor the UniCourt docket shows any such motion here. The absence of a transfer motion is notable for a 2023 E.D. Tex. NPE filing, but with the case settling at ~6.5 months, the defendants' answer (if any) and any venue/§ 101 challenge simply were not adjudicated. I could not locate any order resolving a dispositive or stay motion in this case.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The case did not reach claim construction. There is no Markman order, no claim-construction hearing, and no scheduling order on the available record. Judge Gilstrap is a high-volume patent judge, but a 203-day case that resolved by joint dismissal on joint motion (Dkt. 40) never got to a Markman hearing. PatSnap's case analysis expressly notes the resulting "unresolved claim scope left by a pre-Markman settlement," and the analogous CommWorks v. Extreme Networks dismissal analysis makes the same point ("No claim construction ruling means the patents' scope remains untested"). So the scope of the '596 and its six co-asserted patents remains unadjudicated in this litigation.

---

4. Discovery milestones

No discovery orders, protective orders, or ESI disputes appear on the available docket within the active window. The Rule 16 CMC on 2024-01-18 would have triggered the standard E.D. Tex. Patent Local Rules sequence (disclosure of asserted claims/infringement contentions, then invalidity contentions, then damages contentions), but the case ended roughly four months after the CMC, so any contentions exchanged either never occurred or occurred and were superseded by the Dkt. 40 joint dismissal. I have no primary-source evidence of any served contention or discovery milestone, and I am not inferring one.

---

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no pretrial order, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under § 285 appears. The case terminated at the pleading/motions stage. Interestingly, the complaint sought willfulness and treble damages for the '285, '596 and '979 patents (i.e., those past their expiry) and an exceptional-case fee award (§ 285) — but no fee motion was adjudicated because the joint dismissal provided that "[a]ll attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by the party incurring the same."

---

6. Final disposition — settlement/dismissal

The operative text (verbatim from the order, via PACER/PatSnap):

"…the Parties represent that they 'have resolved Plaintiff's claims for relief against Defendants asserted in this case.'… Accordingly, all pending claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by the party incurring the same. All pending requests for relief between the Parties … are DENIED AS MOOT."

Legal effect:

• The dismissal is with prejudice and mutual (by joint motion), so it operates as a final adjudication barring CommWorks from re-asserting these claims against these defendants on these products (res judicata).
• The neutral "have resolved" language is the classic signature of a confidential settlement/license. No damages figure, license terms, or admission of infringement/validity is public.
• No merits adjudication occurred — no invalidity holding, no non-infringement ruling, no claim construction. The patents remain live as to other parties.

No appeal was taken; the dismissal-with-prejudice order is the terminal event.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR)

No inter partes review or post-grant review on the seven asserted patents in this case appears in the record.

• The '596 patent's litigation history (Stanford NPE Database) shows it asserted in the CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications matter (2:20-cv-00159, E.D. Tex.) and CommWorks v. Ubee Interactive (6:23-cv-00064, W.D. Tex.) — but no PTAB challenge to '596.
• The PatSnap case record confirms "Validity challenges: None recorded" for the '596 and co-asserted patents.
• The only PTAB/CommWorks intersection I could locate is IPR2021-01297, Unified Patents LLC v. CommWorks — but that IPR targets U.S. 8,923,846, which is not among the seven patents asserted against CommScope/ARRIS. That proceeding's Exhibit 1002-2 reproduces a CommWorks settlement-and-license agreement, but it is not a challenge to the patents at issue here.

Effect on the litigation: none. Because no IPR/PGR was filed or instituted against the '596 (or the other six asserted patents), there was no § 315(b) bar, no § 315(a) civil-action bar, and no stay motion driving the outcome. The dismissal was a commercial settlement, not an IPR-driven termination.

---

8. Strategic context and takeaways

1. This is a settlement-track assertion, not a litigated merits case. Filing (2023-11-03) to closure (2024-05-24) was 203 days — among the fastest resolutions in CommWorks' multi-front campaign, with a joint (mutual) with-prejudice dismissal and no claim construction, no dispositive motion practice, and no PTAB activity.
2. It was one front in a broad CommWorks campaign. CommWorks filed/asserted the same patent family — '249, '465, '285, '596, '807, '979, '904 — against a swath of cable/telecom/networking targets: Comcast (6:21-cv-00366, W.D. Tex.), Consolidated Communications (2:20-cv-00159, E.D. Tex.), RCN (1:20-cv-7534, S.D.N.Y.), Cable One, EarthLink, NextLink, Technicolor (1:22-cv-02827), D-Link (6:22-cv-00806), Ubee, Extreme Networks (6:23-cv-00835, W.D. Tex.), and later AVM, STMicroelectronics, NXP, Axon and others. The CommScope/ARRIS resolution on 2024-05-24 closely tracks the CommWorks v. Extreme Networks dismissal-with-prejudice (W.D. Tex.), both resolving pre-Markman on joint motions.
3. The portfolio remains live. Because the dismissal carries no invalidity or claim-construction ruling, the seven patents — including the '596 wireless-provisioning patent — are not narrowed by anything in this case. CommWorks continued asserting the '596 against new defendants after this dismissal (e.g., AVM GmbH, 2:25-cv-00026, E.D. Tex.; STMicroelectronics, 7:25-cv-00363, W.D. Tex.; NXP, 7:25-cv-00395, W.D. Tex.), confirming that the settlement here was defendant-specific, not portfolio-wide.

---

Sources

• PatSnap litigation report, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc. et al., 2:23-cv-00510 — https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-v-commscope-7-patent-optical-network-dispute-patsnap/
• RPX Insight docket profile, 2:23-cv-00510 — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-225948-commworks-solutions-v-commscope-holding-company
• UniCourt docket, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc. et al. (last updated 2024-01-02) — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu6f71d119c074-[1692416](/patent/1692416)
• Justia Dockets, 2:23-cv-00510 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2023cv00510/225948
• Complaint analysis and Dkt. 1 content summary, Ex Parte / AI Lab — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:23-cv-00510/doc/analysis/1
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, U.S. Pat. No. 7,463,596 — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7463596
• IPWatchdog, Patent Filings Roundup (2022-07-29) — CommWorks campaign filings.

Confidence flags: Filing date, party/counsel identities, docket numbers 1–12 and 40, accused products, asserted-patent list, the dismissal order text, and the dismissal date are well-sourced. The defendant's answer/counterclaims, the actual 2024-01-18 CMC, and any scheduling order are not confirmed by a primary docket source, and I have not asserted them as fact. No transfer, stay, summary-judgment, or Markman activity is evidenced anywhere in the record.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel. Let me start with several searches.

I have the core docket. Now let me verify the individual attorneys, their firms, roles, and backgrounds.

Let me pin down the remaining two plaintiff attorneys and verify the lead-counsel designation.

Case anchor

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-00510-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap; filed Nov. 3, 2023; dismissed with prejudice May 24, 2024 on the parties' joint motion. (Docket; complaint)

One reconciliation up front: the case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 as the patent at issue. In the actual complaint, the '596 patent was one of seven asserted patents (with '465, '249, '285, '979, RE44,904 and '807), all directed at the CommScope XP6164S FLX OLT and the ARRIS NVG468MQ Gateway; '596 was pleaded via a separate claim-chart exhibit. See PatSnap case analysis and the complaint-analysis docket writeup for 2:23-cv-00510.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Five attorneys entered appearances for Plaintiff on the docket:

Attorney notes

• Stafford G. Davis (The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, Tyler, TX) — Filed the complaint (Dkt. 1) and the AO-120/7.1 filings. Licensed in Texas since 2006 (Baylor Law); Super Lawyers–listed in business litigation/IP litigation since 2019. He is a recurring Tyler local-counsel fixture in E.D. Tex. patent suits for NPE plaintiffs — e.g., American Patents LLC v. Zyxel / Sophos / TI, Freedom Patents LLC v. Acer, Better Mouse Co. v. Sentey. (Super Lawyers profile)

• Dmitry Kheyfits (Kheyfits Belenky LLP, San Francisco) — Appeared at Dkt. 4 and filed Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to answer (Dkt. 10) — i.e., the substantive case-management workstream. He is listed as "Lead Counsel" for the same firm's plaintiffs (e.g., Complex Memory LLC v. Renesas, N.D. Cal. 5:18-cv-04103), and runs a boutique NPE assertion practice with appearances in Mel NavIP v. Toyota, KT Imaging USA v. Axis, LaserDynamics v. Ritek, FireNet Technologies v. KEMP, and CommWorks v. Mediacom.

• Andrey Belenky (Kheyfits Belenky LLP, New York) — Appeared at Dkt. 3. Longtime co-counsel with Kheyfits in the same NPE dockets (LaserDynamics, FireNet, KT Imaging, Complex Memory) and, within the broader CommWorks campaign, filed the joint motion to dismiss a companion case (CommWorks v. Open Text, 2:23-cv-00534) on May 16, 2024.

• Brandon Gregory Moore — Entered his appearance here at Dkt. 5. He is a registered patent attorney (USPTO), Texas Bar, admitted in all four Texas districts and the Federal Circuit, with a CS background (Texas Tech) and a practice focused on IP litigation and IPR/post-grant work; his bio specifically lists WPS, WMM, network provisioning/QoS and 5G networks — technolo­gies matching this campaign's accused devices. He also appeared pro hac vice for CommWorks in CommWorks v. Linksys/Belkin (C.D. Cal.), CommWorks v. Adtran (N.D. Ala.), and CommWorks v. Mediacom (S.D.N.Y.), and in CommWorks v. Open Text. Caveat: the firm bio I located (nelbum.com profile) reflects a current firm affiliation (Nelson Bumgardner) and I could not confirm that it was his firm at the time of the 2023 appearance — treat the firm/office as unverified for this case.

• Catherine Susan Bartles — Notice of attorney appearance at Dkt. 9 (Nov. 7, 2023). I could not verify her firm or office location from the sources retrieved for this case (UniCourt and PatSnap list her name as plaintiff-side counsel but not a firm; PatSnap's firm list for Plaintiff shows only Kheyfits Belenky LLP and The Stafford Davis Firm). I am therefore not assigning her a firm or role label rather than guessing.

Lead-counsel status and caveats

• No explicit lead-counsel designation order for Plaintiff appears in the record I could retrieve. E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11 governing lead-counsel designation is applied in this district, and none of my sources show a contested lead-counsel change motion on the plaintiff's side (by contrast, the defendants here — CommScope/ARRIS — are shown fighting over lead-counsel designation, but that was in the earlier, unrelated TQ Delta v. CommScope action, Civ. A. No. 2:21-cv-310-JRG, Dkt. 462).
• Functional read: Kheyfits (San Francisco) appears to have been the lead/principal plaintiff's counsel, Davis (Tyler) the local counsel who filed the case, and Belenky, Moore and Bartles supporting counsel. This is an inference from docket activity, not from a filed designation.
• Settlement posture: dismissal was by joint motion (Dkt. 40) reciting that the parties "have resolved Plaintiff's claims for relief," with each side bearing its own fees and costs — consistent with a confidential license rather than a merits ruling; nothing adjudicated validity or infringement.
• Defendant side, for completeness: CommScope/ARRIS were represented by Findlay Craft PC (Eric Hugh Findlay, Roger Brian Craft), per PatSnap's party/firm mapping.

If you need me to confirm Bartles' firm, Moore's firm as of 2023, or to pull the actual Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 10 signature blocks for exact firm/address language, say the word and I'll drill into PACER/RECAP for those specific documents.

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

Let me pull the docket entries for the case to find appearances by defense counsel.

Let me check the actual docket sheet entries for defense appearances.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Side

Bottom line up front: On the best public records available, the only defense-side attorneys appearing of record in CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co., No. 2:23-cv-00510 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap) are two Tyler, Texas lawyers from Findlay Craft, P.C. No national/"lead" trial counsel (e.g., Goodwin Procter or Alston & Bird) is recorded on the docket in this case, which is unsurprising given the case died in ~7 months on a joint motion to dismiss. I flag several verification caveats below.

Attorneys identified

Source basis: PatSnap's case record for 2:23-cv-00510 lists "Defendant counsel — Eric Hugh Findlay · Roger Brian Craft; Defendant law firm — Findlay Craft PC," identified as counsel for CommScope Holding Company, Inc. (the first-named defendant, on whose behalf appearances are typically filed for the whole CommScope/ARRIS family). See https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-v-commscope-7-patent-optical-network-dispute-patsnap/. Their Findlay Craft contact details appear in Findlay Craft notices of appearance in other E.D. Tex. matters (e.g., Dkt. 1304 in iPharro litigation, 2:12-cv-00412), and in PTAB/petition service lists.

What I could not verify — explicit caveats

1. No PACER-sourced appearance entry. The publicly mirrored docket sheets I could access are incomplete: Justia's docket was last retrieved November 3, 2023 (complaint/summons only) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2023cv00510/225948 — and UniCourt's snapshot was last updated January 2, 2024, showing entries only through Dkt. 12 (Dec. 13, 2023 scheduling order) and listing plaintiff-side attorneys only. Neither mirror shows a defendant Notice of Appearance. So I am relying on third-party litigation databases (PatSnap; also aggregator listings reflect the same two names) rather than a first-party PACER docket entry I can quote. Treat the Findlay Craft identification as well-corroborated but not PACER-verified here.

2. No lead/national counsel identified on this docket. I found no record of Goodwin Procter (Brett M. Schuman, Douglas J. Kline, Rachel M. Walsh, Christie Larochelle) or Alston & Bird (M. Scott Stevens, Kirk T. Bradley, Ross R. Barton, Stephen R. Lareau, Mary I. Riolo, Erin Beaton, Katherine G. Rubschlager) appearing in this case — only in the earlier, litigated-to-trial TQ Delta v. CommScope matter (2:21-cv-310), where they were the CommScope/ARRIS defense team alongside Findlay Craft. It is plausible the same bench was retained behind the scenes for the CommWorks case, but it did not appear of record before the case was dismissed, and I will not attribute it to this docket.

3. No in-house counsel identified. Corporate in-house counsel do not normally appear on a district court docket, and none is recorded here.

4. Filings status. The case terminated before any answer, claim construction, or Markman activity: the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice (Dkt. 40) on May 24, 2024, with each side bearing its own fees and costs ("all attorneys' fees, costs of court and expenses to be borne by the party incurring same"). I did not find sealed filings bearing on representation; the limitation is docket-coverage, not sealing.

Two corrections to the case metadata worth noting

• Patents at issue: The prompt lists only the '596 patent. The complaint in 2:23-cv-00510 actually asserted seven patents — U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,832,249; 6,891,807; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979; 7,027,465; and RE44,904. The '596 was one of them, not the sole patent.
• Accused products: Consistent with the summary, the complaint accused the CommScope XP6164S FLX OLT (GPON/XGS-PON) and also the ARRIS NVG468MQ Gateway (WPS/WMM functionality).

Experience notes on the identified counsel

• Eric H. Findlay — Founding/name partner at Findlay Craft (Tyler). Very high-volume E.D. Tex. patent practice; routinely serves as defense-side local counsel for technology and networking defendants. In TQ Delta v. CommScope he was on the defense team through a jury trial and post-trial JMOL briefing in Judge Gilstrap's court (see, e.g., Dkt. 469 Joint Notice; Dkt. 533/541/549 briefing). Caveat: I have not verified his specific degree of substantive (as opposed to local-counsel) involvement in the CommWorks case.
• Roger B. Craft — Named partner at Findlay Craft; long-standing E.D. Tex. patent litigation practice, appearing in the same CommScope/ARRIS defense teams as Findlay.

If you need courtroom-grade certainty, pull the PACER docket for 2:23-cv-00510 and check for a Notice of Appearance/Withdrawal of Counsel between Dkt. 13 and Dkt. 40 — that is the window where any defense appearance would sit, and none of the free mirrors cover it.