Litigation

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc.

unknown

2:20-cv-00159

Patents at issue (1)

7760664

Summary

CommWorks Solutions, LLC sued Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. et al. in the E.D. Tex. involving U.S. 7,760,664. Outcome unknown.

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 thoroughly using multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specifics of this case and the campaign.

Case Overview: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a "Non Practicing Entity" asserting "acquired patents." CommWorks is a Georgia LLC (formerly listed at an Alpharetta, GA address) whose corporate parent and real party-in-interest is Brainbox Innovations, LLC, an entity tied to the IP Investments Group family of assertion vehicles (sister LLCs include DataCloud Technologies and DigiMedia Tech). Reporting by RPX, Mondaq, and IPWatchdog identifies this group as a 2019–2020 Intellectual Ventures patent-selloff vehicle, and a later Altice USA declaratory-judgment complaint (D. Del. Sept. 17, 2021) alleged that IV retained a security interest and licensing "backend," describing Brainbox/CommWorks assertions as part of a "broader, coordinated patent assertion campaign." Defendants Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc. are operating telecommunications/broadband companies — a ~125-year-old carrier (NASDAQ: CNSL, Mattoon, IL; now privately held through Searchlight Capital) selling residential and business internet, voice/data, cloud, managed IT, security, and wholesale carrier services across 20+ states, since 2025 rebranding under the "Fidium" fiber brand. Plaintiff's counsel included Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Brandon Gregory Moore, Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis, and Catherine Susan Bartles; defendants were represented by Jack Daniel Kitchen and Melissa Richards Smith (with later appearance by Andrew T. Gorham).

Accused technology and asserted patents. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 7,760,664 as the patent at issue, but its scope is worth flagging: third-party trackers disagree on how many patents CommWorks asserted here. RPX Insight records "9 Patents-in-Suit" and "10 Accused Products" for this docket, and an IPWatchdog roundup grouped U.S. Patents 6,891,807; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,760,664; 7,911,979; 8,116,315; and RE44,904 with this filing — consistent with CommWorks' pattern of asserting a numbered family of networking/Wi-Fi patents acquired from IV. The '664 patent, "Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network," issued July 20, 2010 from Application No. 11/101,136 (filed April 7, 2005) and concerns graphically modeling network elements: instead of treating every port as a graph node, it models a digital cross-connect system as a link between routing nodes, shrinking the routing graph and reducing processing/scalability overhead when provisioning paths. The parties' joint claim construction filings (from the parallel W.D. Tex. Comcast litigation) confirm agreed constructions — e.g., "model said digital cross connect system as a [] link" construed as "representing … as a routing link," and claim preambles held limiting. The precise accused Consolidated products are not clearly documented in the public sources I reviewed — given the patent's subject matter, they would be network-provisioning/routing systems or managed services in Consolidated's network; I won't speculate further without the complaint's exhibits. (A separate CommWorks pleading references Cisco Nexus switches, but that appears to be a different case and should not be attributed here.)

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. CommWorks filed on May 27, 2020 in the E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of several same-day suits in the campaign (including 2:20-cv-00158 v. Cable One, 2:20-cv-00160 v. AMG/NetLink, and New York actions against RCN). Consolidated answered August 11, 2020 and demanded a jury; on August 25, 2020 Judge Gilstrap consolidated the pretrial proceedings into lead case No. 2:20-cv-00158, and the consolidated docket set Markman for April 20, 2021 and jury selection for October 4, 2021. The court then dismissed the case by order on February 9, 2021 (RPX: opened 05/27/2020, closed 02/09/2021; Patexia: "Dismissed – Other"), after only 259 days — typically the signature of an early settlement/license, though I could not locate a public settlement agreement or terms, so the reason for dismissal is not well sourced. The venue mattered because Marshall was a high-volume, plaintiff-favorable patent forum, and CommWorks later shifted its campaign to W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright) and to defendants' home districts (e.g., D. Del., S.D.N.Y.), consistent with post-TC Heartland venue discipline. The case is notable as a data point in the IV-spinoff NPE assertion wave against regional broadband carriers, and because the '664 patent later drew a Unified Patents ex parte reexamination: Unified filed the request on June 10, 2022 (Control No. 90/015,057) and the USPTO granted it on July 1, 2022, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims — a defensive, PATB-adjacent challenge (ex parte reexam, not an IPR; Unified's separate IPR2021-01297 targeted CommWorks' '846 patent). So while this particular docket ended quietly, the underlying '664 patent became a subject of the broader validity fight over the CommWorks/networking portfolio, which had been asserted against roughly eight-plus companies including Charter, RCN, Extreme Networks, Ubee Interactive, and Comcast.

Sourcing note: Party identities, litigation dates, consolidation/dismissal, judge, and the reexam facts are well supported by RPX, Unified Patents' portal/reports, the Stanford NPE database, IPWatchdog, and docket trackers. The number of patents and accused products in this specific docket is inconsistently reported (metadata says '664 only; RPX says 9 patents and 10 accused products), and the dismissal's cause/terms and the exact accused Consolidated services are not clearly documented in available public sources — treat those as unresolved rather than established.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, PTAB, and legal news sources.

Good initial data. The case was dismissed 2021-02-09. Let me dig into the specifics of the dismissal, the consolidation, and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me get the detailed docket and the PTAB/reexam details.

I hit the research step limit, so the following synthesizes everything I retrieved from the docket aggregators (RPX Insight, Dockets.Justia, UniCourt, Patexia, Unified Patents' litigation portal), the Stanford NPE database, and Unified Patents' PTAB blog. I flag clearly where a fact is inferred rather than confirmed.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.)

Court / judge: E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division), District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Filed: 2020-05-27. Closed: 2021-02-09 (259 days in litigation).
Patent identified in case metadata: U.S. 7,760,664 ("Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network," issued 2010-07-20 from App. No. 11/101,136, filed 2005-04-07).
Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271, willful patent infringement; jury demand by plaintiff and by defendants.
Sources: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[197836](/patent/197836)-commworks-solutions-v-consolidated-communications-holdings ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2020cv00159/197836 ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CommWorks-Solutions-LLC-v-Consolidated-Communications-Holdings-Inc-et-al-id-[137669](/patent/137669)

Scope caveat on the patent count: The complaint was filed with 42 attachments (Exhibits 1–32 plus Exhibits A–I), and RPX's data page for this docket lists 9 patents-in-suit and 10 accused products, not one. The '664 patent is the patent identified in your case metadata and it appears in the NPE Litigation Database entry for this docket, but I could not retrieve the complaint document itself to confirm whether the '664 patent was the sole asserted patent or one of a portfolio asserted against Consolidated. CommWorks' May–July 2020 filing wave (Consolidated, Cable One, RCN, Mediacom, NextLink) uniformly asserted a portfolio including the '249, '807, '465, '285, '596, '664, '979, '315, and RE44,904 patents, so a portfolio assertion here is likely — but treat the "single patent" framing as unverified.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Date Event
2020-05-27 Complaint for patent infringement filed against Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc. (fee receipt 0540-7809740); AO 120 Patent/Trademark form filed; Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure by CommWorks.
2020-05-28 Summonses issued to both defendants. Case assigned to Judge Gilstrap; § 636(c) magistrate-consent notice entered.
2020-06-16 Notices of appearance for CommWorks: Andrey Belenky, Brandon Gregory Moore, Dmitry Kheyfits (and Catherine S. Bartles on 2020-07-29) — the Kheyfits Belenky LLP / Stafford Davis firm bench that appears across CommWorks' cases.
2020-06-22 Defendants' unopposed first extension of time to answer granted (L.R. CV-12): deadline moved to 2020-07-27 (30 days).
2020-07-20 Defendants' unopposed second extension granted: deadline moved to 2020-08-11 (15 days).
2020-08-11 Answer filed on behalf of both Consolidated entities (docketed per attorney Melissa Smith); Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement and jury demand filed.
2020-10-28 Notice of appearance for defendants by Andrew Thompson ("Tom") Gorham.

The docket aggregators show the answer entry as ANSWER to 1 Complaint ... by Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc., Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. I could not confirm from the available docket snippets whether affirmative counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement were pleaded. Defense-side lead counsel is docketed as Jack Daniel Kitchen. Sources: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-commworks-solutions-llc-v-consolidated-communications-holdings-inc-et-al-[506648](/patent/506648) ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:20-cv-00159

2. Consolidation (the one substantive pretrial docket event)

Strategic significance: After consolidation, any Markman briefing, discovery motions, or dispositive motions would have been captioned in 2:20-cv-00158 against Cable One. This means (a) this docket alone under-reports pretrial activity, and (b) any coordinated resolution would be expected to close the consolidated family together — which is in fact what happened (see §6).

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

None reached decision in this case. On the record I could retrieve, there was:

  • No motion to dismiss (Rule 12) ruled on,
  • No motion to transfer venue (§ 1404/§ 1406 — notable, since these cases predate the Federal Circuit's In re Google/TC Heartland-era venue tightening in later CommWorks waves),
  • No motion to stay pending IPR or reexamination, and
  • No summary judgment motion.

The absence of a stay motion is explained by timing: no post-grant proceeding on the '664 patent existed during this case's nine-month life (see §7).

4. Claim construction (Markman)

The case did not reach Markman. There is no reported claim construction opinion for No. 2:20-cv-00159 (or for lead case 2:20-cv-00158), and the case closed roughly nine months after filing — before any Markman hearing could have been held. I found no consolidated claim construction order in either docket. The only CommWorks '664 claim-construction treatment I could locate in the record is Comcast's opening claim construction brief in the separate W.D. Tex. Comcast litigation (6:21-cv-00366), later submitted as an exhibit in a PTAB proceeding — i.e., it construes the '664 patent but is not from this case. Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01297/Unified_Patents_LLC_v._CommWorks_Solutions_LLC/docs/06-08-2022-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2002-Comcasts_Opening_Claim_Construction_Brief.pdf

5. Discovery milestones

No discovery milestones of strategic significance are reflected in the record I could retrieve. Given the 2020-08-25 consolidation and the February 2021 dismissal, the case did not reach the stages where discovery disputes typically become docket-visible (no protective-order disputes, no discovery motions, no expert reports). Treat any assertion of a specific discovery event as unsupported.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions, and final disposition

Date Event
2021-02-09 ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Gilstrap in No. 2:20-cv-00159; AO 120 filed at termination. Case CLOSED. Status reported as "Dismissed – Other."
2021-02-12 Lead case 2:20-cv-00158 (Cable One) closed; last docket entry 2021-02-16.
  • No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion. There is no judgment on the merits, no injunction, and no publicly docketed damages award.
  • Nature of the disposition — inference, flagged: The docket shows a straight "ORDER DISMISSING CASE" three days apart from the closing of the consolidated Cable One case, with no consent judgment or publicly filed settlement agreement. The most plausible reading is a negotiated resolution (license/settlement) followed by dismissal, closing the consolidated family together. I could not verify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and I found no public settlement or license terms. Do not treat the settlement characterization as confirmed.
  • No appeal. No Federal Circuit appeal from this case appears in the record retrieved.

7. Parallel PTAB / post-grant proceedings on the patents (and their (non-)effect here)

This is the most important point for the "parallel proceedings" question: the post-grant challenge to the '664 patent post-dates the litigation's conclusion by more than a year and therefore had no effect on it.

  • IPR2021-01297 — Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC (PTAB). Unified Patents filed an IPR against a CommWorks patent in 2021, and a CommWorks Patent Owner exhibit was filed in that proceeding on 2022-06-08. My searches surfaced the proceeding and that exhibit, but I could not confirm which CommWorks patent IPR2021-01297 targeted — the exhibit it contains is Comcast's claim construction brief, which addresses both the '285 and '664 patents, so the exhibit's content is not proof that the '664 patent was the challenged patent. Flag as unresolved.
  • Ex parte reexamination 90/015,057 on U.S. 7,760,664 (the patent here).

Timeline point: the '664 patent was asserted before any PTAB/reexam challenge existed (challenges began mid-2022), so there was no stay litigation, no IPR estoppel, and no PTAB-driven claim construction. The PTAB activity instead shaped the second wave of CommWorks cases (Charter, No. 6:22-cv-00156 W.D. Tex.; Extreme Networks, No. 6:23-cv-00835 W.D. Tex.; Comcast, No. 6:21-cv-00366 W.D. Tex.), several of which were resolved by dismissal.

8. Present posture

Terminated and closed. No active docket activity in 2:20-cv-00159 since the 2021-02-09 dismissal order and termination AO 120. No appeal, no reopened proceedings. The litigation is best characterized as resolved through an early, negotiated exit (~9 months) without any merits adjudication, in the same window as CommWorks' near-simultaneous dismissal of the consolidated Cable One case.

Confidence and open items

Proposition Confidence
Filed 2020-05-27; Judge Gilstrap; complaint with 42 exhibits High (Justia, RPX, UniCourt)
Answer + Rule 7.1 + jury demand filed 2020-08-11 after two extensions High (UniCourt, Unified portal)
Consolidated for pretrial into 2:20-cv-00158 (Cable One) by order of 2020-08-25 High (Unified portal order text)
Dismissed by Judge Gilstrap on 2021-02-09; case closed High (UniCourt, Unified portal, Patexia, RPX)
No Markman, no dispositive motions, no trial, no appeal High (absence in record retrieved)
Whether counterclaims were pleaded Unverified
Whether dismissal was with or without prejudice / settlement terms Unverified — inference only
Whether the '664 patent was the sole or one of 9 asserted patents here Unverified — metadata says '664; RPX says 9 patents
IPR2021-01297's target patent Unverified
Reexam 90/015,057 final outcome Unverified (grant confirmed; result not)

Recommended next pulls (if you want to close these gaps): the full PACER docket for 2:20-cv-00159 (to see the answer's counterclaim count and the dismissal order's text) and for lead case 2:20-cv-00158; the USPTO Patent Center / PTAB Portal "Reexam Certificate" entry in 90/015,057; and the PTAB docket for IPR2021-01297. I was unable to complete those specific lookups before hitting the research limit.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record using multiple targeted searches.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC — No. 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.)

Unlike the outcome/settlement question, the plaintiff's representation here is well documented. CommWorks used the same core team across its 2020–2021 campaign filings (including the same-day suits v. Cable One (2:20-cv-00158), v. AMG/NetLink (2:20-cv-00160), and v. NextLink), and the appearances in this docket match the complaint's signature block.

Plaintiff's counsel

Attorney Role Firm & office Notes
Dmitry Kheyfits Lead counsel Kheyfits Belenky LLP — Austin, TX (108 Wild Basin Rd., Ste. 250) / San Francisco (4 Embarcadero Ctr.) / New York; dkheyfits@kblit.com Firm founder; directed CommWorks' entire assertion campaign (Comcast/W.D. Tex., Extreme, CommScope, OpenText, Zyxel). Longtime NPE-side patent litigator (e.g., Complex Memory LLC v. Renesas, N.D. Cal., as lead counsel; earlier pro hac vice for Cisco Systems). Notice of appearance entered in this docket June 16, 2020 (Dkt. #7).
Andrey Belenky Counsel of record (partner) Kheyfits Belenky LLP — New York, NY (1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Fl.); abelenky@kblit.com Co-founder/partner; appears on CommWorks pleadings across the campaign and on the consolidated E.D. Tex. docket. Notice of appearance entered June 16, 2020 (Dkt. #5).
Brandon Gregory Moore Counsel of record Kheyfits Belenky LLP — Austin, TX; bmoore@kblit.com Signed the CommWorks complaint and appeared shortly after filing (Dkt. #6, mid-June 2020); handles Texas-registered filings for the firm's NPE clients alongside Kheyfits.
Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis ("Stafford Davis") Local counsel (Tyler/E.D. Tex.) The Stafford Davis Firm, PC — 815 S. Broadway Ave., Tyler, TX 75701; sdavis@stafforddavisfirm.com; State Bar No. 24054605 Named local counsel and signatory on the original complaint (filed May 27, 2020). High-volume E.D. Tex. patent-plaintiff practice (Parallel Networks, Better Mouse, American Patents, Freedom Patents).
Catherine Susan Bartles Local counsel (E.D. Tex.) The Stafford Davis Firm, PC — Tyler, TX; cbartles@stafforddavisfirm.com; State Bar No. 24104849 Co-signed the CommWorks complaint and appears in the related CommWorks E.D. Tex. matters (e.g., CommScope 2:23-cv-00533; Extreme).
Hanna G. Cohen Counsel of record (appears on consolidated docket) Kheyfits Belenky LLP — New York, NY; hgcohen@kblit.com Signed CommWorks campaign complaints/pleadings; listed on the consolidated pretrial docket for the lead case. She is a California-bar attorney shown as "admitted pro hac vice" on related Kheyfits Belenky filings.
Daniel Sokoloff Counsel of record (consolidated docket) Treated as part of the CommWorks team on the consolidated E.D. Tex. docket (lead case 2:20-cv-00158) Appears in the consolidated-caption counsel list representing CommWorks; I could not independently confirm his firm from a primary source — flag as lower-confidence.

Sourcing and caveats

  • Primary support for the core four (Kheyfits, Belenky, Moore, Stafford Davis) comes from the docket trackers that capture this specific case: UniCourt's docket page for 2:20-cv-00159 (plaintiff attorneys: Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Brandon Gregory Moore, Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis; defendant attorney Jack Daniel Kitchen), and the Unified Patents litigation portal docket for the same case, which lists the June 16, 2020 notices of appearance by Belenky and Kheyfits and Moore's notice of appearance. Patexia's summary page for the same case reports "Plaintiff Attorneys 11."
  • The complaint signature block (verified from RPX litigation documents for the identically dated CommWorks campaign pleadings) lists Stafford Davis and Catherine Bartles of The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler), plus Dmitry Kheyfits, Brandon G. Moore, Andrey Belenky, and Hanna G. Cohen of Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Austin and New York) — "Attorneys for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC."
  • Discrepancy to flag: UniCourt's attorney list (last refreshed 07/26/2020) shows only four plaintiff attorneys, while Patexia reports 11 and the consolidated docket in lead case 2:20-cv-00158 lists additional names (Cohen, Sokoloff). This is because pretrial proceedings were consolidated into 2:20-cv-00158 on Aug. 25, 2020, so some campaign attorneys appear on the lead docket rather than on this member docket. The "11" figure appears to aggregate the consolidated family, not just this docket.
  • What I could not verify: the specific docket-entry dates for the Moore and Stafford Davis appearances in this docket (I have the entry numbers for Belenky/Kheyfits but only an approximate date for Moore), and whether there were any later substitution-of-counsel filings before the Feb. 9, 2021 dismissal. No sealed or withheld appearances were identified; the appearances were public CM/ECF filings.
  • No in-house counsel for CommWorks (an NPE with no litigation in-house team) appears on the record; the parent/real-party-in-interest is Brainbox Innovations, LLC, but its personnel did not enter appearances.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research defense counsel in this docket, building on the names already surfaced (Kitchen, Smith, Gorham) and verifying their roles and firms.

Now let me pin down the firms for each defense attorney.

Now let me identify the firms for Jack Daniel Kitchen and Andrew T. Gorham.

Defense Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.)

Scope caveat before the names. This is a short docket — opened 5/27/2020, dismissed 2/9/2021 (259 days), and consolidated for pretrial into lead case No. 2:20-cv-00158 on 8/25/2020. The defense side in this docket is therefore captured in a handful of entries (two extension applications, one Answer, one corporate disclosure statement, one jury demand, and one later notice of appearance). I searched PACER-adjacent sources, the Unified Patents litigation portal docket transcription, Docket Alarm, Justia, Patexia, UniCourt, and firm/PTAB filings. Three defense attorneys of record are documented; I could only independently verify the firm for one of them. I flag the two unverified firms explicitly rather than guess, and I did not find any in-house counsel appearing on this docket.

1. Melissa Richards Smith — defense counsel of record (Marshall/Tyler local counsel; the attorney who actually pleaded the defense)

  • Firm / office: Partner, Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, TX 75670 (with a Tyler, TX presence at 7232 Crosswater Ave.). Direct: 903-934-8450; melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com.
  • Docket footprint here: Filed the Answer for both Consolidated entities (entered 8/11/2020, E.D. Tex. docket via "Smith, Melissa"), the Corporate Disclosure Statement for both defendants, and the Demand for Trial by Jury — i.e., she was the signing/pleading attorney for the defense, not merely a noticed appearance. The Unified Patents docket transcription and the 2021 "Live" E.D. Tex. calendar both list her as representing Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc. and Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc.
  • Experience note: Smith (Baylor J.D. 1997) is one of the most frequently retained E.D. Tex. patent local counsel — a Martindale peer review describes her as "my first choice for local counsel for patent cases in Marshall and Tyler, Texas." Representative defense-side patent appearances include Microsoft (e.g., ToutVirtual, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2:25-cv-00943; Patent Armory Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00542), LG Electronics (E.D. Tex.), Samsung entities in the Headwater Research campaign, and the Pantech Wireless IPR series (IPR2023-01267/-01268/-01269/-01270/-01272/-01273) — usefully, the firm is equally at home in the parallel PTAB track, which matters in a campaign where Unified Patents was reexamining the asserted portfolio. She also appears plaintiff-side in IP cases (Rare Breed Triggers/ABC IP), so her role here should be read as a general E.D. Tex. trial/litigation anchor rather than NPE defense-only.

2. Jack Daniel Kitchen — first-appearing defense counsel of record (role most consistent with lead/local counsel; firm not verified)

  • Docket footprint here: "Kitchen, Jack" filed the Defendants' Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer and the Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer on behalf of both Consolidated entities. That is the earliest defense-side activity in the case (pre-Answer, mid-2020). The E.D. Tex. "Live" calendar and the Unified portal both list Jack Daniel Kitchen representing Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc. and Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc.
  • Firm / office: Not verified. My searches for "Jack Daniel Kitchen" + attorney/firm returned no reliable firm affiliation (the only "Kitchen" hit in Texas IP practice — Gary Kitchen of McKool Smith's Marshall office — is a different attorney and should not be conflated). I did not find a confirmed firm website, Martindale, or firm bio for him.
  • Experience note: Unable to source. Do not attribute any specific patent cases to him on the present record.

3. Andrew Thompson ("Tom") Gorham — later-appearing defense counsel (additional counsel; firm not verified)

  • Docket footprint here: NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham on behalf of Consolidated Communication Enterprise Services, Inc., Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., entered after the 8/25/2020 consolidation order and before the 2/9/2021 dismissal. The Unified portal docket and the E.D. Tex. calendar docket both reflect this appearance. Because it postdates the initial defense filings, it reads as additional/backup counsel added for the consolidated pretrial phase (Markman was set for 4/20/2021 and jury selection for 10/4/2021 in the lead case).
  • Firm / office: Not verified. Multiple targeted searches returned no confirmed firm affiliation or bio.
  • Experience note: Unable to source. Do not attribute specific matters to him on the present record.

Role mapping (as best the docket supports)

Attorney Role indicated by docket Firm Verified?
Melissa Richards Smith Pleading counsel of record / E.D. Tex. trial counsel (filed Answer, corporate disclosure, jury demand) Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall/Tyler, TX) Yes
Jack Daniel Kitchen First defense counsel of record (extension motions); likely lead/local Unknown No
Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham Later-noticed additional counsel (post-consolidation) Unknown No

What is not established (stated affirmatively, not by omission)

  • No in-house/corporate counsel (e.g., a Consolidated Communications legal-department attorney) appears on this docket.
  • No pro hac vice admissions are reflected in the docket transcription I reviewed — which is itself a signal that the defense may have been staffed leanly or that the real staffing happened in the lead consolidated case, No. 2:20-cv-00158 (CommWorks v. Cable One). I want to flag one trap here: the E.D. Tex. October 2021 "Live" calendar lumps counsel across the consolidated family, and the Cable One-side names appearing there (Brandon Chen, Robinson Vu, Jace Yarbrough) are Cable One's counsel, not Consolidated's — they should not be listed as Consolidated's counsel.
  • Because the case was dismissed before Markman and no substantive defense brief (e.g., an invalidity contentions or § 101 motion) appears on the docket I could access, there is no opinion or brief that corroborates lead-vs-local counsel designations beyond the filing pattern above. Those designations are my inference from docket-entry authorship, not from a court order.

Contradiction / reconciliation with the earlier sections

The prior summary's statement that "defendants were represented by Jack Daniel Kitchen and Melissa Richards Smith (with later appearance by Andrew T. Gorham)" is consistent with every docket source I re-checked, so there is no contradiction to resolve. The only refinement is evidentiary: Smith's firm (Gillam & Smith) is confirmable from her own filings in the wider E.D. Tex. record, whereas Kitchen's and Gorham's firms are not confirmable from anything I could locate — so if a downstream document needs those firms, it should be sourced from the actual PACER docket sheets for 2:20-cv-00159 / lead case 2:20-cv-00158 or from Consolidated's litigation disclosures, not from secondary trackers.

Bottom line: The defendant's documented counsel of record are Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX — verified), Jack Daniel Kitchen (firm unverified), and Andrew Thompson "Tom" Gorham (firm unverified). If you need the two unverified firms nailed down, the deterministic next step is a PACER pull of the 2:20-cv-00159 docket (entries for the Answer and Gorham's notice of appearance carry the firm/address block) or a CourtListener RECAP check on the same entries.