CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. D-Link Corp.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case docket, outcome, and the patents.

Below is a case overview assembled from the docket fragments, complaint text, patent records, and PAE-tracking databases I could retrieve. I flag sourcing limits where they exist.

The parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with its registered office in Alpharetta, Georgia (Fulton County) — a patent-assertion entity (NPE/PAE) with no operating business, no products, and revenue derived from patent licensing and litigation. It is a portfolio holder rather than a university or operating company: the asserted patents are acquired legacy networking patents, and IPWatchdog's litigation roundup tags CommWorks with the affiliate "[IP Investments Group]," while a later CommWorks filing (the 2025 EarthLink case) identifies its corporate parent as Brainbox Innovations, LLC (see the Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70806753/commworks-solutions-llc-v-earthlink-llc/). CommWorks is represented in its Texas campaign by Kheyfits Belenky LLP and The Stafford Davis Firm (Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Brandon Moore, Catherine Bartles, Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis, and others) — note that I confirmed these firms for CommWorks' Texas filings generally, not the D-Link signature block specifically. Defendant D-Link Corp. is the Taiwanese parent of the D-Link networking-hardware group (headquartered in Taipei; U.S. operations under D-Link Systems, Inc. in Fountain Valley, California), a long-established maker of consumer and small-business Wi-Fi routers, access points, switches, and gateways.

The accused technology and the asserted patent. CommWorks accuses D-Link's Wi-Fi routers, access points, and gateways — the exemplary product being the D-Link DIR-882 (an AC2600 dual-band Wi-Fi 5 router) — of infringing through their support for Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS), specifically the Push-Button Configuration (PBC) pairing method. The theory is that WPS PBC's ~120-second "Walk Time" enrollment window, during which an access point automatically associates a device that powers on or begins transmitting after a button press, reads on the claimed "time-based" provisioning. See the complaint (RPX copy at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14846680) and the patent record at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US6891807B2](/patent/US6891807B2). The asserted patent per the authoritative case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued May 10, 2005 from Application No. 10/341,847 (filed January 13, 2003), naming inventors James A. Roskind and John D. Robinson and originally assigned to America Online, Incorporated; it carries 71 claims, with claim 1 claiming a provisioning process in which an access point determines the power-on time of a wireless device and initiates provisioning if the power-on falls within an activated time interval (see https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1e/62/54/059116386fd568/[US6891807](/patent/US6891807).pdf). Technical sketch: a button- or switch-activated, time-window-based auto-provisioning/association scheme for wireless devices — effectively the concept behind WPS push-button pairing. Important discrepancy to flag: although the case metadata lists only the '807, IPWatchdog's July 29, 2022 roundup and the RPX complaint text indicate the complaint as filed pleaded a family of time-based provisioning patents — the '807 plus U.S. 7,177,285, U.S. 7,463,596, and U.S. 7,911,979 (all titled "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," same inventors/AOL lineage, with terminal disclaimers tying them together), and Counts I–III track '807/'285/'596. See https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/07/29/patent-filings-roundup-future-waco-patent-cases-headed-wheel-ax-wireless-launches-wifi-6-campaign-helsinn-paragraph-iv-litigation/.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. The suit was filed as No. 6:22-cv-00806 in the [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division](/courts/western-district-of-texas-waco), on July 29, 2022 (per IPWatchdog), with pre-suit notice letters to D-Link dated February 21, 2021 and March 18, 2021 described in the complaint. The Waco Division was, at filing, the single most active and plaintiff-favored patent venue in the country, effectively synonymous with then-District Judge Alan D. Albright — fast case schedules, an early trial date, and a reputation favorable to patentees on damages. This case sits at a notable inflection point: it was filed the same week as the district's move to route future Waco patent cases to a random assignment "wheel" among Waco judges, ending the near-automatic Albright assignment (see the same IPWatchdog roundup). I was not able to confirm the assigned judge, docket activity, or final disposition of 6:22-cv-00806 from the sources retrieved; the '807 has since expired (est. term from its Jan. 13, 2003 priority date), and no IPR petition appears on RPX's page for the '807 ("0 Petitions," https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US6891807B2) — but this should be verified against PACER before reliance. What makes the case notable is its place in CommWorks' broad, coordinated assertion campaign against Wi-Fi/WPS and broadband access equipment makers and ISPs — a campaign that has targeted Ubee/Altice, Comcast, Vyve, CommScope/ARRIS, Zyxel, AVM, DrayTek, EarthLink, Technicolor, and others, and that prompted at least one defensive declaratory-judgment action (Altice USA/CSC Holdings v. CommWorks, D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323, asserting the same '249/'807/'285/'596/'979 patent family and voluntarily dismissed in mid-2022 — see the AO 120 form at https://www.docketalarm.com/patentapps/US/14-58,473/RECOVERY_TECHNIQUES_IN_MOBILE_NETWORKS/docs/L4PMUC9SGREENX5.pdf). Because the patents map to WPS, a Wi-Fi Alliance certification implemented across essentially all consumer Wi-Fi gear, the assertions carry standard-linked implications for the whole CPE/router industry, and the recurring pattern of early, pre-Markman dismissals in these cases (e.g., the CommWorks–Vyve and CommWorks–CommScope actions resolved with-prejudice within ~200 days) suggests the campaign is driven as a licensing/settlement program rather than toward merits adjudication.

Sourcing caveats: party identities, the accused DIR-882/WPS theory, the '807 patent text, the notice-letter dates, and the filing date are well supported by the complaint and patent records cited above. The number of patents actually pleaded, the presiding judge, and the outcome of 6:22-cv-00806 are not fully confirmed by the sources I could retrieve and should be validated on PACER (and any PTAB/PTAB-Portal records) before being treated as established.

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

Let me get the actual docket for this case.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. D-Link Corp., No. 6:22-cv-00806 (W.D. Tex., Waco)

Important caveat up front: My search budget for this task was exhausted before I could pull the PACER/RECAP docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00806 itself. Everything below is split into (A) verified from primary-source reproductions of the pleadings and public databases, and (B) not verified — i.e., I will not state a docket entry, ruling, or disposition I could not confirm. I have deliberately left gaps rather than fill them with plausible reconstruction.

---

1. The patent and the enforcement campaign (context)

• U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued 2005-05-10 from Application No. 10/341,847, filed 2003-01-13 (per CommWorks's own pleading language, reproduced in the EarthLink complaint, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716). Same family: '285 (7,177,285), '596 (7,463,596), '979 (7,911,979) — all titled "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning."
• Because the '807 was filed 2003-01-13, its 20-year term ran out on or about 2023-01-13 (plus any patent-term adjustment, which I did not verify). CommWorks's later complaints plead infringement in the past tense "until its expiry," which is consistent with expiration during the pendency of these suits. This matters strategically: the damages window was fixed and closing, and permanent injunctive relief was unavailable by the time these cases matured.
• CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia LLC (Alpharetta, Fulton County) whose corporate parent is Brainbox Innovations, LLC (Rule 7.1 disclosure, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716). It is a classic acquired-patent NPE asserting the same Wi-Fi/WPS/WMM portfolio across the supply chain — Comcast (6:21-cv-00366, W.D. Tex., filed 2021-04-15), Altice (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323, filed 2021-09-17; terminated by voluntary dismissal, D.I. 27, clerk-stamped 2022-06-21), Consolidated Communications (2:20-cv-00159, E.D. Tex., filed 2020-05-27), Technicolor (N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-02827, filed 2022-07-18), Ubee (6:23-cv-00064, W.D. Tex., filed 2023-02-01), TRENDnet (C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-08048, dismissed with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees), and in 2025 a wave of new suits (AVM 2:25-cv-00026, dismissed without prejudice 2025-06-19; DrayTek 2:25-cv-00024; EarthLink 2:25-cv-00716; Broadcom C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998; Texas Instruments E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00439, dismissed with prejudice by stipulation; u-blox E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-02504).
• Counsel pattern (not verified for this case): Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Carey Rozier, James McDonough III, Jonathan Hardt, Kenneth Matuszewski) in the E.D. Tex. Waco/Marshall filings; Kaleo Legal (William Poynter) in the u-blox case; Hatch Law/Kheyfits Belenky in the C.D. Cal. TRENDnet case. I could not confirm which firm signed the D-Link complaint.

2. Filing and initial pleadings (verified in part)

• 2022-07-20 — Complaint filed, W.D. Tex., Waco Division (the pleading is dated July 20, 2022 and is reproduced at RPX Insight litigation document 14846680, captioned "In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division"; this is the D-Link pleading matching case 6:22-cv-00806).

  • Accused products: "Wi-Fi enabled routers, access points, and gateways, such as, for example, the D-Link DIR-882 Wireless Router," with a non-exhaustive Attachment A product list. Infringement theories: § 271(a) (literal or DOE), § 271(b) inducement, and § 271(c) contributory.
  • Asserted claim (per the case summary): the '807 count is Count I. Note a discrepancy I flagged but could not resolve: the reproduced complaint copy also pleads Counts against the '285, '596 and '979 patents (same family), each keyed to WPS functionality and the same DIR-882 exemplar. The metadata provided to me lists only the '807 as "patents at issue," which may reflect later narrowing of the case (e.g., dropped patents) or an artifact of docket-metadata extraction. Unverified which is the operative set.
  • Pre-suit notice (relevant to willfulness and inducement): CommWorks's licensing agent sent a notice letter/email on 2021-02-21; outside counsel sent a second letter/email on 2021-03-18 identifying exemplary infringed claims and products and inviting a license discussion. The complaint pleads willfulness/objective recklessness and a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (willful blindness).
  • Relief sought: judgment of infringement and willfulness, permanent injunction, compensatory damages not less than a reasonable royalty trebled under § 284, costs, prejudgment/post-judgment interest, and a jury demand.

• Answer / counterclaims / Rule 7.1 disclosures / service: NOT VERIFIED. I could not confirm D-Link's responsive pleading date, whether it counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement (typical in these cases), or whether it challenged service on D-Link Corp. (a Taiwan entity) as opposed to D-Link Systems, Inc. (the U.S. subsidiary referenced repeatedly in D-Link patent pleadings). Do not treat any of that as established.

3. Pre-trial motions, Markman, discovery — NOT VERIFIED

I have no confirmed motion-to-dismiss, § 1406/§ 1404 venue transfer, § 101 dismissal, stay-pending-IPR, or summary-judgment activity in 6:22-cv-00806, and no confirmed claim-construction order. Two structural points are worth stating because they are grounded in the record rather than assumed:

• Venue/jurisdiction risk was real but unproven here. D-Link's U.S. operations run through D-Link Systems, Inc. (Irvine, CA); a Taiwan-parent defendant is a natural candidate for a TC Heartland/AFTG venue or service challenge. I found no evidence one was filed — this is a research question, not a finding.
• Patent expiration tended to moot injunctive relief and capped the damages period (§ 286 six-year lookback from 2022-07-20 → 2016-07-20 onward), so the realistic endgame was a royalty/license settlement rather than trial.

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings — NOT VERIFIED / NONE FOUND

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition on U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 in my searches — no PTAB proceeding appears in the results, and no litigation stay is reported in connection with this patent. For contrast, D-Link entities have been IPR petitioners against other NPEs (e.g., D-Link Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01426, U.S. Pat. No. 9,019,838 — unrelated patent). The related D-Link litigation by American Patents LLC (patents '782, '304, '458, '803, complaint dated 2020-02-18) is also unrelated. Absence of a PTAB record in my searches is not proof that no petition exists; the PTAB docket should be checked directly (see § 6).

5. Trial, verdict, judgment, settlement, appeal — NOT VERIFIED

I could not confirm a Markman order, trial date, verdict, JMOL/new-trial motion, fee motion, judgment, settlement, dismissal, or appeal in 6:22-cv-00806. What can be said with confidence is only the portfolio pattern: CommWorks cases overwhelmingly terminate by confidential settlement followed by voluntary dismissal (e.g., Altice — voluntary dismissal, D.I. 27; TRENDnet — dismissal with prejudice, each party bearing its own fees/costs; AVM — dismissal without prejudice 2025-06-19; Texas Instruments — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice, 2025). Applying that pattern to D-Link would be an inference, not a reported outcome, and I am not asserting it. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database's page for patent 6891807 lists only two cases (Ubee 6:23-cv-00064 and Consolidated Communications 2:20-cv-00159) and its snapshot omits this D-Link case entirely, which shows the database is incomplete and unreliable as a disposition source.

6. How to close the gaps (recommended next steps with exact identifiers)

1. RECAP/CourtListener docket for gov.uscourts.txwd.6:22-cv-00806 (or search CourtListener for "CommWorks Solutions v. D-Link") — retrieve D.I. 1 (complaint), the answer/counterclaims, any § 12(b)/transfer/stay motion, the Markman order, and the terminal dismissal order.
2. W.D. Tex. Waco Division local records / the court's website for Judge Albright-era scheduling orders (the Waco docket in mid-2022 was under Judge Alan D. Albright).
3. PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board end-to-end search on U.S. Pat. No. 6,891,807 (Patent Trial & Appeal Case Tracking System, ptacts.uspto.gov) and on the family members '285/'596/'979.
4. Defendant-side press/Law360/IPWatchdog for "CommWorks D-Link settlement" (2022-2024) and for any D-Link motion to dismiss for improper venue or improper service.
5. Patent expiration confirmation: USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search "Patent Term Adjustment" for 6,891,807 to fix the exact expiration date and thus the damages cutoff.

---

Bottom line on present posture: The complaint (2022-07-20, W.D. Tex., Waco, D-Link DIR-882 accused, § 271(a)/(b)/(c), willfulness, treble damages demanded, jury demand, with pre-suit notice letters dated 2021-02-21 and 2021-03-18) is verified. Everything after the pleading — Markman, dispositive motions, IPR activity, trial, and final disposition — is not verified in this report, and given the '807 patent's January 2023 expiration, the case was almost certainly resolved on a damages/licensing theory rather than by judgment after trial. I recommend confirming the docket before relying on any post-pleading characterization.

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

Let me pull the docket sheet and complaint signature block for this specific case.

Let me find the actual docket and complaint signature block.

Bottom line

I could not pull the actual docket sheet for CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. D-Link Corp., No. 6:22-cv-00806 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.) within my search budget, so I cannot give you a PACER-verified list of "attorneys of record" for the plaintiff in this case as of a specific docket entry. What I can verify is the counsel team that CommWorks Solutions, LLC uses to assert the same '807 patent and the same patent family — that team is Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Atlanta, GA + Austin, TX), with James F. McDonough, III as lead and Jonathan L. Hardt as the Texas/W.D. Tex.-admitted attorney. I have flagged below exactly what is sourced and what is inference.

---

Verified counsel for CommWorks (plaintiff) — from related filings asserting the '807 patent

Sources:

• CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. EarthLink, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00716-JRG (E.D. Tex.), Complaint filed Mar. 4, 2025, signature block ("Attorneys for Plaintiff COMMWORKS SOLUTIONS, LLC"): https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.[239172](/patent/239172)/gov.uscourts.txed.239172.1.0.pdf — the asserted patents in that case include U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, i.e., the exact patent at issue here.
• CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00354 (W.D. Tex.), docket entries 1, 4, 5 (complaint and Notice of Attorney Appearance by Jonathan L. Hardt for CommWorks), filed Aug. 18, 2025: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59608693/CommWorks_Solutions,_LLC_v_Marvell_Technology,_Inc

Additional counsel who have represented CommWorks (context, not confirmed in this case)

What I could not verify (do not treat as fact)

1. The 2022 signature block of the D-Link complaint (Dkt. 1) in 6:22-cv-00806. I retrieved the W.D. Tex. Waco "Count I — Infringement of the '807 Patent by D-Link" complaint text (exemplary product D-Link DIR-882), including the pre-suit notice allegations ("licensing agent" letter dated Feb. 21, 2021; "legal counsel" letter dated Mar. 18, 2021), but not the closing signature block. Source for the complaint text: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14846680. Anything about who signed it is inference from the firm's consistent role across the campaign, not a verified docket fact.
2. Whether additional or different counsel appeared in this specific case (e.g., a since-withdrawn firm, or separate PTAB counsel for the '807). If the '807 was targeted by an IPR/reexam (Unified Patents ran a reexam campaign against the CommWorks portfolio, per Lexology's July 2022 campaign summary: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=14c49056-81e4-4ee1-a4a7-1ec58aee6400), the PTAB power-of-attorney names may differ from IPR2021-01297.
3. Counsel's biographical/verdict history. I did not find (and did not want to fabricate) firm-bio detail on McDonough or Hardt beyond bar numbers, addresses, and the CommWorks filings themselves.

Suggested verification path: PACER/CourtListener docket for 6:22-cv-00806, Dkt. 1 (complaint signature block) and any Notice of Attorney Appearance entries in the first 30 days; the D-Link defendants' appearances in that same docket would confirm the adversary side. CourtListener's RECAP docket for the W.D. Tex. 2022 Waco filings was not returned in my searches, which is why I could not confirm entries directly.

One caution: several search hits in this area belong to unrelated D-Link cases (e.g., Ericsson v. D-Link, XR Communications v. D-Link Systems) where D-Link's own defense counsel included Foley & Lardner, Reed Smith, Yarbrough & Wilcox, and Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth. Those firms represent the defendant in other matters and should not be attributed to the plaintiff here.

I'll research D-Link's defense counsel in this case, starting with the docket and any Rule 7.1/answer filings.

Let me look for the specific docket and any defense-side filings.

Defendant's counsel of record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. D-Link Corp., No. 6:22-cv-00806 (W.D. Tex., Waco)

Bottom line: NOT VERIFIED — no appearance confirmed

I could not identify, from any sourcing I was able to retrieve, a single attorney who entered an appearance for D-Link in this case. My searches for the docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00806 returned no docket record (no Docket Alarm case page, no CourtListener/RECAP docket, no PACER-monitor page), and I retrieved no answer, no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure, no notice of appearance, no motion to dismiss, and no dismissal order for this case. I will not name counsel I cannot source. What follows is (A) what the failed search does and does not establish, (B) verified leads worth checking — explicitly labeled as leads, not findings — and (C) the precise, minimal steps that will close this gap authoritatively.

Consistency check against prior sections: this is the same gap flagged earlier in "Key legal developments & outcome" (§ 2: "Answer / counterclaims / Rule 7.1 disclosures / service: NOT VERIFIED") and in "Plaintiff representatives" (docket not retrievable). No contradiction — but note the earlier overview stated D-Link Systems' U.S. operations as both "Fountain Valley, California" and "Irvine, CA"; that internal inconsistency is unresolved and is itself a reason to verify the correct U.S. entity before assuming which D-Link entity's counsel is on the signature block.

A. What the absence of a docket means (and does not mean)

Note one adjacent data point I did retrieve: the docket page for CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01268 (W.D. Tex., Waco) shows filed Dec. 8, 2022, terminated Aug. 1, 2023, Judge Alan D. Albright, flags "CLOSED, PATENT, STAYED" (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--22-cv-01268/CommWorks_Solutions_LLC_v._Frontier_Communications_Parent_Inc._et_al/). That confirms (i) the D-Link case was almost certainly assigned to Judge Albright with an "-ADA" suffix, and (ii) the CommWorks Waco campaign was resolving by mid-2023. It says nothing about D-Link's counsel.

B. Verified leads on D-Link's defense-side representation — LEADS ONLY

These are firms/attorneys documented as having represented D-Link entities in other patent matters. None is confirmed for 6:22-cv-00806. I am listing them solely to prioritize verification.

I also note, for completeness, that D-Link entities have appeared as IPR petitioners (e.g., D-Link Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01426, U.S. Pat. 9,019,838 — unrelated patent, noted in the prior section), and PTAB counsel in those proceedings would be a separate team from district-court counsel. I did not retrieve the counsel names in that IPR, so I am not offering them.

One structural hypothesis worth testing (expressly a hypothesis): because the named defendant is D-Link Corp., the Taiwanese parent — not D-Link Systems, Inc., the U.S. operating subsidiary — the first defense filing in this case may well have been a Rule 12(b) motion challenging service/jurisdiction or a TC Heartland/AFTG venue motion, possibly paired with a misjoinder/improper-defendant argument. If so, the appearance would name counsel for D-Link Corp. and the motion papers would identify the entity's position on the parent/subsidiary distinction. I found no such filing and am not asserting one exists. This is the single most likely place a D-Link-side name would surface.

C. To close this definitively (10–15 minutes of PACER)

1. PACER docket for 6:22-cv-00806 (W.D. Tex., Waco). Pull the docket sheet, then retrieve:
   • the Answer (or Rule 12 motion) — the signature block is the authoritative counsel-of-record list, including any "pro hac vice" designations;
   • any Notice of Attorney Appearance / Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice orders (in the parallel CommWorks v. Comcast case, the pro hac vice order at Dkt. 20 named Timothy P. Horgan-Kobelski and listed local co-counsel Deron Dacus of The Dacus Firm, Tyler, TX — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--21-cv-00366/CommWorks_Solutions_LLC_v._Comcast_Cable_Communications_LLC_et_al/docs/20.pdf — a useful illustration of how W.D. Tex. pro hac vice papers disclose the full defense team);
   • the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure (identifies whether D-Link Corp., D-Link Systems, Inc., or both are in the case and their parent/subsidiary relationship);
   • the terminal entry (dismissal, settlement, or judgment).
2. CourtListener RECAP search for "CommWorks D-Link" and for the docket ID gov.uscourts.txwd.6:22-cv-00806; if RECAP has it, the documents are free.
3. W.D. Tex. CM/ECF attorney query by defendant name, which lists every attorney who has entered an appearance for D-Link in the district — this catches appearances even if the docket PDFs are paywalled.
4. Cross-check against D-Link's own disclosure: D-Link's annual report/10-K-type filings and its Litigation section sometimes name outside counsel; and the Federal Circuit/PACER docket of any appeal (if the case was dismissed on venue or § 101, an appeal to the Fed. Cir. would name appellate counsel).

D. Explicit caveats

• No attorney is named in this section as "counsel of record" for D-Link in 6:22-cv-00806, because I could not verify one. Any name appearing above is a lead derived from other D-Link litigation.
• The firms in the prior section's caution — Ericsson v. D-Link, XR Communications v. D-Link Systems — are defense-side firms in those matters and must not be imported into this case without a docket confirmation. Equally, the plaintiff-side firms Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, Kheyfits Belenky LLP, and The Stafford Davis Firm identified earlier are CommWorks's counsel (and Kheyfits Belenky/Stafford Davis are confirmed only for other CommWorks Texas filings) — they are not D-Link's counsel and should not be cross-attributed.
• If you need a name for a filing deadline rather than a research memo, the fastest reliable route is the W.D. Tex. CM/ECF attorney query in step 3, which returns names even where third-party docket aggregators have no coverage.