CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Digi International Inc.

I'll research this case and the parties/patents involved.

Let me dig into the specific case docket, Digi's products, and the patent's litigation/IPR history.

Case Overview — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Digi International Inc., No. 0:26-cv-03949 (D. Minn.)

The parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a non-practicing patent-assertion entity. Per its Rule 7.1 disclosure in other suits, it is a Georgia LLC with a registered office in Alpharetta, Georgia (Fulton Cnty.), whose corporate parent is Brainbox Innovations, LLC — reported on the docket in CommWorks v. Grandstream Networks, No. 2:26-cv-00794 (E.D. Tex.). It does not make or sell products; it monetizes a legacy networking/802.11 patent portfolio tracing to the former CommWorks Corporation (the 3Com carrier-equipment business later folded into UTStarcom). Third-party trackers count roughly 29 suits filed by the entity since 2020, with only a handful still active. Defendant Digi International Inc. is a publicly traded (Nasdaq: DGII) IoT connectivity manufacturer headquartered in Hopkins, Minnesota — cellular routers, gateways, console servers, and embedded modules (the Digi XBee family), plus the Digi Remote Manager platform. Digi is an operating company and a genuine Minnesota corporate citizen, which is the single most important fact for venue in this case. (Digi's precise revenue and headcount for FY2026 were not verified in this pass.)

The accused technology and the asserted patent. Only U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," is identified as at issue in the case metadata. It issued May 10, 2005 from Application No. 10/341,847, filed January 13, 2003, and it is the parent of the '285/'596/'979 family that CommWorks has asserted in its broader campaign. One-line sketch: a network access point contains logic tracking an operation of a wireless device (e.g., power-on or onset of transmission), and logic that provisions the device if that operation occurs within an "activatible time interval" — which CommWorks maps to the Wi-Fi Alliance's Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) push-button configuration and its ~120-second "walk time." At least claim 17 is the asserted claim in CommWorks' parallel pleadings. The accused instrumentalities in this action have not been confirmed from the complaint itself, but in every materially identical CommWorks complaint the '807 count targets the defendant's WPS-compatible devices; Digi's own product literature has advertised WPS push-button provisioning (e.g., the 2013 XBee Wi-Fi launch release touting "Wi-Fi Protected Setup … via a simple push-button method"), and 802.11 radios appear across its router/gateway/module lines. Note one important timing inference: because the '807 was filed January 13, 2003 and its continuations claim § 120 benefit to that chain, the family presumptively expired on or about January 13, 2023, and CommWorks' own complaints in related cases describe indirect infringement running "until its expiry." If that holds, this is a back-damages case only, bounded by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 (i.e., roughly September 2020 through expiration), with no injunctive exposure. I could not independently verify the expiration date or any patent term adjustment, so treat that as a well-supported inference rather than a confirmed record fact.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed September 9, 2026; assigned on the court's "3rd/4th Patent list" to Judge Katherine M. Menendez, referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko (case short form: 26-cv-3949 KMM/DLM). The docket shows a 20-page complaint with exhibits, the AO 120 notice to the USPTO, plaintiff's Rule 7.1 disclosure, a corporate disclosure statement, and a pro hac vice motion for Cortney S. Alexander, with Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield (St. Paul, MN) appearing for CommWorks. Venue matters here in a specific way: because Digi is headquartered in Minnesota, D. Minn. is the natural — and likely only convenient — forum under TC Heartland and § 1400(b), and this filing fits the broader post-2017 migration of PAE suits out of E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex. and into defendants' home districts. It also fits CommWorks' forum-shopping pattern: it has sued in W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., C.D. Cal., S.D.N.Y., D. Del., N.D. Ala., E.D. Va., and now D. Minn. Retaining a St. Paul firm as local counsel for a Minnesota defendant is a plausible cost-driven choice for a modest single-patent damages claim. Practically, D. Minn. is a slower, lower-volume patent venue than the Texas rocket dockets, and Digi will be litigating at home.

Why the case is notable. (1) A serial, standardized campaign. CommWorks has filed near-formulaic complaints since 2020 against cable/broadband operators (Comcast, RCN, Cable One, NextLink, Altice) and, increasingly, equipment and chipset vendors (Adtran, Zyxel, DrayTek, AVM, TRENDnet, u-blox, Grandstream, Microchip, Texas Instruments, STMicroelectronics, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Axon). Many resolved quietly with dismissals with prejudice — TRENDnet in June 2024, and a with-prejudice TI dismissal covering seven Wi-Fi patents and 70+ part numbers — meaning CommWorks has accumulated leverage but no adverse validity or claim-construction precedent. (2) Standard-essential adjacency without an SEP case. The infringement theories rest on Wi-Fi Alliance certification behaviors (WPS, WMM/802.11-2007+ QoS, mesh), which the pleadings use as a proxy for infringement across entire product lines — an approach that raises real § 101, claim-construction ("activatible time interval," "operation of the wireless device"), and standard-practice defenses. (3) Expired-patent dynamics. If the '807 family lapsed in early 2023, the case is a purely monetary, six-year-lookback dispute — typically settlement-value litigation, and a candidate for early dispositive or damages-focused motion practice rather than a market-shifting injunction fight. (4) IPR linkage is possible but unconfirmed. Unified Patents has challenged CommWorks at the PTAB (e.g., IPR2021-01297 on U.S. 8,923,846), and a defendant-side IPR on the '807 would have to be filed within one year of service under § 315(b); my searches surfaced no IPR petition against the '807 in this case or any prior one, but the one-year window has not yet run and an expired patent remains IPR-eligible for past-damages purposes.

Sourcing notes / open items. The docket details above come from a PACER-derived docket summary (pacermonitor.com case 66702792) rather than PACER directly, and the case is only ~11 days old, so there is no answer, scheduling order, claim construction, or IPR record yet. I could not retrieve the complaint PDF or its exhibit list, so the specific accused Digi products, the asserted claim(s) in this filing, any pre-suit notice letter to Digi, and the willfulness allegations are unverified — they are inferred from CommWorks' identical pleadings in EarthLink, Trendnet, Axon, Zyxel, AVM, u-blox, and Microchip. One loose thread worth checking against USPTO assignment records: Google Patents' citation data lists the '807's original assignee as America Online, Inc. rather than 3Com/CommWorks, which may be a data artifact but could bear on chain of title. No Reuters, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or RPX coverage of this specific Digi filing surfaced in my searches; the counsel/firm identification for Ms. Alexander is likewise unconfirmed.

I'll research this case across the sources you named. Let me start with several parallel searches.

The docket shows this case is only days old. Let me dig into the patent, parallel PTAB activity, and CommWorks' broader campaign.

Let me look for the Digi-specific docket details and the '807 patent's PTAB history.

Bottom line

This case is 11 days old. As of my searches (docket last updated 2026-09-09 4:21 PM CDT), the litigation consists of the complaint and three housekeeping filings. There is no answer, no counterclaims, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no confirmed PTAB proceeding on U.S. Patent 6,891,807. The "current posture" is therefore the answer to most of your checklist. Below I separate what is confirmed from what is not.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• Plaintiff's counsel of record: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield (St. Paul, MN) — local counsel. Ms. Alexander is CommWorks' Texas-based outside counsel (Rozier Hardt McDonough), consistent with its other campaign filings.
• Answer/counterclaims: none. Nothing on the docket after 2026-09-09. No answer due date appears in the retrieved docket because it had not yet been set/updated in the snapshot. A Rule 12 response would ordinarily follow service by ~3 weeks, but I cannot confirm service or a deadline from the retrieved data.
• Venue note: the case is in D. Minn. because Digi is a Minnesota-based company (the same reason TurboCode LLC sued Digi there in January 2026 — see §6). I have not independently sourced Digi's principal place of business in this research.

Caveat on the patents asserted. The prior case summary states five exhibits (A–E) and that '807's inclusion is unconfirmed. That caveat survives my research: I could not retrieve the D.I. 1 exhibit list for this case. For calibration, CommWorks' recent complaints carry varying exhibit counts — e.g., CommWorks v. EarthLink, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716 (2025-07-15), attached Exhibits A–F for '249, '807, '465, '664, '315 and RE44,904; CommWorks v. Realtek, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00088, attached Exhibits A‑1 through H, with '807 as Exhibit G; and CommWorks v. Grandstream Networks, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00794 (complaint 2026-09-04), also has only five exhibits (A–E). So a five-exhibit package is not dispositive either way. Treat '807 as the asserted patent per the case metadata, but flag that I could not verify it from the pleadings.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR)

None filed. The docket shows only plaintiff-side housekeeping items. There is no Rule 12(b) motion, no § 1404 transfer motion, and no motion to stay pending IPR. Any stay motion would in any event be premature — there is no IPR to point to (see §7).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Markman briefing, and no claim construction order. With Judge Menendez presiding and Magistrate Judge Micko referred, a D. Minn. patent scheduling order (and a claim-construction track) would normally issue only after the Rule 26(f) conference and initial pleadings — none of which has occurred.

4. Discovery milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) report, no initial disclosures, no protective order, no ESI or discovery motions. Strategically, the milestone to watch in a CommWorks case is the infringement-contentions / damages-window fight, because several CommWorks patents in this family are expired or near expiry and its complaints are drafted to capture "from [notice date] until the expiry of the [patent]" conduct (see, e.g., the '664 and '979 counts in its other complaints).

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None, and none imminent. No trial date exists. No JMOL/new trial/fee motions (§285) exist. There is no verdict.

6. Final disposition / present posture

Active; earliest pleading stage. No settlement, no voluntary dismissal, no judgment, no appeal. Plaintiff's complaint is on file and pro hac vice admission was sought the same day — i.e., CommWorks is staffing up for the case, not winding it down.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patent — and why they're unlikely here

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM directed at U.S. 6,891,807 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued 2005-05-10 from App. No. 10/341,847, filed 2003-01-13). I could find no petition targeting the '807 in any of my searches, and no IPR on it is reflected in the materials I retrieved. I cannot prove a negative from a search alone, so treat this as "not found," not "confirmed nonexistent."

Context worth weighing:

• CommWorks' prior PTAB exposure was on a different patent. Unified Patents, LLC filed IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846 (CommWorks as Patent Owner; Brainbox Innovations named as RPI) — a patent CommWorks asserted in CommWorks v. Comcast, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366 (filed 2021-04-15). That is the closest analogue, and it involved the '846, not the '807.
• The '807 was previously put at issue defensively, not at the PTAB. Altice USA, Inc. / CSC Holdings, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323 (filed 2021-09-17), was a declaratory-judgment action listing the '807 (along with '249, '285, '596, and '979). It ended in voluntary dismissal (per the AO 120: "See D.I. 27, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal," clerk entry dated ~2022-06-21) — i.e., resolved without a validity merits ruling.
• The current PTAB environment strongly disfavors a new petition on a 21-year-old patent. Under the 2025 changes (Director Squires' 2025-10-16 memorandum centralizing institution decisions in the Director, plus the "settled expectations" discretionary factor that heightens denial risk for patents in force more than roughly six years, and the 2025-10-15 proposed rules that would bar IPR where the patent already survived a validity challenge or where a parallel case will decide validity first), institution on the '807 would be a long shot. No petition appears to have been filed regardless.
• Practical effect on the litigation: since there is no IPR to trigger a § 315(b)/Fintiv stay analysis, the D. Minn. case should proceed on the normal track absent a later Digi petition — and any such petition would face the discretionary-denial regime above.

---

8. Case-family and party context (useful for predicting the next 6–12 months)

• CommWorks' 2025–2026 campaign is broad and ongoing: v. EarthLink (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716, filed 2025-07-15; voluntarily dismissed 2025-10-03/2025-10-10); v. Broadcom (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998, filed ~2025); v. Microchip Technology (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00043, filed 2026-02-10); v. Realtek (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00088, filed 2026-02-03; waiver of service 2026-04-22, answer due 2026-07-21); v. Grandstream (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00794, complaint 2026-09-04). The Digi case fits squarely into this wave, filed five days after Grandstream.
• Digi's other IP litigation (relevant to Digi's litigation posture and counsel):
  • NimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc., D. Minn. 0:22-cv-02345 — Digi won an indefiniteness ruling at the district court, but the Federal Circuit reversed in a nonprecedential opinion dated 2026-02-23, holding that "space-efficient cellular modem device" in the preamble is not indefinite and not a claim limitation (Fed. Cir., reported 2026-02-24). This shows Digi litigates patent cases through appeal in its home district and has a mixed recent record on claim-construction-type issues.
  • TurboCode LLC v. Digi International Inc., D. Minn. 0:26-cv-00519 (filed 2026-01-21) — a separate NPE suit against Digi in the same court and likely the same judge pool. Digi is thus defending at least two patent cases in D. Minn. in 2026, which is a plausible basis for coordinated scheduling or cost-driven settlement behavior later.
• Patent family note: the '807 is part of a family CommWorks consistently asserts together ('249, '285, '465, '596, '664, '979, '315, RE44,904). Its '807 counts elsewhere accuse Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS)-compatible devices and plead induced/contributory infringement of, e.g., claim 17, with notice letters typically dated years before suit. Expect the Digi complaint, if it includes the '807, to run the same playbook: pre-suit notice letter → willfulness allegations → expired/expiring-patent damages window.

---

9. What to monitor next (with expected dates where derivable)

1. Return of service / waiver and Digi's Rule 12 response (~late Sept.–Oct. 2026 if served around filing) — watch for an answer with invalidity counterclaims (§§ 101/102/103), an inequitable-conduct counterclaim (Digi has litigated inequitable conduct, including privilege-waiver fights, in NimbeLink), and a possible § 1404/§ 1406 venue challenge.
2. Pro hac vice order for Ms. Alexander and any Digi-side appearances (outside counsel selection will signal whether Digi intends to litigate hard or posture for early resolution).
3. Scheduling order from Judge Menendez (D. Minn. patent practice) setting an answer deadline, Markman date, and trial-ready date.
4. Any Digi IPR petition on the '807 or its family members — the § 315(b) one-year window runs from service; but note the discretionary-denial headwinds in §7.
5. Consolidation/coordination with TurboCode v. Digi (0:26-cv-00519).

---

Sourcing and confidence

• High confidence: docket entries D.I. 1–6, filing date, judge/magistrate assignment, plaintiff's counsel, Brainbox parent — all from the PacerMonitor docket page for 0:26-cv-03949.
• High confidence: '807 bibliographic data (issuance 2005-05-10, App. 10/341,847 filed 2003-01-13, title) — from CommWorks complaints in other cases.
• Medium confidence: the absence of any '807 IPR — based on negative search results; not a definitive check of the PTAB's full-text system.
• Open question (do not assume): whether the '807 is actually asserted in this specific complaint. The five-exhibit structure (A–E) is consistent with either a five-patent or six-patent package depending on how exhibits are bundled, and I could not retrieve D.I. 1's attachment list.
• No fabrication: I found no answer, no motions, no Markman order, no discovery order, no trial, no verdict, no settlement, no appeal, and no IPR involving this case or the '807. If any of those exist, they are not reflected in the public records I could retrieve as of 2026-09-20.

I'll research this case and the plaintiff's counsel. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the specific attorneys and firms.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Bottom line: The docket for CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Digi International Inc., No. 0:26-cv-03949 (D. Minn., filed 09/09/2026, Judge Katherine M. Menendez, Mag. J. Douglas L. Micko) shows only two attorneys tied to the plaintiff as of the last docket update (09/09/2026, 4:21 PM CDT): one appearing Minnesota attorney and one attorney for whom a pro hac vice motion was filed the same day. No in-house counsel, no notice of appearance for any other plaintiff-side attorney, and no order ruling on the PHV motion has yet been reported.

Docket support

• Dkt. 1 — 20-page Complaint for Patent Infringement against Digi International, Inc. (filing fee $405), filed by CommWorks Solutions, LLC; plaintiff listed as "Represented By Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield." (PACER Monitor docket)
• Dkt. 4 — "MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Cortney S. Alexander. Filing fee $ 150 … filed by CommWorks Solutions, LLC. (Blanchfield, Garrett)" — this is the only record of Alexander's involvement; there is no separate entry of appearance for him on the public docket yet, and no order granting PHV.
• Dkt. 2 (Rule 7.1 disclosure) and Dkt. 3 (AO 120) filed 09/09/2026; Dkt. 5 clerk's initial case assignment.

Important caveats / verification limits

• Docket is only days old and stale. The PACER Monitor page shows "Docket last updated: 09/09/2026 4:21 PM CDT." Additional appearances (including the order on the PHV motion, and any notice of appearance by Alexander or by CommWorks' regular patent counsel) may have been filed since and are not reflected. Verify against PACER directly.
• Firm attribution for Alexander is inferred, not docket-confirmed. All sources tying Alexander to Kent & Risley LLC, Alpharetta, GA are from 2023–2024 (PTAB filings, docket sheets appended as IPR exhibits, IAM Strategy 300, bar-profile directories). I found no 2026 source confirming his current firm, and nothing in this D. Minn. docket states his firm or address. Treat the firm attribution as high-confidence but unverified for this filing.
• Notably absent: In CommWorks' other 2025–2026 campaign cases, the plaintiff has been represented by Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (James McDonough / Jonathan L. Hardt) — e.g., CommWorks v. Realtek Semiconductor, No. 2:26-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex., filed 02/02/2026); CommWorks v. Microchip Technology, No. 7:26-cv-00043 (W.D. Tex., filed 02/10/2026); CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics, No. 7:25-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex.). None of those attorneys appear on the Digi docket. That is why the Blanchfield + Alexander pairing looks like a Minnesota local-counsel/substantive-counsel arrangement rather than the firm lineup used in the Texas filings — but that characterization is my inference from the docket, not a stated fact.
• No in-house counsel for CommWorks is identified anywhere on the current docket; CommWorks is a Georgia LLC whose parent is reported as Brainbox Innovations, LLC (per its Rule 7 disclosure in the W.D. Tex. Microchip case).
• Nothing is sealed on the plaintiff's side as far as the public docket shows; the absence of other counsel is a function of the case being ~11 days old, not of sealing.

Background context for the plaintiff

CommWorks Solutions, LLC is an Atlanta-area monetization entity asserting a family of former 3Com/CommWorks networking patents ('249, '285, '596, '979, RE44,904, '465, '807, '304) against networking/Wi-Fi silicon and equipment makers, including a 2021 W.D. Tex. campaign against cable operators and IPRs brought by Unified Patents (e.g., IPR2021-01297, U.S. Pat. 8,923,846), where its PTAB power of attorney was held by Meunier Carlin & Curfman (Atlanta). The '807 patent at issue here ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning") is the same patent asserted in the E.D. Tex. Realtek and EarthLink complaints.

Recommended next step: pull the live PACER docket for 0:26-cv-03949 to capture any post-09/09/2026 entries (PHV order, notices of appearance, and the plaintiff's corporate disclosure detail) before treating this counsel list as final.

I'll research the defendant's counsel. Let me run several parallel searches.

The docket still shows no Digi-side appearance. Let me verify and research Digi's customary patent counsel.

Digi uses Robins Kaplan-type Minneapolis counsel in NimbeLink. Let me confirm the firm and check Digi's counsel in the parallel TurboCode case.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Digi International Inc., No. 0:26-cv-03949 (D. Minn.)

Bottom line: as of the last docket snapshot I can retrieve, Digi has not yet appeared in this case. No answer, no notice of appearance, no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure by Digi, and no stipulation extending time appear on the docket. The only retrievable docket state shows "Docket last updated: 09/09/2026 4:21 PM CDT" with just the six plaintiff-side/housekeeping entries described in the earlier section (D.I. 1–6). I found no PACER Monitor, Justia, UniCourt, RPX Empower, Ex Parte, or CourtListener page for 0:26-cv-03949 listing a defendant attorney.

Important staleness caveat (flagged as a contradiction risk with the earlier sections). Today is 2026-10-12, roughly a month after filing. The docket mirror I can reach is frozen at the filing day. In Digi's prior D. Minn. patent case it filed an extension stipulation about 12 days after service (Complaint 2022-09-23 → Stipulation to Extend, D.I. 5, entered 2022-10-05), and appeared with counsel within days after that. On that pattern, a Digi appearance in this case would have been expected in late September 2026 and may already be on PACER. I could not verify it, and I will not name anyone as "counsel in this case" on inference alone. Everything below is therefore (a) confirmed absence, plus (b) a clearly labeled prediction drawn from Digi's litigation history, which you should confirm against live PACER.

---

1. Counsel actually on this docket: none for Digi

Source: PACER Monitor docket, case 66702792; corroborated by the Ex Parte PACER-derived page, which likewise shows only the complaint/status and no defendant representation.

Nothing is sealed on the defense side that I can find — the absence of defense counsel reflects timing (a ~1-day-old docket in the only snapshot I can reach), not a sealing order.

---

2. Digi's established patent-defense team (highly likely to appear here — inference, not docket-confirmed)

Digi is a repeat patent defendant in D. Minn. and has used a stable Minneapolis defense team. The best-documented roster comes from NimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc., No. 0:22-cv-02345 (D. Minn.) (Judge Nancy E. Brasel, Mag. J. Dulce J. Foster) and its Federal Circuit appeal, No. 24-2292.

Sources: Fed. Cir. No. 24-2292 docket (Entries 5, 9 listing "Katherine S. Razavi; Timothy E. Grimsrud; Kelly J. Fermoyle; Andrew M. McCoy as counsel for Appellee Digi International Inc."); UniCourt NimbeLink docket (defendant-attorney list, Razavi-signed filings).

Attribution caveats. (i) The firm tie for Razavi is solid — she has been at Faegre entities since at least the 2007 Timebase v. Thomson matter and is now at Faegre Drinker (the Law360 profile and current federal dockets place her at the Faegre Drinker Minneapolis office). (ii) For Grimsrud, Fermoyle, and McCoy I could not confirm current 2026 firm affiliations — Grimsrud historically took Federal Circuit briefs alongside Faegre teams, but lateral movement since 2024 is unverified. One search result associates Razavi with Robins Kaplan LLP in a MN CLE brochure snippet, but that appears to be an artifact of adjacent brochure text listing multiple firms/speakers, not a Razavi affiliation; treat it as unreliable. (iii) Nothing on file states that any of these attorneys will appear in CommWorks v. Digi.

---

3. In-house counsel

No in-house attorney for Digi is identified in any source I found for this case or for NimbeLink. Digi (Nasdaq: DGII, Hopkins, MN) maintains an in-house legal function, but I could not verify the name or title of its General Counsel or IP counsel from a reliable source, and I am not going to guess one. If in-house counsel appears on the D. Minn. docket or on the Rule 7.1/§ 290 filings, that will be the first confirmation.

---

4. Why the Faegre Drinker team is the strong prediction

• Digi's only two recent patent suits in D. Minn. (NimbeLink, 2022; and TurboCode LLC v. Digi International Inc., No. 0:26-cv-00519, filed 2026-01-21) put it in the same court and judge pool as this case.
• Digi litigates patent cases through appeal in its home district rather than settling early — NimbeLink went to a March 14, 2024 invalidity judgment and up to the Federal Circuit (argued 2026-01-12). That is a strong signal Digi will staff this case with the same substantive Minneapolis IP team, not a one-off local-counsel arrangement.
• The parallel TurboCode v. Digi action is the single best place to read off Digi's current counsel lineup: whoever entered for Digi there in 2026 is the most probable identity of its counsel here. I could not retrieve the TurboCode docket's appearance entries (RPX Empower page is the only reachable summary and it does not list attorneys), so that check remains open.

---

5. What to pull next to convert inference into fact

1. Live PACER docket, 0:26-cv-03949 — look for: (a) a Stipulation/Notice of Appearance by Digi counsel (expected ~late Sept. 2026); (b) Digi's Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. ~7–9); (c) any extension of the answer deadline; and (d) the § 315(b) service date, which starts Digi's one-year IPR window.
2. TurboCode v. Digi, 0:26-cv-00519 — pull the defense appearance; if it mirrors NimbeLink (Razavi et al., Faegre Drinker), the same team is near-certain here.
3. Faegre Drinker firm page for Razavi's current contact/office confirmation, and a search of the firm's 2026 client alerts for any CommWorks/Digi statement.
4. Digi's in-house legal roster (10-K/website "Leadership" or SEC filings) to confirm GC name before citing any in-house counsel.

Confidence summary: High confidence Digi has no counsel of record in the retrievable docket; high confidence the NimbeLink lineup (Razavi/Grimsrud/Fermoyle/McCoy) is Digi's established patent-defense team; medium confidence that lineup carries over to this filing; no verified firm attribution for Grimsrud, Fermoyle, or McCoy as of 2026, and no identified in-house counsel. I have not invented any attorney, and any name above that is not tied to a specific docket citation should be treated as a lead to verify, not a record fact.