CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. DrayTek Corporation

I'll research this case using web search to verify details before drafting the overview.

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

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and counsel details.

Let me verify additional counsel and the case's current status.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. DrayTek Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00024 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Four attorneys from Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC ("RHM") are the plaintiff-side counsel of record. There is no indication of in-house counsel appearing for CommWorks in this case, and no local-counsel-only firm has appeared on the plaintiff side (RHM's Austin-based attorney, Hardt, is the Texas-bar contact). I could not confirm any pro hac vice or additional appearance by Steven W. Ritcheson (INSIGHT, PLLC), who has signed CommWorks complaints in other districts — see the caveat below.

Counsel table

Source basis: the PACER-derived docket summary and docket entries at UniCourt (updated 03/14/2025), which lists plaintiff attorneys "Carey Matthew Rozier, Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt, James Francis McDonough, III" and reproduces Dkts. 1–10; the complaint text at ai-lab.exparte.com; and RHM's own attorney/practice pages.

Firm and role context

• RHM lists patent litigation as its "cornerstone," with plaintiff- and defense-side experience in telecommunications, communication systems, wireless networks, and consumer electronics — the exact technology space here (Wi-Fi WMM/WPS functionality). See https://rhmtrial.com/practice-areas/; https://rhmtrial.com/attorneys/.
• The same foursome (Rozier, Hardt, McDonough, Matuszewski) appears as plaintiff's counsel across CommWorks's parallel E.D. Tex. filings in 2025 — CommWorks v. SIA Mikrotikls, No. 2:25-cv-00252 (Dkt. 4–6 appearances), and CommWorks v. VTech Holdings, No. 2:25-cv-00433 (Dkt. 4–6) — confirming a standardized campaign team rather than case-specific staffing.
• In CommWorks suits filed in other districts, Steven W. Ritcheson (INSIGHT, PLLC, Marina del Rey, CA) and Travis E. Lynch (RHM) have signed complaints (e.g., C.D. Cal. actions against Axon/Broadcom-related defendants). No appearance by Ritcheson or Lynch is reflected in the 2:25-cv-00024 docket excerpt I could retrieve, so I am not listing them as counsel in this case; if a pro hac vice motion was filed after mid-March 2025, my sources would not have captured it.

Defendant's counsel (for completeness)

• Robert Lawrence Green, III — filed DrayTek's unopposed extension application (Dkt. 9; answer deadline moved to 04/10/2025). I did not verify his firm affiliation from a primary source in this pass.

Flags and gaps

1. Patent-count discrepancy (contradiction with metadata). The case metadata lists a single patent at issue, 7,027,465. The complaint actually asserts six patents: 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979; RE44,904; 7,027,465; and 6,891,807 — each with its own "Evidence of Use" exhibit (Exs. A–F), with Exhibit E being the '465 chart referenced in the prior summary. The metadata is under-inclusive, not wrong on the '465 patent itself.
2. Status not verified past mid-March 2025. The most recent docket information my sources reflect is the 02/21/2025 entry granting the extension (answer due 04/10/2025). I could not confirm a later answer, counterclaim, stay, transfer, consolidation, or dismissal, so I cannot rule out that additional counsel (defense or plaintiff) have since appeared.
3. Role designations. The docket does not formally designate "lead" vs. "of counsel" for plaintiff; the table's role labels are inferred from who signed the initiating and substantive filings (Rozier) versus who filed appearances (Hardt, McDonough, Matuszewski). Anyone asserting that a particular attorney is "lead trial counsel" should verify against a scheduling order or the parties' lead-counsel designations under the E.D. Tex. local rules.
4. No sealed-filing indication surfaced for plaintiff's counsel appearances; the appearance notices (Dkts. 4–6) appear to be public.

I'll research the counsel of record for DrayTek Corporation in this case.

I found a lead on defendant counsel. Let me verify and dig deeper.

Let me verify the docket and the specific attorney's firm.

Defendant's counsel of record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. DrayTek Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00024 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

Only one attorney is reflected in the publicly available docket as counsel for DrayTek Corporation: Robert Lawrence Green, III. He is the sole name that appears under "Defendant Attorney" on the aggregated docket for this case (UniCourt, reflecting the E.D. Tex. docket through 03/14/2025), and he is the filer of the only defendant-side filing I could locate on the docket.

In-house counsel: none identified. No DrayTek in-house attorney has appeared on the docket in any filing I could locate.

No other defendant-side counsel found. In particular, I found no pro hac vice motions for out-of-state DrayTek litigation counsel, no lead/backup counsel designations under the local patent rules, and no second law firm appearing for DrayTek. If DrayTek has retained national patent defense counsel, those attorneys had not appeared as of the last docket snapshot I could retrieve.

Source basis

• Docket entry #9 — "Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint filed by DrayTek Corporation. Summons originally served on 02/03/2025. Agreed new answer date is 04/10/2025.(Green, Robert)" — this is the direct, document-level evidence that Robert Green is DrayTek's filing counsel. Source: UniCourt docket aggregation for No. 2:25-cv-00024 (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegubc3d0188bd08-[2008001](/patent/2008001)), last updated from the U.S. District Courts on 03/14/2025.
• Docket entry #10 — the extension was granted; DrayTek's answer/responsive pleading deadline became April 10, 2025.
• Attorney table — "Defendant Attorney: Robert Lawrence Green, III" in the same UniCourt case record.
• Summons/service — Dkt. #7 (summons issued as to DrayTek Corporation), Dkt. #8 (Notice Regarding Service of Complaint), service effected 02/03/2025 per Dkt. #9.

Contradictions and gaps I want to flag explicitly

1. Contradiction between docket aggregators. The UniCourt record lists a defendant attorney (Green) and shows Dkts. #1–#10, while the ExParte/AI-Lab docket page for the same case number states "No Defendant Attorneys / No Attorneys" (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00024/commworks-solutions-llc-v-draytek-corp). The most likely explanation is a mapping artifact — Green appears as the ECF filer on an application (Dkt. #9) rather than on a formal Notice of Attorney Appearance, so crawlers that key off appearance notices miss him. This also means there may be no separate "Notice of Appearance" for DrayTek counsel on the docket at all.
2. No verification of post-April 2025 activity. My docket information is stale (aggregator update of 03/14/2025; answer due 04/10/2025). I could not confirm whether an answer was filed, whether DrayTek defaulted, whether the case settled or was dismissed, or whether additional counsel (including pro hac vice counsel and a Marshall/Tyler-based local counsel) appeared after that date. The case metadata you supplied also lists status as "unknown," consistent with this gap.
3. Firm attribution is the weakest link. The Martindale page that surfaced (https://www.martindale.com/attorney/robert-green-300729590/) carries the "Sheppard Mullin / Houston" header, but the page snippet also contains practice-area text belonging to unrelated attorneys, so I do not treat the firm/office as confirmed. E.D. Tex. practice would ordinarily imply co-counsel (a local Texas firm for local-counsel purposes if lead counsel is out of district), and no such firm name appears in the records I retrieved.
4. Possible same-name attorney, not confirmed. A CourtListener docket for Williams v. Anthropic PBC, No. 1:26-cv-01566 (S.D.N.Y.), shows an entry described as a "MOTION for Robert Lawrence Green III to Appear Pro Hac Vice" (docket 72332688). That is a 2026 copyright/AI matter in another district against Anthropic and Alphabet — I could not confirm it is the same individual as DrayTek's counsel, and I would not rely on it. I flag it only as a lead for identity disambiguation.
5. No relevant patent-litigation track record located. I found no reported decisions, PTAB filings, or Law360/Reuters items tying this Robert Green to other patent cases. Any statement about his patent experience would be speculation; I am not supplying one. Note also the numerous search hits for "Robert F. Green" (Green, Griffith & Borg-Breen, Hatch-Waxman) and "Lawrence M. Green" (Sunstein LLP, Boston) are different attorneys and must not be conflated with Robert Lawrence Green, III.
6. No parallel PTAB proceedings found for U.S. Pat. No. 7,027,465 against DrayTek (though CommWorks patents have been the subject of Unified Patents IPRs in other matters, e.g., IPR2021-01297 on U.S. Pat. 8,923,846). This bears on who is running DrayTek's defense only indirectly, and it is outside the scope of this task.

For cross-reference: plaintiff's counsel (already on the docket)

CommWorks is represented by Carey Matthew Rozier, Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt, and James Francis McDonough, III of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX), per Dkts. #4–#6 (Notices of Attorney Appearance) and the complaint signature blocks in the related CommWorks campaign filings. I mention this only because the absence of any corresponding defense-side appearance notice is the notable asymmetry in this docket.

How to close the remaining gaps (unverified items requiring PACER)

1. Pull the full E.D. Tex. docket sheet for 2:25-cv-00024 directly from PACER/NextGen (Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Marshall Division) and check Dkts. #11 onward for an Answer, a Notice of Attorney Appearance, a pro hac vice motion, or a Leading/Additional counsel designation.
2. Check for an attorney listing tied to the DrayTek party entry in CM/ECF (as opposed to only the Dkt. #9 filer string) — that will confirm whether Green entered a formal appearance.
3. Confirm Green's firm via his Texas State Bar profile and the firm's attorney page rather than Martindale, given the page-mixing issue noted above.
4. Check whether the case was consolidated or transferred alongside other CommWorks suits, which would explain counsel appearing under a different caption.

If you need certainty on the firm and on whether co-counsel appeared, say so and I can re-run targeted searches against PACER, the State Bar of Texas directory, and firm attorney bios.