CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting the overview.

Let me pull the docket specifics, party list, and any IPR/PTAB linkage.

Case Overview — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01268 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and posture. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company (Alpharetta, GA) that identifies Brainbox Innovations, LLC as its corporate parent in its Rule 7.1 disclosures — a hallmark of the Brainbox-controlled assertion family that has sued cable and broadband providers across Texas. CommWorks is classified as an NPE/PAE in RPX and Stanford's NPE databases (asserter category: "acquired patents"), and IPWatchdog reported that two sister Brainbox entities were hit with Delaware declaratory-judgment actions in which plaintiffs (Altice USA) alleged the portfolios were acquired from Intellectual Ventures, which purportedly retained a security interest and a revenue "backend" on licensing proceeds — an allegation that was pleaded, not adjudicated. The Waco docket lists Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., Frontier Communications Holdings, LLC, and Frontier Communications Corporation among the defendants (RPX records 5 defendants and 4 accused products), i.e., the operating parent and its Frontier affiliates rather than an equipment vendor. Frontier is one of the largest U.S. fiber/broadband ISPs; the case was filed December 8, 2022 in the Waco Division before Judge Alan D. Albright, the most active patent venue/jurisdiction for NPE filings in 2022. Notably, the case metadata provided to me lists the status as "active," but public docket aggregators indicate the docket was closed/terminated in 2023 (Docket Alarm: terminated Aug. 1, 2023, with case flags CLOSED, PATENT, STAYED; a second aggregator shows "Closed (03/30/23)" and RPX reports 237 days in litigation). I could not verify the specific termination vehicle or the reason for the "STAYED" flag from the sources reviewed, so the "active" designation in the case metadata appears inconsistent with the public docket and should be confirmed against PACER.

Accused technology. According to the complaint analysis, CommWorks accused three categories of Frontier infrastructure and premises gear: (1) core network equipment — Ciena devices running Service Aware Operating System (SAOS) and Juniper devices running Junos OS (e.g., Ciena DN 7200, Juniper M40E router) — alleged to perform multi-layer/OSI QoS failure detection and MPLS Fast Reroute-type reprovisioning; (2) customer-premises equipment — Wi-Fi routers, gateways, and access points, with the Arris NVG468MQ cited as exemplary, accused of implementing Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) traffic prioritization; and (3) network management platforms — Ciena Blue Planet Manage, Control and Plan (MCP) and Juniper Contrail — accused of link/interconnection modeling. The metadata's core theory is that the accused WMM functionality in the NVG468MQ maps to the two flagged patents. WMM is a near-mandatory Wi-Fi Alliance certification feature, which is what gives this portfolio its leverage: it is asserted not against a standards-implementing chip maker here, but against an ISP deploying third-party CPE and transport gear.

Patents asserted. The metadata flags two patents, but RPX records 8 patents-in-suit in this docket — U.S. 6,832,249; 6,891,807; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,760,664; 7,911,979; and RE44,904 — which matches the AO 120 patent filings for CommWorks' related Frontier/Comcast-family cases. The two specifically flagged patents are:

• U.S. 7,027,465 — directed to contention-free/priority traffic detection in wireless LANs; CommWorks' later complaints map it to WMM (802.11e QoS) behavior, specifically priority-frame detection via bit-pattern extraction and comparison.
• U.S. RE44,904 — a reissue granted May 20, 2014, pleaded as "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection"; CommWorks treats it alongside the '465 as covering the same WMM traffic-detection functionality. (I could not confirm from the sources reviewed which original patent the '904 reissue issued from, so the '465/'904 relationship should be treated as closely related family members rather than verified original-and-reissue counterparts.)
  For context, the rest of the set sketches to multi-layered-network QoS/provisioning ('249), MAC-layer and WPS credential provisioning ('285, '596, '807), mesh networking ('979), and related QoS/provisioning ('664).

Why it's notable. Three things stand out. First, NPE assertion pattern: this is one installment in a long-running, serial campaign in which the same 6–8 patent portfolio is cycled through W.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex. against cable/ISP operators (Comcast, Charter, Vyve, RCN, Consolidated, Frontier) and then, beginning roughly 2023–2025, against Wi-Fi silicon and device vendors (TI, NXP, STMicroelectronics, Realtek, u-blox, DrayTek, AVM, Grandstream) — almost all resolved by voluntary dismissals with no merits, invalidity, or claim-construction ruling, leaving the patents at full presumptive strength. Second, defensive-aggregator/IPR linkage: Unified Patents has challenged portfolio members at the PTAB (e.g., IPR2021-01297 against CommWorks' U.S. 8,923,846), which is consistent with the "STAYED" flag on this docket — though I could not verify a specific IPR petition against the '465 or '904 patents in this review. Third, market context: the suits land on ISPs during a period of heavy fiber buildout and on Wi-Fi vendors whose products must implement WMM/WPS to be Wi-Fi CERTIFIED, making the portfolio an industry-wide licensing lever rather than a single-defendant dispute. (Frontier's later acquisition by Verizon is well-known market context but I did not verify it in this review and it postdates the 2022 complaint.)

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the specific docket for this case.

Sourcing caveat up front

This case resolved (or at least went dormant) very early — roughly 7–8 months after filing — and none of the standard free sources (CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently‑O) surfaced a merits opinion, Markman order, or trial record. I was unable to retrieve the actual PACER docket-entry text for this case number within my research budget. The chronology below therefore rests on case-metadata aggregators (Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, UniCourt/Ex Parte, Dockets.Justia) plus the complaint‑analysis page. Where I could not confirm an event, I say so explicitly rather than infer it. I have not fabricated any docket numbers, dates, rulings, or counsel.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

2022-12-08 — Complaint filed. CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. et al., No. 6:22‑cv‑01268‑ADA, W.D. Tex., Waco Division, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement (willful), NOS 830. Jury demand by both sides.
Sources: Docket Alarm case page; RPX Insight.

Scope of the suit. RPX records 5 defendants, 8 patents‑in‑suit, and 4 accused products, with "Willful Patent Infringement" as the cause of action and "Networking" as the market sector. The named Frontier entities included Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., Frontier Communications Holdings, LLC, and Frontier Communications Corporation (plus others), per Dockets.Justia. Per the case metadata for this project, the operative patents on which the analysis focuses are US 7,027,465 and RE44,904 — the two "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" patents, both asserted on Wi‑Fi Multimedia (WMM)/802.11e QoS functionality in the Arris NVG468MQ gateway; the companion four patents in the campaign (e.g., '249, '285, '596, '664, '807, '979) appear in the RPX patent list.

Accused instrumentalities (from the complaint‑analysis page for Doc. 1):

• Core network equipment used by Frontier: Ciena devices running Service Aware Operating System (SAOS) and Juniper devices running Junos OS (exemplary: Ciena DN 7200, Juniper M40e), accused of MPLS Fast Reroute–based multi‑layer QoS response (mapped to the '249 patent).
• CPE: Wi‑Fi routers/APs/gateways, with the Arris NVG468MQ as the exemplary device, accused of WPS and WMM functionality.
• Management platforms: Ciena Blue Planet MCP and Juniper Contrail.
  Source: Complaint analysis, 6:22‑cv‑01268 Doc. 1.

Answer / counterclaims. Not confirmed. No aggregator I reached exposed the answer docket text. Given the case was in the Waco Division under Judge Albright and terminated within ~8 months, an answer (and any declaratory‑judgment counterclaims of non‑infringement/invalidity) was likely filed, but I cannot cite a date or entry number and will not guess.

Pre‑suit history worth noting for the record: CommWorks' campaign sent notice letters to ISPs beginning in 2020 (e.g., an April 17, 2020 letter to NextLink; an April 20, 2020 letter to RCN). Whether a Frontier‑specific notice letter exists and its date is unverified in my sources.

---

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss / transfer. Not confirmed. Frontier is headquartered in Connecticut, and a §1406/§1404(a) venue‑transfer motion (e.g., to D. Conn. or N.D. Tex.) would be a natural early move, but I found no evidence of one being filed or ruled on. Treat this as an open verification item, not a finding.
• Motion to stay pending IPR. The case carries the docket flag "STAYED" (Docket Alarm), which is the strongest signal I have that a stay was entered — most plausibly pending PTAB review or for another reason — but I could not locate the stay order or its date. Flag: unverified as to basis and date.
• §101 motion. No Rule 12(b)(6) eligibility ruling found.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The case did not reach claim construction. No Markman order, hearing transcript, or claim‑construction opinion for 6:22‑cv‑01268 appears in any source I reached. Given the December 2022 filing and mid‑2023 termination, this is consistent with a case that ended before the Markman stage. The complaint‑analysis page flags the would‑have‑been disputes (e.g., scope of "quality of service event," and whether MPLS Fast Reroute "changing network provisioning" reads on the '249 claims; and, for the WMM patents, the "extract a bit pattern from a predetermined position" limitation), but these are predictive, not adjudicated constructions.

---

4. Discovery milestones

None confirmed. No infringement contentions, invalidity contentions, discovery orders, or protective‑order disputes were surfaced. RPX records only 237 days in litigation, which is a pre‑Markman, discovery‑light posture.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions

None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new‑trial, or §285 fees ruling exists for this case in my sources.

---

6. Disposition / present posture

Terminated 2023‑08‑01 (Docket Alarm), with case flags "CLOSED, PATENT, STAYED." Ex Parte's case page separately lists the case as "Closed (03/30/23)." The two dates are inconsistent and I cannot reconcile them; the Docket Alarm 2023‑08‑01 date aligns with its stated 237 days in litigation, so I weight it more heavily, but the precise terminating event (voluntary dismissal vs. stay + administrative closure pending IPR) is unverified.

Important discrepancy to flag: the project metadata lists this case as "active." The docket evidence I found indicates the case was closed/terminated in 2023 and has not been updated by aggregators in over two years ("Last Updated: 2 years, 4 months ago"). Either the metadata is stale, or the case was administratively closed under a stay and never formally dismissed (the "STAYED" flag supports the latter). The correct present posture cannot be resolved without a current PACER pull of the docket. No appeal, judgment, or settlement document is in evidence.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR or PGR on US 7,027,465 or RE44,904 was identified in connection with this case or otherwise in my searches. Two related points, offered with appropriate caution:

1. Not an IPR, but relevant: the complaint‑analysis page notes that for the related '249 patent, claim 11 was cancelled during reexamination while dependent claim 15 was confirmed — a prosecution‑history wrinkle that bears on the '249 claims, not on the two WMM patents.
2. CommWorks' portfolio is chronically re‑challenged across a wide campaign (see below), so the absence of a Frontier IPR does not mean the patents were unchallenged generally. Also, in the parallel campaign, a defendant (CommScope, in the unrelated TQ Delta matter) filed IPRs on other patents — not the CommWorks patents.

Effect on the litigation: if the stay here was IPR‑driven, the practical effect was to freeze the case before contentions and Markman and to end it without any merits adjudication.

---

8. Broader campaign context (why this case looks the way it does)

CommWorks (an NPE; corporate parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC, per its 2025 Rule 7.1 disclosures) ran a broad ISP/device‑maker campaign asserting the same family of patents, typically against wireless router/CPE functionality split between two theory sets — Wi‑Fi Protected Setup (WPS) patents ('285, '596, '807, '979) and Wi‑Fi Multimedia (WMM)/802.11e QoS patents ('465, '904, plus '249):

• CommWorks v. RCN Telecom Services, 1:20‑cv‑7534 (S.D.N.Y., filed 2020).
• CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications, 2:20‑cv‑00159 (E.D. Tex.).
• CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21‑cv‑00366 (W.D. Tex., Albright) — settled/related case; no IPRs known at CMC.
• CommWorks v. Altice USA / CSC Holdings, 1:21‑cv‑01323 (D. Del.) — voluntarily dismissed (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, per the AO‑120 filed 2022‑06‑21).
• CommWorks v. Charter Communications, 6:22‑cv‑00156 (W.D. Tex.).
• CommWorks v. Vyve Broadband, 6:23‑cv‑00147 (W.D. Tex.) — dismissed with prejudice/equal costs (procedural, no merits ruling).
• CommWorks v. Ubee Interactive, 6:23‑cv‑00064 (W.D. Tex.).
• CommWorks v. TRENDnet, 2:23‑cv‑08048 (C.D. Cal.) — dismissed with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs.
• CommWorks v. DrayTek 2:25‑cv‑00024 and v. AVM 2:25‑cv‑00026 (E.D. Tex., Gilstrap) — the AVM case dismissed without prejudice 2025‑06‑19.
• CommWorks v. EarthLink 2:25‑cv‑00716 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025‑07‑15), v. STMicroelectronics 7:25‑cv‑00363 (W.D. Tex., filed 2025‑08‑25; voluntarily dismissed 2025‑10‑31), v. NXP USA 7:25‑cv‑00395 (voluntarily dismissed with prejudice 2025‑10‑31), v. u‑blox 1:25‑cv‑02504 (E.D. Va., intradistrict transfer 2025‑12‑31).

Pattern: across this campaign the asserted patents were resolved almost exclusively by early voluntary dismissal (with or without prejudice, often equal costs) rather than by adjudicated invalidity or non‑infringement. No CommWorks patent was judicially invalidated in any of these cases that I could find. That makes the Frontier case's mid‑2023 "stay/close" disposition anomalous within the campaign — it looks like a stay‑driven administrative closure rather than the typical walk‑away dismissal.

---

9. Bottom line

Highest‑value next steps to close the gaps: (1) a current PACER docket pull for 6:22‑cv‑01268 to confirm the terminating entry (dismissal vs. stay/administrative closure) and the answer/counterclaim entries; (2) a PTAB P‑TACTS/Patent Center search on the '465 and RE'904 patents for any post‑2022 IPR/reissue/reexam activity; and (3) confirmation whether the "active" status in the project metadata reflects a later reopening — no source I reached supports it.

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

Let me dig into the specific docket and any attorney appearance entries.

Let me look for the actual docket sheet and the complaint signature block in this specific case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC — 6:22-cv-01268 (W.D. Tex.)

Important sourcing caveat up front: I was unable to retrieve the actual CM/ECF docket sheet or the complaint signature block for this specific case through the searches available to me. Docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, RPX, Ex Parte) surface the case metadata for 6:22-cv-01268 but do not expose the attorney-appearance entries in the free snippets. Everything below is therefore reconstructed from (a) verified signature blocks and appearance notices in closely related CommWorks cases filed in the same court and same time period — chiefly CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00156-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Feb. 11, 2022) and CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — and (b) campaign-wide counsel listings. Treat the roster as highly probable but not docket-confirmed for 6:22-cv-01268. I have not invented any name or firm; where I could not verify an individual's appearance in this case, I say so.

---

1. Principal/lead plaintiff-side counsel — Kheyfits Belenky LLP

This firm is the recurring lead prosecuting firm for CommWorks' W.D. Tex. campaign in 2021–2022, and the same team signed the CommWorks complaints filed in Waco in the months immediately surrounding this one.

2. Texas local counsel — The Stafford Davis Firm, PC

3. In-house counsel

None identified. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is an Alpharetta, Georgia-based licensing entity (per its own complaint allegations), and no in-house attorney appears as counsel of record in any of the accessible CommWorks filings. All plaintiff-side appearances I found are outside counsel.

4. Counsel not to attribute to this case

• Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Carey Matthew Rozier, James Francis McDonough III, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt, Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski) is listed as CommWorks' plaintiff counsel in the later 2024–2025 enforcement wave (e.g., CommWorks v. Texas Instruments, No. 2:25-cv-00439, E.D. Tex.; CommWorks v. Broadcom, C.D. Cal.). That firm did not represent CommWorks in the December 2022 Frontier filing and should not be listed here.
• Similarly, Farella Braun + Martel LLP (James L. Day, Eugene Y. Mar) and The Dacus Firm (Deron R. Dacus) appear in these dockets on the defense side (Comcast), not for CommWorks.

---

Procedural posture relevant to counsel activity

The docket aggregators conflict on status: the case metadata in this matter describes it as active, while Docket Alarm records the W.D. Tex. docket as terminated Aug. 1, 2023 with flags CLOSED, PATENT, STAYED, and Ex Parte lists a closure date of 03/30/23 (RPX reports 237 days in litigation). A stay/administrative closure shortly after the Dec. 8, 2022 filing would explain why the counsel roster never expanded beyond the initial filing team and why no merits attorney activity (claim-construction, expert, trial) is reflected. If the stay was entered before any pro hac vice motions were ruled on, some of the Kheyfits Belenky New York attorneys may have signed the complaint without ever formally appearing in this case — that is exactly the gap I could not close without PACER.

Recommended verification steps

To convert the above from "highly probable" to "confirmed," pull from PACER (W.D. Tex., 6:22-cv-01268):

• Dkt. 1 (Complaint) — signature block;
• Dkt. 2–3 (AO 120 / Rule 7 disclosure statement) — filer;
• any Notices of Attorney Appearance and pro hac vice applications; and
• the stay/closure order (Aug. 1, 2023) for the reason the case went inactive.

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

Let me pull the docket sheet and any appearances from CourtListener and other sources.

Let me try to access the docket sheets directly and search for related counsel appearances.

Bottom line

I could not verify the identity of defense counsel of record in CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01268 (W.D. Tex.) from the sources I could reach within this research pass. The publicly indexed, machine-generated summaries of this docket (Docket Alarm, the "Ex Parte"/RPX-style AI summaries, Justia) expose case metadata and the complaint's substance, but none of them surfaced the appearance, answer, or corporate-disclosure entries that would name counsel. Rather than guess, I am reporting the gap explicitly and giving you the exact record locations to pull.

I will not list attorney names here, because I have no primary-source confirmation and any names I supplied would be fabricated.

What the metadata does establish

The case was stayed and then terminated (Aug. 1, 2023), roughly 237 days after filing. That procedural posture matters: a stay entered early often means the defense never filed an answer on the merits, so the only appearance-of-counsel entries may be the initial notices of appearance and any motion to stay — which is consistent with why counsel names are thin in secondary databases.

Why I could not name counsel (and what this does not mean)

• Justia's docket landing page for 6:2022cv01268 (W.D. Tex.) and Docket Alarm's timeline confirm the case exists and its flags, but the party-attorney listings did not render in the indexed results.
• The AI-generated "complaint analysis" and "Ex Parte" pages for this docket are derivative summaries of the complaint only; they carry no attorney-of-record data and should not be treated as a source for counsel.
• I saw no Law360, Reuters Legal, or firm-press-release item naming Frontier's counsel in this specific case within reach.

Important caution about a tempting (but inapplicable) data point

CommWorks litigated a parallel W.D. Tex. campaign against other ISPs. In CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA, Comcast's defense team included Timothy P. Horgan-Kobelski (Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco) with local counsel Deron Dacus (The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, TX) — confirmed by a pro hac vice application on that docket.

That is Comcast's counsel, not Frontier's. I am flagging it only to show the staffing pattern CommWorks cases used (national IP firm + Texas local counsel). It must not be attributed to Frontier absent a Frontier-specific docket entry.

How to get a definitive, citable answer (recommended verification path)

Pull the W.D. Tex. docket for 6:22-cv-01268 via PACER (or CourtListener's RECAP mirror, gov.uscourts.txwd.6:22-cv-01268), and retrieve these entries specifically:

1. Notice(s) of Appearance and any Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice (these name lead and local counsel for each Frontier entity).
2. Defendants' Answer (if filed) or Motion to Stay — the signature block gives current counsel.
3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement — identifies Frontier counsel of record and parent/subsidiary relationships.
4. Joint Case Management / Status Report (Dkt. ~15–20 range in these CommWorks cases) — routinely lists all counsel of record with firm and address.

Once those entries are pulled, the table below is the template I would populate with verified entries only:

A note on the case posture for your files

Because the matter shows CLOSED and STAYED as of Aug. 1, 2023, be aware that (a) any counsel listed may now be withdrawn or the representation concluded, and (b) the stay was likely tied to an IPR/invalidity challenge or a related-case consolidation effort. Confirm current status and any withdrawal motions before relying on the appearance list. There is also a separate ex parte reexamination strand reflected in secondary pages for the asserted patents (notably the '249 patent's reexam history); that is a USPTO proceeding, not a source for district-court counsel.

If you can authorize another search pass or provide the docket PDF (Dkt. 1 and the earliest appearance entries), I will extract and confirm each attorney's name, role, firm, and office, and add their patent-litigation track record with citations.