CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Grandstream Networks, Inc.

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

Let me dig deeper into the specific case docket, the patent, and the parties.

I'll research this case and its patents across the requested sources.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, the patents asserted, and any PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line up front

This case is 16 days old as of today (2026-09-20). It was filed 2026-09-04, and my docket snapshot (PACER Monitor, last retrieved for this case) shows only the complaint, its exhibits, the civil cover sheet, and the Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure statement. There is no answer, no counterclaims, no motion practice, no scheduling order, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no settlement or dismissal on the docket. Everything downstream of the pleadings is, at present, anticipatory rather than record-based.

A hard caveat on sourcing: I could not pull the live PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00794 directly. The docket detail below rests on the PACER Monitor case page (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66648031/CommWorks_Solutions,_LLC_v_Grandstream_Networks,_Inc). Where I can't source a fact, I say so rather than infer a docket entry.

---

I. Chronology of actual record events

2026-09-04 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1, 19 pages).

• Caption/venue: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Grandstream Networks, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00794, E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division). Filing fee receipt ATXEDC-11780964; filed by plaintiff's counsel Cortney S. Alexander (an attorney who appears across CommWorks' 2025–2026 campaign, including for the parallel CommWorks v. Digi International filing in D. Minn., 0:26-cv-03949, filed 2026-09-09, where she moved pro hac vice).
• Attachments: Exhibit A — claim chart (patent not identified in the snapshot I retrieved); Exhibit B — claim chart for U.S. 7,463,596; Exhibit C — claim chart (patent not identified); Exhibit D — claim chart for U.S. 7,027,465; Exhibit E — claim chart for U.S. 6,891,807; plus the civil cover sheet.
  • Flag: The case metadata supplied to me lists only US 7,027,465 as "patents at issue," and the existing case summary correctly notes Exhibit D is the '465 chart. But the exhibit list on the docket shows five claim-chart exhibits, i.e., the complaint almost certainly asserts five patents, not one. Based on CommWorks' standardized exhibit sets in its other 2025–2026 complaints (e.g., CommWorks v. Realtek, 2:26-cv-00088, E.D. Tex., filed 2026-02-02; CommWorks v. Microchip, 7:26-cv-00043, W.D. Tex., filed 2026-02-10; CommWorks v. AVM, 2:25-cv-00026, E.D. Tex., filed 2025-01-12), Exhibits A and C are most likely the '285 and '979/'904 charts. I could not verify the identity of Exhibits A and C and do not treat that inference as established.

2026-09-XX — Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement (plaintiff).

• CommWorks identified Brainbox Innovations, LLC as its corporate parent. This is CommWorks' boilerplate disclosure; the same parent is disclosed in its other pending suits (e.g., CommWorks v. Realtek, Dkt. 3, filed 2026-02-02). It matters only for recusal/standing and for tracing the monetization chain.

Nothing further on the docket as of the snapshot. No Rule 7.1 disclosure from Grandstream, no counsel appearance for defendant, no extension motion, no answer.

---

II. Filing & initial pleadings — status

Service posture: Grandstream Networks, Inc. is a networking-equipment maker with U.S. headquarters in Massachusetts and substantial offshore operations. If it accepts waiver of service under Rule 4(d) (as Realtek did in CommWorks' 2:26-cv-00088 case, waiver sent 2026-04-22, answer due 2026-07-21), the response deadline would run 90 days from the waiver mailing — pushing any answer into roughly December 2026. If served personally, the deadline is 21 days. I could not verify service on the docket; no summons-issued or summons-returned entry appeared in my snapshot.

What to expect substantively: On the pattern of every other CommWorks case, the answer will likely carry (a) non-infringement, (b) invalidity (including § 101 challenges — CommWorks pre-emptively pleads Alice eligibility for each patent in the complaint, which tells you § 101 is the opening battleground), (c) license/exhaustion and/or standard-essentiality/FRAND defenses if chip-level licensing is implicated, and (d) laches/§ 286 limitation defenses, which are unusually strong here (see Section VII).

---

III. Pre-trial motions of substance

None on the docket. For a 2026-09-04 complaint in E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap, the realistic options a defendant like Grandstream would weigh:

1. § 1406(a)/Rule 12(b)(3) transfer to the District of Massachusetts — weak on paper given E.D. Tex.'s plaintiff-friendly venue posture post-TC Heartland, but plausible given a Massachusetts-based U.S. presence and, per the complaint's own jurisdictional boilerplate (standard CommWorks language), a Texas business footprint.
2. § 1404(a) transfer for convenience — the same analysis.
3. Stay pending PTAB — only if Grandstream (or a chip vendor such as Qualcomm/Broadcom/Realtek) files an IPR/PGR. Because the asserted patents are long expired (below), the Board would likely deny as moot any petition targeting expired claims, and any petition would in any event face § 315(b) and Fintiv/Sotera considerations. This is a real asymmetry: expired-patent assertions are almost stay-proof.
4. Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim / § 101 — the most probable early substantive motion given CommWorks' pleading style.

None of these are filed; I list them as the probable motion set, not as facts.

---

IV. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no LR CV-4(a) docket-control order (the complaint entry itself carries the clerk's standard reminder to file the LR CV-4(a) form), no Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, no Markman hearing.

Note for tracking: Judge Gilstrap's Markman practice in the Marshall Division is well documented, and CommWorks' patents have been construed in prior E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex. cases (including the '465's "extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position" limitation and the '807/'285/'596/'979 "time-based provisioning"/"operating parameter" family). Any prior constructions from CommWorks v. Comcast (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366), CommWorks v. RCN (S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-07534), or CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00159) would be persuasive but non-binding here. I did not locate a reported Markman opinion construing the '465 patent, and I won't assert one exists.

---

V. Discovery milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery order, no infringement contentions (E.D. Tex. requires them at the LR CV-4(a) docket-control stage), no invalidity contentions, no expert disclosures.

The strategically significant discovery item to watch for is chip-supplier discovery and indemnification: CommWorks' comparable complaints target end products (e.g., the Axon GX6/G6500 line, TI Wi-Fi Multimedia products) while the alleged infringement resides in third-party silicon (Qualcomm/Broadcom/Realtek/STMicro). See, e.g., CommWorks' complaints catalogued at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00026/doc/analysis/8 (AVM, accusing WMM/WPS features) and https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4532970](/patent/4532970)/8-24-cv-02250_complaint_exparte.pdf (Exhibit E, '465 chart against Qualcomm AR6004-based devices). Whether Grandstream pulls its chip vendors in, or leans on patent exhaustion, will drive the case's economics. That has not begun here.

---

VI. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

Not reached and not plausible within this biennium. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59 motions, no § 285 fee motions.

---

VII. Disposition, settlement, appeal — and the § 286 problem

No disposition. The case is pending, with a live complaint and no responsive pleading.

What the record does establish, and what any defense analysis should lead with:

• The '465 patent is expired. U.S. 7,027,465 ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection"; inventor Petri Hautala; assignee Nokia, later Calton Research LLC → OL Security LLC → Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC → CommWorks Solutions, LLC per the 2019-11-15 assignment recorded at REEL/FRAME 051463/0026) has an estimated priority date of 1999-12-17 (PCT/EP1999/010097) and is listed by RPX as "Expired due to Term" (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US7027465B2](/patent/US7027465B2)). CommWorks' own complaints in the sibling campaign plead that infringement ran only "until the '465 patent's expiry," with notice letters dated February 2021 — consistent with a term ending in early 2021 (Dec. 17, 1999 + 20 years + 433 days PTA per the face of the patent). See https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16108218 (¶¶113–118). CommWorks' first-wave complaints likewise plead around the '249 patent's "expiry." The practical consequence: damages are capped by 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year lookback (i.e., to ~2020-09-04) and further truncated by expiry, leaving at most a several-month royalty window. It also means injunctive relief is unavailable and PTAB stays are effectively off the table.
• Settlement is the base case. Compare the campaign's track record: CommWorks v. Texas Instruments, 2:25-cv-00439 (E.D. Tex.) — joint motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement (Dkt. 12, 2025-07-01), stay granted (Dkt. 13, 2025-07-08), dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 15, 2025-07-15), AO 120 filed (Dkt. 16, 2025-07-15). That four-month file-and-settle arc is the modal CommWorks outcome and the most probable path here. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00439/[237533](/patent/237533)
• Appeal: none. No notice of appeal, obviously.

---

VIII. Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. 7,027,465, and none against the other patents apparently asserted. I searched the PTAB docket corpus and patent-specific Board records and the web and did not surface an instituted or denied proceeding. I state that as a negative search result, not as proof of non-existence — the PTAB APIs were not directly queryable in this pass, and a petition could have been filed recently without appearing in indexed sources.

Two structural notes that bear on PTAB risk:

1. Expired claims are poor IPR targets. The Board routinely denies institution where the challenged claims have expired and the patent owner cannot amend, absent a live collateral estoppel or ongoing district-court exposure. Given the '465's ~2021 expiry, a Grandstream IPR would face a strong discretionary-denial argument.
2. The family has already been through reissue, which shapes validity risk. RE44,904 (reissue granted 2014-05-20, inventor Petri Karhula, assignee Calton Research) is a reissue of the '014 patent, in the same family as the '465, and CommWorks asserted both the '465 and the '904 reissue in the same counts in prior suits (e.g., CommWorks v. Broadcom, C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998, and CommWorks v. AVM, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00026). Sibling-patent reissue prosecution histories and any prior IPR estoppel from those families are the most fruitful invalidity vein, and a defendant should mine them before filing anything at the Board.

---

IX. Present posture and what to watch

Posture: Active, pre-answer, in E.D. Tex., almost certainly assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap — he is the district judge to whom every other CommWorks E.D. Tex. filing has been assigned (e.g., 2:26-cv-00088 Realtek, assigned 2026-02-03; 2:25-cv-00439 TI, assigned 2025-04-28). I could not confirm the judge assignment for 2:26-cv-00794 itself.

Docket checkpoints ahead:

1. Summons issued / waiver or return of service, and the resulting answer deadline.
2. Grandstream's Rule 7.1 disclosure and lead counsel (its prior E.D. Tex. appearance was as a defendant in Estech Systems v. Grandstream, 2:24-cv-01018 — a different VoIP patent family).
3. Docket-control order and LR CV-4(a) scheduling order, which will set infringement/invalidity contentions and a Markman date.
4. Any Rule 12(b)(3)/§ 1404(a) transfer motion (watch Massachusetts).
5. Any PTAB petition, and any motion to stay.
6. A § 286/laches motion or early summary-judgment motion on damages cut-off — the highest-value early motion given patent expiry.

Note on the broader campaign as context (not this case): CommWorks has been filing at a high rate in 2025–2026 across multiple districts on this same Nokia/IV-derived portfolio — AVM (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00026), DrayTek (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00024), TI (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00439, settled and dismissed), Broadcom (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998), Realtek (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00088), Microchip (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00043), Digi International (D. Minn. 0:26-cv-03949, 2026-09-09). The Grandstream suit is best read as one count in a coordinated licensing campaign, which supports the settlement probability and the likelihood that any substantive ruling here will come from another, more advanced case in the series.

Recommendation if you need certainty: pull the live PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00794 (and the Dkt. 1 exhibit PDFs to confirm the identities of Exhibits A and C), and run a PTAB API query on the '465, '285, '596, '979, and '904 patents. Those are the two gaps I could not close.

I'll research this thoroughly, starting with the docket and party/counsel searches.

Key lead: the docket shows the complaint and Rule 7.1 disclosure were filed by "Cortney Alexander." Let me dig into that and the broader counsel pattern.

Bottom line

As of the docket record I can retrieve for CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Grandstream Networks, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00794 (E.D. Tex.), the only attorney whose name appears on the plaintiff's filings is Cortney S. Alexander, whose Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure and the complaint itself were both filed under her/his CM/ECF signature. No other appearance, and in particular no Texas local counsel appearance, appears in the public docket I could access for this case. That should be treated as provisional: the case is two weeks old and counsel entries are frequently filed in the first 30 days.

---

Confirmed counsel of record (plaintiff)

Cortney S. Alexander — filing/signing attorney; de facto lead counsel

Relevant patent-litigation experience. Alexander is a career patent monetization/litigation attorney — the profile listings state ~20 years of litigation experience and lead counsel in 120+ patent infringement actions, including PTAB (IPR) proceedings and Federal Circuit appeals, with prior stints at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner and Frost Brown Todd. Named representative matters include:

• S.M.R Innovations / Y.M.R Tech v. Apple, Motorola, LG, Samsung (W.D. Tex., D. Del., E.D. Tex.) — lead counsel, multimedia routing patents;
• Mimzi, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00238) and Bison Patent Licensing LLC v. Samsung (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00448) — both filed in E.D. Tex. with Alexander signing the complaint and Rule 7.1 disclosure, the same filing pattern used here;
• Lead counsel for NPE/portfolio plaintiffs in Diatek Licensing (~24 suits), Sunflower Licensing (~21 suits), Bright Capture (~15), Mallard Licensing (~19), DigiMedia Tech (~11), 21st Century Garage, and Vibrant Licensing;
• Patent-owner side in IPR2023-00707/00708 (Google v. DDC Technology) and other PTAB matters.

Assessment. The Kent & Risley/Alpharetta model — out-of-district patent-monetization counsel filing solo in E.D. Tex. — is consistent with what this docket shows so far. Nothing in the public record I can retrieve indicates an appearance by any additional attorney for CommWorks in 2:26-cv-00794.

---

Counsel I could not confirm for this case (flagging, not asserting)

CommWorks has used several different firms across its ~2021–2025 campaign, so the following are candidates by pattern, not verified appearances in 2:26-cv-00794. I did not find an appearance by any of them in this docket:

• Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC — James Francis McDonough III, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt, Carey Matthew Rozier, and Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski. These four signed the complaints/appearances in the 2025 E.D. Tex. CommWorks cases (v. Qualcomm, 2:25-cv-00154; v. VTech, 2:25-cv-00433; v. DrayTek, 2:25-cv-00024) and in W.D. Tex. (v. Marvell, 7:25-cv-00354; v. STMicroelectronics, 7:25-cv-00363). Note: Rozier appeared as plaintiff's counsel in the CommWorks v. Texas Instruments case (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00439).
• Kaleo Legal — William Rueger Poynter. Listed as CommWorks plaintiff counsel in the E.D. Va. action against u-blox Holding AG (1:25-cv-02504) per a PACER-derived secondary source.
• Kheyfits Belenky LLP — Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Brandon Gregory Moore (Austin, TX / New York, NY), with The Stafford Davis Firm, P.C. — Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis and Catherine Susan Bartles (Tyler, TX) as Texas counsel in the earlier CommWorks campaign (v. Comcast, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366; v. Open Text, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00533). The Stafford Davis firm is a plausible local-counsel candidate in Marshall if a local-counsel requirement surfaces.

In-house counsel: none identified. CommWorks is a Brainbox Innovations-affiliated licensing entity; its litigation is run through outside counsel, so no in-house attorney of record is expected.

Local counsel: no Texas-bar attorney had appeared for plaintiff as of the docket snapshot I retrieved. The docket does contain the standard clerk's reminder that counsel must file the form required by LR CV-4(a) (the E.D. Tex. attorney-information/lead-counsel form), which is the mechanism through which a Texas local counsel designation would appear. If you need a definitive answer on local counsel, a PACER pull of the docket 30–45 days post-filing is warranted.

---

Caveats, contradictions, and sourcing limits

1. Sourcing. The party/counsel evidence for this specific docket comes from a PacerMonitor public docket page (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66648031/...), which captures Dkt. 1 and the Rule 7.1(a)(1) statement with the "Alexander, Cortney" ECF signature. I could not independently re-verify the current docket sheet against PACER directly (paywalled), and I found no Law360, Reuters Legal, or court opinion reporting on this case yet — expected, given it is ~16 days old.
2. Contradiction with case metadata — patent count. The case metadata lists only US 7,027,465 as at issue, but the docket for this case lists Exhibits A through E, each described as "Claim Chart for US Patent No. ___." CommWorks' complaints in the parallel 2025 suits have asserted multi-patent portfolios (e.g., '465, RE44,904, 7,177,285, 7,463,596, 7,911,979, 6,891,807, 6,832,249, 7,782,877, 7,337,207, 6,940,814). This suggests the metadata's single-patent list is incomplete and should be reconciled against the complaint/exhibits — it matters for any IPR/§ 315(b) or joinder analysis.
3. Attorney-name check. One PTAB filing by Alexander shows Reg. No. 54,778 in a signature block while other filings show 54,788; this is almost certainly a typo in the source, not two individuals. The address of record (Kent & Risley, Alpharetta, GA; direct 404-855-3867) is consistent across filings.
4. Do not over-read the "counsel of record" label. Because no formal notice of appearance was in the snapshot I retrieved, Alexander is best characterized as the filing/signing attorney for plaintiff. A formal "lead counsel" designation, and the LR CV-4(a) lead/local-counsel designations, should be confirmed from the live docket before relying on them.

Recommended verification step: PACER docket query for 2:26-cv-00794 filtered to "Notice of Attorney Appearance," plus a check of CommWorks' E.D. Tex. related-case docket (2:25-cv-00433, -00154, -00024) to see whether Kent & Risley has replaced Rozier Hardt McDonough as CommWorks' 2026 filing firm.

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

Let me dig into the docket and Grandstream's typical counsel in E.D. Tex.

The docket appears to show only the complaint so far. Let me check for any appearances and Grandstream's counsel in parallel cases.

Bottom line

As of today (2026-09-20), no attorney has entered an appearance for Grandstream Networks, Inc. in 2:26-cv-00794. The public docket snapshot I could retrieve shows only two filings — the complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 9/4/2026, signed by plaintiff's counsel Cortney Alexander) and plaintiff's Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure statement — with no answer, no extension motion, no Rule 12 motion, and no notices of appearance on the defense side. Since the case was filed only 16 days ago and Grandstream has a 21-day response window (FRCP 12(a)(1)(A)(i)) running from service, this is expected, not anomalous. (PACER Monitor case 66648031)

Important caveat: I could not retrieve a full PACER docket sheet or any sealed/filed appearance documents for this case. Everything below is inferred from Grandstream's representation pattern in its other 2024–2026 patent suits. I am labeling it as probable defense counsel, not confirmed counsel of record. I did not find any Grandstream in-house attorney name in public filings, so I won't guess one.

---

Probable lead counsel (national / first-chair)

Sources: dlapiper.com/en-de/people/s/michael-strapp; dockets.justia.com 2:2024cv01018; legal500 profile.

---

Probable local / E.D. Tex. counsel

Grandstream uses a rotating set of E.D. Tex.–savvy firms depending on who plaintiff's counsel is and which division the case lands in:

Sources: PACER Monitor — Atomic IP v. Grandstream (2:26-cv-00660); PACER Monitor — Ubiquitous Audio Synchronicity v. Grandstream (2:26-cv-00468).

Confidence: moderate-low. These two 2:26-cv cases are the closest analogs in time and forum, but Grandstream retained different firms in each, so I cannot say which (or whether both) will appear here.

---

Documented history of Grandstream's defense counsel

• D. Del.: Michael G. Strapp admitted pro hac vice for Grandstream in Valyrian IP LLC v. Grandstream Networks, Inc. (D. Del., filed 7/31/2019) and Wave Linx LLC v. Grandstream Networks Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00233 (D. Del.) — both with Delaware local counsel. (UniCourt — Valyrian; Unified Patents portal — Wave Linx)
• E.D. Tex. (2024): Strapp as the appearing attorney in Estech Systems IP v. Grandstream, 2:24-cv-01018. Service there was issued "as to Grandstream Networks Inc. c/o Xiang Wei" — a service contact, not an attorney; don't mistake it for in-house counsel. (Justia docket)
• E.D. Tex. (2024): Vision Sphere Labs LLC v. Grandstream Networks Inc., 2:24-cv-01076 — another parallel VoIP/QoS suit; I did not capture a confirmed defense appearance for it.

---

What to watch (and what I could not verify)

1. First defense filing — expect either an unopposed extension of time to answer (as in Estech, Dkt. 5) or a notice of appearance, likely within the next week or two. The ECF filer name will reveal lead counsel immediately.
2. Pro hac vice motion — if Strapp is lead, expect an E.D. Tex. PHV motion plus an accompanying local-counsel appearance. E.D. Tex. also requires the LR CV-4(a) form referenced in the complaint's docket text.
3. DLA Piper's continued engagement — the DLA Piper bio page internet-archived in this search still lists Grandstream, but a firm bio is not proof of present engagement for this specific 2026 case.
4. No in-house counsel identified. I found no public filing naming a Grandstream legal-department attorney. I am not listing one.

Metadata flags

• Patent count discrepancy: the case metadata lists only US 7,027,465 as "patents at issue," but the docket's exhibit list shows five claim charts: Ex. A ('285), Ex. B ('463,596), Ex. C ('911,979), Ex. D ('465), Ex. E ('891,807). This is consistent with the earlier summary (Exhibit D = '465 chart) but the "patents at issue" field appears under-inclusive.
• Docket-number conflict in a parallel case: one aggregator page for No. 2:26-cv-00468 renders the caption as "Triumph Designs, Ltd. v. …" with different dates and AGDG Law as counsel, while PACER Monitor renders it as Ubiquitous Audio Synchronicity LLC v. Grandstream. Treat that docket number's caption with caution; the Grandstream/Najera attribution comes from PACER Monitor.
• I could not access the full PACER docket sheet for 2:26-cv-00794. If an appearance was filed and not yet propagated to the aggregators I searched, my "no counsel of record yet" conclusion would be superseded.