CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Hitron Technologies Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me dig deeper into this specific case's docket and details.

Let me get the actual complaint and docket details from CourtListener.

Case Overview: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Hitron Technologies Inc., No. 6:23-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with a registered office in Alpharetta, Georgia (44 Milton Ave., Suite 254) that makes or sells nothing — RPX classifies it as an NPE, and its business is licensing a portfolio of early-2000s carrier/Wi‑Fi networking patents. Its name and portfolio trace primarily to 3Com Corporation's carrier-networking business (the "CommWorks" division that 3Com sold to UTStarcom in 2003), a lineage I could not fully verify against an assignment record in the time available. In this action CommWorks was represented by Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Dmitry Kheyfits and Andrey Belenky) and Stafford Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm, part of the rotation of firms (later Rozier Hardt McDonough) it uses across a large, ongoing campaign. Hitron Technologies Inc. is the Taiwanese manufacturer behind Hitron Technologies Americas Inc. — an operating company that designs and supplies broadband customer-premises equipment (DOCSIS cable modems, Wi‑Fi gateways/routers, extenders and mesh nodes), largely to North American cable MSOs and through retail/OEM channels. Hitron was served by waiver and foreign service (a service packet was sent to the Clerk via FedEx in February 2023), consistent with a foreign-domiciled defendant; it has been a recurring NPE target (e.g., Vector Licensing LLC v. Hitron Technologies Americas, D. Del. 1:22-cv-01158, voluntarily dismissed in 2022).

Accused technology and asserted patent. Per the case metadata provided here, the sole patent-in-suit 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; original family of the '285, '596 and '979 patents). In one sentence: the '807 claims a network access point that tracks an "operation" of a wireless device (e.g., power-on or onset of signal transmission) and provisions that device only if the tracked operation falls inside an "activatable time interval" — asserted independent claim 17. CommWorks's theory across this campaign is that the standardized Wi‑Fi Protected Setup (WPS) push-button ("walk time") procedure implements that time-based provisioning, so the accused product is Hitron's WPS-enabled Wi‑Fi gateways/routers. Two sourcing caveats: (i) I could not retrieve the docket-1 complaint PDF for 6:23-cv-00063 to confirm the exact accused SKUs and count structure; and (ii) RPX's page for this docket lists six patents-in-suit, which likely reflects CommWorks's family-wide pleading practice (its contemporaneous 2022–2023 complaints against TRENDnet, Adtran, AVM, DrayTek, Broadcom, Qualcomm, TI and u‑blox asserted six to seven patents: '249, '465/RE44,904, '285, '596, '807, '979, '304), but the case metadata given to me lists only the '807, so I treat the '807 as authoritative.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed February 1, 2023 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas (the "6:" docket prefix), before Judge Alan D. Albright, with the referred stay motions handled by Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. The case never matured: Hitron's answer was due May 3, 2023; CommWorks filed an unopposed motion to stay all deadlines that same day (Dkt. 10), which Judge Gilliland granted for 30 days on May 9, 2023; the stay was extended another 30 days on June 8, 2023 "to allow the parties to finalize the terms of the settlement," with dismissal papers due July 7; CommWorks filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 5, 2023 (Dkt. 12), and the Patent/Trademark report went to the USPTO the same day. Total life: 155 days, with no answer, no Markman, no dispositive motion and (so far as I can find) no IPR. Venue mattered as leverage: Albright's Waco courtroom was the nation's busiest patent docket through 2020–2022, with compressed schedules and a plaintiff-friendly reputation, and CommWorks split its filings between Waco/Albright and Judge Gilstrap's Marshall docket in the E.D. Tex. (it is also flagged as a "High-Volume Plaintiff" in W.D. Tex.).

Why it is notable. Three things stand out. (1) Standard-implementation NPE theory. The '807 (and its siblings) read on features that are effectively mandatory in Wi‑Fi CERTIFIED silicon — WPS and WMM (802.11e QoS) — so the accusation is not directed at any Hitron-specific design but at standardized behavior found in essentially every Wi‑Fi gateway, which is why CommWorks could sweep in cable MSOs, chipset vendors and device makers alike. (2) Zero merits precedent. Because these cases settle (Hitron in five months; TRENDnet later dismissed with prejudice; the related Texas Instruments action reportedly resolved in ~81 days with prejudice), no court has construed the critical terms — "operation of the wireless device," "activatable time interval," "tracking" — and no invalidity ruling exists, leaving the portfolio at full presumptive strength for the next target. The only confirmed PTAB linkage I found is Unified Patents' challenge to a different CommWorks patent, IPR2021-01297 on U.S. 8,923,846; I did not find a confirmed IPR against the '807 itself. (3) A damages-tail strategy. The '807's 20-year term ran from its January 13, 2003 filing (plus any patent term adjustment), placing nominal expiration in early 2023 — essentially contemporaneous with this February 1, 2023 complaint; CommWorks's own parallel complaints describe infringement "until [the patent's] expiry," which is consistent with an expired/near-expired patent and explains a litigation posture limited to past royalties (the six-year lookback, cabined further by pre-suit notice letters) with no injunctive exposure for the defendant — a strong incentive for a fast, quiet settlement. Market context: Hitron supplies DOCSIS/Wi‑Fi CPE into the same cable-broadband supply chain CommWorks was also pressuring (Comcast, RCN, Cable One, NextLink, EarthLink), and some targets responded by filing declaratory-judgment actions against CommWorks (e.g., Altice USA/CSC Holdings v. CommWorks, D. Del. 21-cv-1323).

Sourcing note: the docket chronology above comes from the court's docket entries as republished by Patexia and RPX Insight; the party, patent and technical descriptions come from CommWorks's complaints in the parallel 2020–2025 campaign (via CourtListener, RPX litigation documents, and the Ex Parte complaint analyses). I did not obtain the underlying 6:23-cv-00063 complaint text or the settlement terms, and the exhibits/claim charts (which the pleadings cite but generally do not attach) are unavailable, so the specific Hitron model numbers and infringement mapping should be treated as unconfirmed.

I'll research the legal developments chronologically, starting with the docket and any PTAB proceedings on the '807.

Now let me check for PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents and any related outcomes.

Let me verify the dismissal terms and search PTAB specifically for the '807.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Hitron Technologies Inc., No. 6:23-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex.)

Sourcing note. This case was a five-month, pre-answer disposition with no merits ruling of any kind. The chronology below is reconstructed from the W.D. Tex. docket as republished by Patexia Research and Patsnap Litigation Data, cross-checked against RPX Insight. I could not retrieve the docket-1 complaint PDF or any hearing transcript. Where a fact is only from a secondary aggregator, I say so.

Flag — patent count conflict with the provided metadata. The case metadata given to me lists a single patent, U.S. 6,891,807 ('807). Both RPX Insight and Patsnap report the docket as listing six patents-in-suit (US 7,027,465; US RE44,904; US 7,177,285; US 7,911,979; US 6,891,807; and US 7,463,596) — the same six-patent family grouping CommWorks used against Ubee (6:23-cv-00064) and, later, DrayTek, AVM, etc. This is the same discrepancy the earlier "Case overview" section flagged. Per the operating rules I treat the '807 as authoritative, but the weight of aggregator data strongly suggests the actual complaint pleaded the full six-patent family. Because the case never reached infringement contentions, the exact count never had procedural consequences here.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2023-02-01 → 2023-02-14)

• 2023-02-01 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). CommWorks filed an infringement action in the Waco Division, W.D. Tex. (assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright). The complaint pleaded direct infringement under § 271(a) (and, per the campaign template, willfulness) premised on the asserted patents and, as to the '807, an asserted independent system claim (claim 17 standing in for the family's provisioning claims). The accused technology under the campaign template is Wi‑Fi Protected Setup (WPS)‑enabled gateways/routers, with the WPS push‑button "120‑second window" mapped to the claimed "activatable time interval." (Patsnap case record; RPX Insight)
• 2023-02-01 — Request for Issuance of Summons (Dkt. 2).
• 2023-02-02 — Summons issued (Dkt. 6).
• 2023-02-08 — JS‑44 Civil Cover Sheet (Dkt. 7), filed by local counsel Stafford Davis (The Stafford Davis Firm).
• 2023-02-10 — Foreign-service packet received by the Clerk via FedEx (Dkt. 8) — consistent with a foreign-domiciled (Taiwan) defendant.
• 2023-02-14 — Waiver of Service Returned Executed as to Hitron (Dkt. 9); answer due 2023-05-03. This is the last substantive defense-side touch on the docket.

No answer and no counterclaims. The docket shows no Rule 12 motion, no Answer, no Rule 7.1 disclosure, and no Notice of Attorney Appearance by Hitron at any point. The waiver (Dkt. 9) is the only document signed on Hitron's behalf; its face is the one place a defense signatory/counsel would appear (see the "Defendant representatives" section above).

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance — the two stays (2023-05-03 → 2023-06-08)

The only motions filed in the case were two unopposed stay requests, both referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no stay-pending-IPR motion, and no summary‑judgment motion was ever filed.

1. 2023-05-03 — Unopposed Motion to Stay All Deadlines (Dkt. 10), filed by Andrey Belenky for CommWorks — on the very day the answer was due.
2. 2023-05-09 — Text Order GRANTING the stay for 30 days (Judge Gilliland). The order directed the parties to file dismissal papers, or a status report, if dismissal did not occur within the 30 days. (Patexia docket)
3. 2023-06-07 — Status Report and Unopposed Motion to Continue Stay (Dkt. 11), filed by Dmitry Kheyfits.
4. 2023-06-08 — Text Order GRANTING the extension of the stay for an additional 30 days "to allow the parties to finalize the terms of the settlement." The court set a July 7 deadline for dismissal papers or a status report. This text order is the clearest docket indication that a settlement was being papered.

There was no contested stay litigation, no opposition, and no briefing on the merits of any claim. Notably, no stay pending IPR was sought or granted — the stays were 30‑day, consent‑based settlement stays.

3. Claim construction / Markman — none

The case terminated before any scheduling order, infringement contentions, or CMC/Markman. There is no claim construction order and no construction of the critical '807 terms ("operation of the wireless device," "activatable time interval," "tracking"). The WPS‑vs‑specification tension the campaign complaints themselves telegraph (whether a WPS button-press "request to join" falls within "operation of the wireless device," which the '807 specification exemplifies as "power on") therefore remains unadjudicated. (Ex Parte complaint analysis of the sibling campaigns)

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance — none

No discovery occurred. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no ESI or source-code production, and no third‑party subpoenas are reflected on the docket. (This contrasts with CommWorks's larger campaign cases, e.g., the Comcast matter 6:21-cv-00366, where CommWorks sought pre‑Markman third‑party discovery into router/chipset manufacturers and issued subpoenas to chipmakers and standards bodies. None of that machinery was reached here.) (CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21-cv-00366, Dkt. 19 Case Readiness Status Report)

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new‑trial motion, and no fee motion. There is no § 285 exceptional-case ruling and no cost award; the case ended before any judgment.

6. Final disposition (2023-07-05)

• 2023-07-05 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 12), filed by Dmitry Kheyfits for CommWorks, invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (dismissal by notice before answer). Per the recorded termination text, the notice states the action is dismissed "with prejudice." (Verbatim termination text as republished by Patsnap: "Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant Hitron Technologies Inc. with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).")
• 2023-07-05 — Report on Patent/Trademark (AO 120) sent to the USPTO (Dkt. 13).
• Case closed 2023-07-05; total life 154–155 days.

Caveat on the "with prejudice" language. The aggregator-quoted dismissal text states "with prejudice," and the "Circumstances & timeline" section earlier in this file similarly records a with-prejudice dismissal. I flag one nuance: a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal by notice is without prejudice by default unless the notice states otherwise — so a notice expressly electing "with prejudice" is controlling if that is in fact the filed text. I could not pull the Dkt. 12 PDF to confirm the exact wording myself; the "with prejudice" characterization rests on the Patsnap termination text. If precision matters, Dkt. 12 should be pulled from PACER/RECAP.

Settlement was the operative term. The June 8, 2023 order's express reference to "finalize the terms of the settlement," coupled with the unopposed stays and the Rule 41 notice, establishes a settled, license-type disposition; the commercial terms (royalty, license scope) are not public.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings — essentially none on the asserted patents

• I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on the '807 patent (or on the '285, '596, '979, '465, '249, or RE44,904 siblings asserted in this family grouping). Patsnap's patent records for the family list "Validity challenges: None recorded." The only confirmed PTAB linkage in the CommWorks portfolio remains Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297, challenging a different CommWorks patent (U.S. 8,923,846) — not at issue here and with no effect on this litigation.
• Consequently, no PTAB proceeding stayed or otherwise influenced 6:23-cv-00063. The two district-court stays were purely settlement-driven.
• The absence of any PTAB challenge is strategically significant on the portfolio level: because Hitron settled and the case was dismissed before any validity contest, the '807 (and its siblings) were never tested for validity — either at the PTAB or in any Article III court. That leaves the family at full presumptive strength for CommWorks's subsequent targets (D‑Link, DrayTek, AVM, Axon Networks, STMicroelectronics, EarthLink, Grandstream, etc., through 2025–2026).

8. Related-case context (same patents / same campaign)

• CommWorks v. Ubee Interactive Holding Corp., 6:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Tex.) — the companion case filed the same day (2023-02-01), asserting the same six-patent family; closed 2023-05-08 (two months before Hitron). (Patsnap)
• Altice USA, Inc. / CSC Holdings, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, 1:21-cv-1323 (D. Del.) — a declaratory-judgment action against CommWorks on the '249, '807, '285, '596 and '979 patents; terminated by Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (D.I. 27), with the AO‑120 reported to the USPTO on 2022-06-21. (AO‑120, D. Del.)
• CommWorks v. Vyve Broadband, 6:23-cv-00147 (W.D. Tex.) — seven-patent campaign case, dismissed with prejudice in 209 days, before Markman, with no fee-shifting — the same "early resolution, no merits ruling" pattern as Hitron. (Patsnap)
• CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21-cv-00366 (W.D. Tex.) — the fullest-litigated family case, where the parties reported "no known IPR, CBM, or other PGR filings," again confirming the family was never PTAB-challenged. (Dkt. 19)

Bottom line

The litigation is a pre-answer, settlement disposition: complaint (2023-02-01) → waiver of service (2023-02-14, answer due 2023-05-03) → two unopposed, consent 30‑day stays (granted 2023-05-09 and 2023-06-08, the latter expressly "to allow the parties to finalize the terms of the settlement") → voluntary Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal (2023-07-05), reportedly with prejudice, with the AO‑120 sent to the USPTO the same day. There were no answers, counterclaims, pre-trial merits motions, Markman, discovery, trial, post-trial motions, fee motions, or appeals, and no PTAB IPR/PGR on the asserted patents. The result: a quiet, fast, likely license-based exit with zero merits precedent created for either side.

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

I have some names. Let me dig into the docket and firm affiliations.

Let me get the full docket sheet and the complaint's signature block.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC — W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00063 (CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Hitron Technologies Inc.)

Sourcing caveat up front: This case was resolved and dismissed only ~5 months after filing, and the docket contains no separate "Notice of Attorney Appearance" entries for plaintiff's counsel. The names below are reconstructed from the CM/ECF filer tags and signature blocks of the documents each attorney actually filed in this case (as reflected in the Patexia Research docket abstract for 6:23-cv-00063 and corroborating dockets). I did not have PACER access to the complaint's (Dkt. 1) signature block, so the appearance list may not be exhaustive. I could not independently verify the law-firm affiliation of two of the three attorneys from the sources retrieved; I flag that where it exists rather than guessing.

1. Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis — local counsel (Texas)

• Firm / office: The Stafford Davis Firm, PC; 815 S. Broadway Ave., Tyler, TX 75701 (also listed at 305 S. Broadway Ave., Ste. 406, Tyler) — phone (903) 593-7000.
• Appearance in this case: Filed the Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44) on Feb. 8, 2023 (Dkt. 7) as (Davis, Stafford) — the only plaintiff-side filing attributed to him on the docket. He is the classic W.D./E.D. Tex. "local counsel of record" for this plaintiff group.
• Experience note: Long-time plaintiff-side patent litigator in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas; has appeared for Parallel Networks, Swipe Innovations, Better Mouse Company, Dynamic Hosting, Mullen Industries, Textile Computer Systems, American Patents LLC (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00773), and Freedom Patents, LLC — i.e., the standard Texas local-counsel role for out-of-state NPE plaintiffs. (Law360 firm/attorney page; Unified Patents litigation portal, 6:22-cv-00773)

2. Andrey Belenky — plaintiff's counsel (appeared/substantive)

• Appearance in this case: Filed the Unopposed Motion to Stay All Deadlines on May 3, 2023 (Dkt. 10), tagged (Belenky, Andrey), and was the counsel handling the case during its pendency.
• Firm / office: Not confirmed by the sources I retrieved. His filings in this and related CommWorks matters do not include a firm name in the docket text, and I could not verify a current firm/office from a firm website, Law360, or Reuters Legal. I am not asserting a firm name for him.
• Experience note: Part of CommWorks Solutions' regular, repeat-play outside patent litigation team; he has appeared for CommWorks in multiple actions, including W.D. Tex. CommWorks filings and the related E.D. Tex. case CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Open Text Corp., 2:23-cv-00533 (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 7, Nov. 21, 2023). (Open Text docket, Justia)

3. Dmitry Kheyfits — plaintiff's counsel of record at dismissal (filed the terminating papers)

• Appearance in this case: Filed the Status Report and Unopposed Motion to Continue Stay on June 7, 2023 (Dkt. 11) and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 5, 2023 (Dkt. 12) — i.e., he was counsel of record when the case was terminated.
• Firm / office: Not confirmed by the sources I retrieved (same limitation as Mr. Belenky — no firm name appears in the retrieved docket text, and I could not verify one). No firm/office asserted.
• Experience note: Repeat counsel for CommWorks across its campaign; also filed the waiver-of-service returns for CommWorks in the Open Text case (Dkts. 9–10, Dec. 11, 2023) and appeared there on Nov. 22, 2023 (Dkt. 8). (Open Text docket, Justia)

Attorneys who appear in related CommWorks matters but are not shown of record here

• Catherine Susan Bartles and Brandon Gregory Moore appeared for CommWorks in the E.D. Tex. Open Text action (Notices of Appearance, Dkts. 5–6, Nov. 21, 2023) and in other CommWorks suits, but I found no record of their appearance in 6:23-cv-00063. Their firms were not confirmed in the sources retrieved.
• PTAB/parallel-proceeding counsel: In Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 (a different CommWorks patent, 8,923,846), CommWorks' power of attorney named Lawrence A. "Larry" Aaronson and Warren J. Thomas of Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, Atlanta, GA. Those are PTAB-side prosecution/appearance counsel and I found no evidence they appeared in the Hitron district-court action; I include them only to distinguish them from district-court counsel.

Bottom line

• Lead/substantive plaintiff's counsel: Andrey Belenky and Dmitry Kheyfits (Kheyfits filed the voluntary dismissal that terminated the case).
• Local counsel (W.D. Tex.): Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis, The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, Tyler, TX.
• Firm affiliations for Belenky and Kheyfits are unverified from the sources available to me — the docket text I retrieved lists them by name only. If you need their firm/office confirmed, that would require pulling the complaint (Dkt. 1), Dkt. 10, and Dkt. 12 PDFs directly from PACER or CourtListener RECAP, which I was unable to retrieve here. No filings in this docket appear to have been sealed, and there is no indication counsel "had not yet appeared" — rather, the case ended by voluntary dismissal before any formal appearance notices were filed.

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

Let me dig into the docket documents and look for defense-side appearances.

Let me pull the full docket and check for defense-side entries.

I was able to pull the substantive docket entries, but not a defense-side appearance. Here is what the record actually shows, plus the best-sourced leads on Hitron's patent-defense counsel, with verification caveats flagged.

---

1. Bottom line on "counsel of record" for Hitron in this case

Per the docket sheets I could retrieve for 6:23-cv-00063, no attorney entered a formal appearance for Hitron Technologies Inc. before the case was dismissed. The complete set of indexed filings runs Docs. 1–13:

Source: Patexia docket index for No. 6:23-cv-00063 — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CommWorks-Solutions-LLC-v-Hitron-Technologies-Inc-id-[186357](/patent/186357)/documents

Two consequences worth stating plainly:

• No Answer, Rule 7.1 disclosure, motion, or Notice of Attorney Appearance by Hitron appears on the indexed docket. The answer was due 5/3/2023, but on that same day the parties were already seeking a stay; the case settled and was voluntarily dismissed on 7/5/2023. The docket as indexed therefore does not name any defense attorney.
• Doc. 9 (the waiver of service) was signed by or on behalf of Hitron, so a representative or its counsel was engaged — but the docket entry does not name that person, and the waiver document itself is the only place the identity might appear.

Caveat: I could not query PACER directly in this session. If a defense appearance exists (e.g., a notice filed only with the waiver, or sealed settlement correspondence), it is not reflected in the public aggregators I used. The authoritative check is the PACER docket for 6:23-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex.), and specifically the face of Doc. 9. If PACER shows nothing further, the correct answer is that counsel had not formally appeared at the time of dismissal — the defense's involvement was transactional/settlement-side.

---

2. Best-sourced lead on Hitron's regular patent-defense counsel

Hitron (Taiwan-based; U.S. affiliate Hitron Technologies Americas Inc.) has been represented in U.S. patent suits by a small, consistent group of attorneys. The single strongest name is:

David Jeanchung Tsai — San Francisco, CA

• Role: Hitron's counsel in multiple patent infringement actions; the only attorney shown filing on Hitron's behalf in Hitron's 2025 E.D. Tex. cases.
• Documented Hitron representations:
  • CommPlex Systems LLC v. Hitron Technologies Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00344 (E.D. Tex.) — filed the unopposed extension-of-time application on Hitron's behalf (Doc. 6, 5/30/2025); docket lists him as counsel for Hitron. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00344/[237099](/patent/237099)
  • Encryptawave Technologies LLC v. Hitron Technologies Americas Inc. (D. Colo. 2024) — counsel for Hitron.
  • Zyrcuits IP LLC v. Hitron Technologies Americas Inc. (No. 1:20-cv-01500) — listed as counsel for Hitron Technologies Americas Inc., San Francisco, phone (415) 983-1000. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17199671/parties/zyrcuits-ip-llc-v-hitron-technologies-americas-inc/
  • BE Labs, Inc. v. Hitron Technologies Americas Inc. (D. Colo. 2019) — counsel for Hitron.
• Note on firm/office: Court records give him a San Francisco business address and the number (415) 983-1000. That number is associated with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP's San Francisco office, but I was unable to verify his current firm affiliation in this session — treat "firm" as unconfirmed and check the State Bar of California / TXWD attorney roll before citing it.
• Relevant experience: Ongoing defense of Hitron in NPE campaigns over residential gateway / Wi-Fi router technology — i.e., precisely the technology base (Wi-Fi access provisioning, gateway/router QoS) that the '807 patent in this case targets.

Christopher Kao — appeared together with David Tsai for Hitron Technologies Americas Inc. in BE Labs, Inc. v. Hitron Technologies Americas Inc. (D. Colo., filed 4/24/2019). Firm affiliation also unverified here.

Stephen Steinberg — San Francisco (1100 Sansome Street). A lawyer-profile listing ties him to a case captioned "… v. Hitron Techs., Inc., Hitron Techs. Americas Inc., et al., Central District of California." I could not confirm the case, plaintiff, or his role from primary sources, so I am not treating this as a Hitron representation — flagging it only as an unchecked lead.

In-house counsel: I found no named Hitron in-house attorney for this action. Hitron's U.S. enforcement/legal contacts are not publicly indexed for this docket.

---

3. Practical recommendation

1. Pull PACER for 6:23-cv-00063 and open Doc. 9 (Waiver of Service). That is the one place a defense signatory/counsel email would surface. If it is blank as to counsel, the accurate statement is: "No defense counsel of record; case dismissed on waiver and settlement before appearance."
2. If you need the attorney Hitron actually used, contact the CommPlex Systems 2:25-cv-00344 and AuthPoint 2:25-cv-00543 (E.D. Tex.) dockets — those show Hitron's live defense team (David J. Tsai filing) and are the best proxy for who would have handled CommWorks v. Hitron.
3. Note this case is part of CommWorks' broader '807/’249 campaign (parallel suits against Cable One, EarthLink, Comcast, TI, STMicro, Marvell, Broadcom, SIA Mikrotik, etc.). Plaintiff-side counsel across that campaign — Stafford Davis (The Davis Firm, Tyler, TX), Andrey Belenky, Dmitry Kheyfits, and Rozier Hardt McDonough — is well indexed; the defense side for Hitron specifically is not, for the reasons above.

Nothing in this answer should be cited for an attorney name, firm, or role that I have marked unverified — those require a PACER or state-bar confirmation.