CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Case overview and background

The parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a patent-assertion vehicle, not an operating network supplier — the name survives from 3Com's old carrier-networking division (sold to UTStarcom in 2003), but today's CommWorks is a licensing entity. Its Rule 7 disclosure identifies Brainbox Innovations, LLC as its corporate parent (see the parallel E.D. Tex. complaint, CommWorks v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716, Dkt. 3), and CommWorks has named Brainbox as a real party in interest at the PTAB (Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, IPR2021-01297). Brainbox's monetization structure has been described in court filings as an Intellectual Ventures spin-out arrangement: in three 2021 Delaware declaratory-judgment suits, Altice USA alleged that CommWorks, DataCloud Techs., DigiMedia Tech. and CDN Innovations were part of "a broader, coordinated patent assertion campaign driven by Brainbox," with IV (as transferor) retaining a security interest and a backend on licensing revenue (IPWatchdog, Sept. 22, 2021); CommWorks's own interested-party disclosure in the Linksys/Belkin case lists Invention Investment Fund I LLC and II LLC — IV-managed funds — alongside Brainbox. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies CommWorks as an NPE asserting acquired patents (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6832249). CommWorks is represented here by Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (James F. McDonough III, Jonathan L. Hardt, Dkts. 1, 5). Defendant Marvell Technology, Inc. is the Nasdaq-listed fabless semiconductor company whose business is now dominated by data-center/AI silicon (custom accelerators, electro-optics, Ethernet switching, storage, DPUs), alongside long-lived connectivity product lines. Per PatSnap's docket analysis, Marvell is represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (Harper S. Batts, Christopher S. Ponder, Jeffrey Liang; appearances at Dkts. 8, 11–12) — I could not independently confirm the firm affiliation from a primary source.

The accused technology and the patents. The complaint targets Marvell silicon, not systems: chips "with IEEE 802.3ah support" — including the Alaska Gigabit PHY family (88E3015/3016/3018/1510/1518/1512/1514), LinkStreet switch chips (88E6092, 88E6095, 88E6095F, 88E6096, 88E6097, 88E6097F, 88F6601), and the Avanta access/FTTx family — and chips with "Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and/or 802.11‑2007+ wireless QoS functionality," exemplified by the 88W8686 Wi-Fi SoC (Compl. ¶17). Venue support rests on Marvell's Austin, Texas office at 5113 Southwest Parkway (Compl. ¶14). Three patents were actually asserted, each with an "Evidence of Use" exhibit appended to the complaint (Dkt. 1, Exs. A–C): (1) U.S. 7,027,465, "Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection" (issued 4/11/2006; app. 10/167,986 filed 6/11/2002) — cheaply classifying priority frames by extracting a bit pattern at a predetermined frame offset and comparing it to a search pattern (asserted claim 1), i.e., a low-cost WMM/802.11e QoS-lookup technique; (2) RE44,904, same title (reissued 5/20/2014) — the same detection method plus forwarding priority frames to a high-priority queue and dynamically adjusting the priority-transmission period based on statistics; and (3) U.S. 6,832,249, "Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System with User-Controllable Quality of Information Delivery and Flow Priority" (issued 12/14/2004; app. 09/860,801 filed 5/18/2001) — cross-layer QoS management (detect a QoS event at OSI Layer N, re-provision at a lower layer; asserted claim 11). Important correction to the case metadata: the fourth listed patent, U.S. 6,891,807 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" — a WPS-like scheme provisioning a UI-less device only if it transmits within an activation window), does not appear in the Marvell docket: Dkt. 1 carries only three exhibits, and PatSnap likewise reports three asserted patents ('465, RE44,904, '249). The '807 patent is a staple of CommWorks's other 2025 suits (EarthLink, DrayTek, AVM, Zyxel, STMicroelectronics), so its inclusion in this case's metadata is most likely a cross-case artifact.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed 8/18/2025 in the W.D. Tex. (No. 7:25-cv-00354), the complaint is captioned in the Midland–Odessa Division and was initially assigned to Midland–Odessa-based Judge David Counts pursuant to the court's "Order Assigning Business of the Court as it Relates to Patent Cases" (7/25/2022); the very next day, Judge Counts signed an order reassigning the case to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings (Dkt. 7, 8/19/2025) — the Waco Division judge whose docket has long been the center of gravity for W.D. Tex. patent litigation. Marvell's unopposed extension pushed its response deadline to 10/31/2025 (Dkt. 10; text order 9/9/2025), and on 10/29/2025 the parties filed a joint motion to stay "and Notice of Settlement" requesting 30 days (Dkt. 13), followed two days later by CommWorks's notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 14, 10/31/2025) — ending the case in 74 days with no answer, no claim construction, and no merits ruling or IPR. That timing is the story: CommWorks's parallel STMicroelectronics suit in the same district (7:25-cv-00363, filed 8/25/2025) was voluntarily dismissed the same day, and its EarthLink case settled weeks earlier — the signature of a licensing campaign converting filings into portfolio licenses rather than judgments. The case is notable in three respects. First, it shows an NPE moving up the supply chain: after years of suing cable/ISP operators (Comcast, Charter, Altice, RCN, Vyve, Consolidated) and device OEMs (D-Link, Zyxel, AVM, DrayTek, Linksys/Belkin), CommWorks's 2025 wave named chip vendors (Marvell, STMicroelectronics, Broadcom in C.D. Cal., Realtek, u-blox), which raises indemnity and pass-through-royalty issues across the whole equipment supply chain. Second, the asserted patents are legacy standard-implementing assets (IEEE 802.11e/WMM QoS and 802.3ah "Ethernet in the First Mile"), with 2001–2003 priority dates; consistent with that vintage, one CommWorks complaint pleads infringement "from March 2021 until its expiry," meaning the exposure is largely retrospective past damages plus back-royalties on long-shipping parts — small in dollar terms for a company now valued on AI/data-center silicon, but an ongoing nuisance cost while these chips remain in distribution. Third, the IPR angle is an absence: Unified Patents has challenged CommWorks's portfolio at the PTAB (IPR2021-01297, U.S. 8,923,846), but I found no IPR petition against the '465, RE44,904, or '249 patents in my searches, and none was needed — the early, pre-institution settlement pattern leaves validity and enforceability of all three patents untested.

Sourcing caveats. Facts above are drawn from the PACER-derived docket summaries (CourtListener/Justia), the complaint text and exhibits as reproduced in third-party copies (Compl. analysis, 7:25-cv-00354), and PatSnap's case write-up. I did not verify: whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice (PatSnap says without prejudice; the docket text of Dkt. 14 is not in the sources I retrieved); the settlement/license terms; the identity of Marvell's law firm from a primary source; whether RE44,904 is formally a reissue of the '465 patent (its "Reissue of" line was not available to me — the shared title and parallel pleading strongly suggest it, but treat as inference); and the reason for the Counts→Albright reassignment. Marvell's Rule 7 disclosure statement (Dkt. 9) and the actual accused-product/claim charts (Exs. A–C) should be pulled from PACER if precision on any of these points matters.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Let me dig into the actual complaint and PTAB proceedings.

Now let me research parallel PTAB proceedings and the broader CommWorks campaign.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00354 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, pre-answer case. It went from complaint to voluntary dismissal in 74 days, with no answer, no counterclaims, no motion practice of substance, no claim construction, no discovery, no trial, and no merits ruling of any kind. The only "stay" motion was a joint, settlement-driven stay — not an IPR stay. The asserted patents remain untested against Marvell.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Patents actually pleaded. The complaint attached only three "Evidence of Use" exhibits: Ex. A — U.S. Pat. 7,027,465; Ex. B — U.S. Pat. RE44,904; Ex. C — U.S. Pat. 6,832,249. The third-party analysis of the actual Dkt. 1 in this case confirms Count I is the '465 patent ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," issued 2006-04-11, app. 10/167,986 filed 2002-06-11), with the RE44,904 (reissued 2014-05-20, same title) and '249 ("Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System…," issued 2004-12-14) pleaded as the remaining counts.

⚠️ Correction to the case metadata. The asserted-patent list includes U.S. Pat. 6,891,807 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning"). I found no support for that patent being asserted against Marvell — the exhibit list is three patents, and the docket text, PACER Monitor, UniCourt and PatSnap all describe a three-patent case ('465, RE44,904, '249). The '807 patent does appear in CommWorks's parallel suits (e.g., EarthLink, AVM, NextLink, and the STMicroelectronics/Trendnet/Axon complaints), which is a plausible source of the metadata error. Treat '807 as not asserted here unless confirmed from Dkt. 1 directly.

Technology and accused products (Dkt. 1, Count I). CommWorks accused Marvell chips with Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and/or 802.11-2007+ wireless QoS functionality, naming as non-limiting examples the Marvell 88W8686 (88W8686-B13CBB1-B115-T; 88W8686-B2-NAP1C000), 88DE3100, MC-85, and MC8687P. Willfulness was pleaded generally, but I did not find a Marvell-specific pre-suit notice-letter date in the complaint excerpts I could access — the "April 2023 notice letter" language appears in CommWorks's other complaints (Axon, STMicro), so do not attribute that date to Marvell without verification.

No answer, no counterclaims. Marvell never answered and never filed counterclaims (no invalidity, no non-infringement, no inequitable conduct). The answer deadline was extended to the very day of dismissal, so the merits were never joined. PatSnap's case analysis states expressly that Marvell "never filed an answer, incurred no adverse ruling on infringement or validity, and faces no injunction or damages award."

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motions to dismiss / transfer / § 1404 / § 101: none filed.
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none. No IPR petition was filed by Marvell (or anyone else, so far as the public record shows) against the three asserted patents in connection with this case.
• Summary judgment: none.
• The only motion of any kind: Dkt. 10, Marvell's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer or Response (filed 2025-09-08), granted by text order 2025-09-09, extending the response deadline 45 days to 2025-10-31 — precisely the date the case ended.
• The only stay motion: Dkt. 13, Joint Motion to Stay Case and Notice of Settlement (30 days requested) (filed 2025-10-29) — a settlement stay, not an AIA-trial stay. It was overtaken by dismissal two days later.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

None. The case was dismissed before the parties exchanged infringement/contentions, before a scheduling order ripened, and long before any Markman briefing, Markman hearing, or claim-construction order. There is therefore no district-court construction of "predetermined position," "priority frame," "offset," "activatable time interval," or the other recurring CommWorks claim terms from this case. (Related constructions exist elsewhere — e.g., Judge Albright's 2022-03-08 claim-construction order, ECF 35, in CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21-cv-00366-ADA — but those do not bind and were never reached here.)

---

4. Discovery milestones

None with strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order with discovery cutoffs, no infringement contentions, no depositions, no expert reports. Nothing in the docket suggests even jurisdictional discovery.

---

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no pretrial order, no verdict, no JMOL/New Trial motion, no § 285 fee motion, no costs judgment, no injunction, no damages award.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

With or without prejudice? PatSnap's docket analysis states the dismissal was without prejudice and that "[t]he docket order confirms the without-prejudice character." That is consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): because Marvell had not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, CommWorks's unilateral notice was self-effectuating and dismisses without prejudice as a matter of law. Practically, this means CommWorks can refile against Marvell on the same three patents, and the patents' validity and enforceability against Marvell's Wi-Fi/Ethernet silicon are entirely unresolved.

Data caveat: Some aggregators (UniCourt, last refreshed 2026-02-14) still list the case as "Open" because no separate dismissal order appears in the truncated public docket; the authoritative case metadata here says terminated 2025-10-31. PatSnap references a dismissal order following the Dkt. 14 notice; I could not independently view that order, so I flag it as second-hand.

No appeal. There is nothing appealable — no judgment, no claim construction, no fee award — and no Federal Circuit activity exists for this case.

Present posture: Closed/terminated. No live proceedings between these parties on these patents on this docket.

---

7. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings on the asserted patents

This is the weakest-sourced part of the record, and I want to be explicit about the limits:

• I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition challenging U.S. Pat. 7,027,465, RE44,904, or 6,832,249 in connection with this Marvell case, and no PTAB proceeding that drove (or could have driven) a stay here. Given the 74-day life of the case, no AIA petition could have been instituted in time to matter in any event.
• Related PTAB/USPTO activity against the same patent owner (CommWorks Solutions, LLC) — but different patents:
  • IPR2021-01297, Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC (U.S. Pat. 8,923,846, "Recovery Techniques in Mobile Networks") — petition filed 2021-07-30; instituted 2022-02-14 on all challenged claims; Final Written Decision 2023-02-13 holding claims 1–6, 9–13, and 16–20 unpatentable. The Board identified CommWorks v. Comcast, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA (W.D. Tex.) as the related litigation. This is the clearest demonstration of Unified Patents' campaign against CommWorks's portfolio, but the '846 patent is not one of the three patents asserted against Marvell.
  • Ex parte reexamination 90/014,909 on U.S. Pat. 6,832,249 — requested by Unified Patents on 2021-11-22, per Unified's own announcement. The '249 patent is one of the three patents asserted against Marvell. I was unable to verify the outcome of that reexamination (whether the claims survived, were confirmed, or were amended/cancelled) — this should be checked on PTAB/USPTO Public PAIR or Unified's portal before relying on it. Any adverse reexam outcome on '249 would be highly relevant to a refiling against Marvell.
• Effect on this litigation: none — no PTAB proceeding stayed, narrowed, or otherwise influenced this case. The stay here was purely a settlement stay.

---

8. Broader campaign context (why the Marvell case looked the way it did)

The Marvell suit is one filing in a coordinated, portfolio-wide enforcement wave by CommWorks Solutions, LLC (identified in its E.D. Tex. filings as a subsidiary of Brainbox Innovations, LLC; Unified Patents describes CommWorks as an NPE subsidiary of IP Investments Group). The same patents and the same WMM/WPS/802.3ah standards-mapping theory recur across the campaign:

• CommWorks v. RCN Telecom Services, No. 1:20-cv-07534 (S.D.N.Y., filed 2020) — '249, '807, '465, '315, RE44,904.
• CommWorks v. Comcast Cable Communications, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed 2021-04-15, Judge Albright) — the case that produced the only district-court claim-construction activity on these patents (ECF 26/27/28/31/32 briefing; claim construction order ECF 35, 2022-03-08) and the IPR2021-01297 related-proceeding designation.
• Additional 2024–2025 suits on overlapping patents: Trendnet (C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-08048), Axon Networks (C.D. Cal. 8:24-cv-02250, filed 2024-10-17), AVM GmbH (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00026, filed 2025-01-12; amended 2025-02-06), Broadcom (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998, ~April 2025), Qualcomm (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00101), EarthLink (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716, filed 2025-07-15), plus suits against STMicroelectronics and others.
• The EarthLink case is the strongest tell. Filed 2025-07-15 in E.D. Tex., it followed the identical arc: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 2025-10-03; Order Dismissing Case 2025-10-10 — i.e., in the same October 2025 window as the Marvell dismissal. That pattern is consistent with a portfolio-level settlement/license (or global licensing negotiation) wave in October 2025, rather than anything specific about Marvell's merits defenses.

Whether the Marvell exit was a paid license, a covenant not to sue, a standstill pending a global deal, or a tactical withdrawal pending reexamination outcomes is not disclosed in the public record and should not be asserted.

---

9. What a litigator should take away

1. The only dispositive "development" is the absence of signal. No claim construction, no IPR, no merits ruling — the patents' validity, enforceability, and infringement scope against Marvell's 88W/MC-series silicon are completely untested.
2. The dismissal is (per Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and PatSnap) without prejudice, so refiling risk is live and re-accrual of damages is not foreclosed.
3. The three patents have a documented history of challenge ('846 IPR FWD invalidating all claims; '249 ex parte reexam 90/014,909), and the '249 reexam outcome is a priority verification item — it is the single most likely source of leverage if CommWorks refiles.
4. The '807 patent should be removed from this case's asserted-patent list absent direct confirmation from Dkt. 1.
5. The parallel EarthLink dismissal (2025-10-03/10-10) suggests the Marvell exit was part of a broader October 2025 resolution, which matters for anyone modeling CommWorks's willingness to refile.

---

Primary sources consulted

• Dockets.Justia docket for 7:25-cv-00354: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2025cv00354/1172859789
• PACER Monitor case page: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59608693/CommWorks_Solutions,_LLC_v_Marvell_Technology,_Inc
• UniCourt docket summary: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu439fa3bb28d9-[2193288](/patent/2193288)
• PatSnap litigation analysis (without-prejudice dismissal; counsel; three-patent scope): https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-solutions-v-marvell-technology-networking-chip-patent-patsnap/
• Ex Parte case-analysis of Dkt. 1 (Count I = '465; accused Marvell chips): https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txwd/7:25-cv-00354/doc/analysis/1
• Unified Patents v. CommWorks, IPR2021-01297 Final Written Decision (2023-02-13): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01297/Unified_Patents_LLC_v._CommWorks_Solutions_LLC/docs/02-13-2023-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-22-Final_Written_Decision__original.pdf
• Unified Patents announcement re: ex parte reexam of U.S. Pat. 6,832,249 (filed 2021-11-22): https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/tag/IPinvestments
• CommWorks v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716 docket (parallel Oct. 2025 dismissal): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70806753/commworks-solutions-llc-v-earthlink-llc/
• CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21-cv-00366-ADA claim-construction record (via IPR2021-01297 exhibits): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01297/Unified_Patents_LLC_v._CommWorks_Solutions_LLC/docs/06-08-2022-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2002-Comcasts_Opening_Claim_Construction_Brief.pdf

Unverified / flagged: (i) the dismissal order confirming without-prejudice status (referenced by PatSnap, not independently viewed); (ii) the outcome of ex parte reexam 90/014,909 on the '249 patent; (iii) whether any Marvell-specific pre-suit notice letter exists or its date; (iv) the '807 patent's inclusion in this case; (v) the existence or terms of any settlement/license between CommWorks and Marvell.

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

Now let me verify counsel details and firm information.

Let me pull the docket sheet and complaint details to confirm all plaintiff-side appearances.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00354 (W.D. Tex.)

Both plaintiff-side appearances came from the same firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC ("RHM"), a patent-litigation boutique with offices in Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX. No other attorneys — no separate local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no pro hac vice appearances — appear on the plaintiff's side of the docket.

Counsel identified from the docket

Supporting docket citations

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 8/18/2025 (filing fee receipt ATXWDC-20602188; electronically filed by McDonough).
• Dkt. 2 — Request for Issuance of Summons (McDonough, James), 8/18/2025.
• Dkt. 4 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (plaintiff), 8/18/2025.
• Dkt. 5 — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance. Attorney Jonathan L. Hardt added to party CommWorks Solutions, LLC (pty:pla)," 8/18/2025.
• Dkt. 13 — Joint MOTION to Stay Case and Notice of Settlement, 10/29/2025 (McDonough, James).
• Dkt. 14 — NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by CommWorks Solutions, LLC, 10/31/2025 (McDonough, James).

Sources: Justia Dockets (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2025cv00354/1172859789); UniCourt case page (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu439fa3bb28d9-2193288); PACER Monitor case summary (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59608693/CommWorks_Solutions,_LLC_v_Marvell_Technology,_Inc); RHM attorney pages (https://rhmtrial.com/attorneys/, https://rhmtrial.com/attorney/james-f-mcdonough/); Law360 firm/attorney profile for James F. McDonough, III; USPTO PTACTS filings listing RHM attorneys' addresses and bar status.

Observations and caveats

• No local counsel of record. In W.D. Tex., out-of-district firms normally pair with local counsel or move for pro hac vice. Here, no PHV motions or local-counsel appearances appear on the docket — consistent with RHM's reliance on Hardt's Austin office and McDonough's W.D. Tex. bar admission. Both are listed among the attorneys of record on the docket and in UniCourt/PACER Monitor's party-counsel listings.
• Role labels are inferential. The docket does not designate a formal "lead trial counsel," and no Rule 26(f) conference, scheduling order, or joint discovery plan was ever entered, so there was no opportunity for the court to designate lead counsel. The "lead" designation above rests on filing/signature activity.
• No third-party or in-house plaintiff counsel. CommWorks Solutions, LLC appears as a patent-holding entity (successor to the CommWorks/3Com networking business), and no in-house or parent-entity counsel filed an appearance.
• Not confirmed: the complete signature block of the complaint and any appearances in the brief final days before dismissal (late October 2025) were not independently retrievable; the possibility of an appearance filed after the last docket snapshot (Justia's docket was last retrieved 9/9/2025, before the stay/dismissal entries) cannot be fully excluded, though the dismissal filings were made by McDonough alone.
• Note on the '807 patent: the complaint attached only Exhibits A–C, mapping to the '465, RE44,904, and '249 patents, and the joint motion/dismissal papers never mention the '807 patent — reinforcing that the '807 was not actually asserted against Marvell (consistent with the existing case summary).

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

Now let me verify the firm affiliations and backgrounds of each defendant attorney.

Let me check a few remaining details: admission/pro hac vice status, Sheppard Mullin's office footprint, and any related filings by Marvell's counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Marvell Technology, Inc.

Bottom line: Three attorneys appeared for Marvell — Harper S. Batts, Christopher S. Ponder, and Jeffrey Liang — all partners in the Intellectual Property Practice Group of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP's Silicon Valley office (Menlo Park, CA). No Texas-based local counsel and no in-house counsel filed an appearance on the retrieved docket. Marvell never answered; the case was dismissed roughly ten weeks after the appearances, so no formal "lead trial counsel" designation under Judge Albright's rules ever appears on the record.

Appearances on the docket (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00354)

Sources: UniCourt docket sheet for 7:25-cv-00354; Justia Dockets entry (docket last retrieved 2025-09-09); PACER Monitor case page.

Individual profiles

Harper S. Batts — lead / first-appearing counsel (de facto lead)

• Firm/office: Partner, Sheppard Mullin, Silicon Valley office (1540 El Camino Real, Suite 120, Menlo Park, CA). USPTO Reg. No. 56,160.
• Note: Leader of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group; Chambers USA Band 4, California patent litigation. Reported ~90%+ IPR institution rate and a strong recent Federal Circuit record; frequent W.D. Tex. defense counsel for semiconductor and AI/data-center clients. Represents Amazon in the Amazon/Amazon Services v. Nokia Technologies video-compression IPRs together with Ponder and Liang. He is the natural "lead" here because he made the first appearance (ECF 8) and signed the Rule 7 disclosure and the extension motion. (Chambers profile; sheppardmullin.com bio.)

Christopher S. Ponder — of counsel to the trial team (partner)

• Firm/office: Partner, Sheppard Mullin, Silicon Valley office (Menlo Park, CA). USPTO Reg. No. 77,167.
• Note: Former law clerk to Judge Robert W. Payne (E.D. Tex.) — directly relevant experience for the Texas patent venues; his bio reports participation in 40+ IPRs, several jury trials, and streaming/Broadcom and medical-device matters. Super Lawyers Nor. Cal. Rising Star 2015–2018. (sheppardmullin.com bio; PTAB mandatory notices listing him as lead counsel in IPR2025-00685.)

Jeffrey Liang — of counsel to the trial team (partner)

• Firm/office: Partner, Sheppard Mullin, Silicon Valley office (Menlo Park, CA). CA Bar No. 281429 (admitted 2011); USPTO Reg. No. 69,043; Martindale/Texas B.S. 2002, UT J.D. 2011.
• Note: Former Intel engineer; his bio specifically lists experience with IEEE 802.3 and 802.11 standards — the exact standards at issue in this suit (802.3ah for the '249 patent; WMM/802.11-2007 QoS for the '465 and RE44,904 patents). Defended networking/semiconductor clients in W.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex.; ranked among the most active petitioner-side IPR attorneys (Patexia 2021–2022).

Caveats and things I could not confirm

• No formal lead-counsel designation. W.D. Tex. patent practice (Judge Albright's standing orders / Local Rule AT-1 context) contemplates a designated lead counsel, but that designation is normally made at the scheduling-order stage. This case settled and was dismissed before any scheduling order, so the docket does not label any of the three as "lead." My "de facto lead" characterization of Batts rests on his being the first to appear and the signer of the substantive filings.
• Pro hac vice status is unclear. I found no pro hac vice motions in the docket entries retrieved (ECF 1–14). All three attorneys are California-barred and based in Menlo Park, so absent W.D. Tex. bar admission, PHV motions would normally be expected; their apparent absence may reflect an incomplete docket capture (Justia's version was last pulled 2025-09-09) rather than a real gap. I would not represent that any of them are admitted in W.D. Tex. without a fresh PACER pull of the full docket.
• No local counsel or in-house counsel identified. No Texas-firm appearance and no Marvell in-house attorney (e.g., a Marvell legal-department name) appears on the docket sheets I could retrieve.
• Firm attribution. The Sheppard Mullin affiliation for all three is confirmed independently through the firm's own bios, USPTO PTAB mandatory notices, the California State Bar record for Liang, and World IP Review/Patexia firm rankings — not solely from the AI-generated PatSnap case summary that also lists them.
• No merits briefing. Because there was no answer, no invalidity contentions, and no damages/injunction exposure was adjudicated, there is no substantive counsel work product to evaluate beyond the extension motion and disclosure statement. Marvell's counsel of record is therefore a matter of appearance notices only.

If you need the definitive pro hac vice record or confirmation of a lead-counsel designation, the next step is a direct PACER docket pull for 7:25-cv-00354 (W.D. Tex.) to confirm the docket is complete through ECF 14 and to check for any PHV entries not reflected in the aggregator copies.