CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corporation

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into the '596 patent, the case outcome, and the patent's origins.

Let me look at the docket in more detail and search for the case outcome and IPR activity.

Case Overview — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp., No. 1:20-cv-07529 (S.D.N.Y.)

Parties and what they do. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with a registered office in Alpharetta, Georgia (Fulton County) — the same entity description it has used across its later complaints (C.D. Cal. complaint excerpt). It is a non-practicing patent assertion entity, and IPWatchdog's NPE roundup brackets the plaintiff as "[IP Investments Group]," its convention for identifying the monetization vehicle behind the shell (IPWatchdog, June 3, 2020). On the 2020 S.D.N.Y. docket it was represented by Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Andrey Belenky, Hanna Glomska Cohen), with Brandon G. Moore admitted pro hac vice on Oct. 22, 2020 (Docket 1:20-cv-07529). Defendant Mediacom Communications Corporation is an operating cable/broadband company — a privately held top-five U.S. cable operator founded and controlled by Rocco Commisso, headquartered in Orange County, New York — that sells residential broadband, video and voice service in smaller markets. Its Rule 7.1 disclosure reported "[n]o Corporate Parent" (Filing 19, Nov. 12, 2020), and it appeared through Amr O. Aly (Filing 11). Notably, Mediacom is a repeat telecom-patent defendant, having been sued by Sprint in D. Del. over VoIP patents (Sprint v. Mediacom, No. 1:18-cv-00363) (pretrial order, D. Del.). One caution on the "CommWorks" name: the original CommWorks Corporation was 3Com's carrier-infrastructure business (sold to UTStarcom in 2003); I found no sourcing confirming or denying any affiliation between that defunct operating company and this Georgia LLC, so treat any implied link as unverified.

Patents asserted and accused technology. The case metadata designates U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596, and contemporaneous reporting on the Sept. 14, 2020 filing indicates the complaint actually asserted nine patents against both Mediacom and RCN Telecom: the '249, '807, '465, '285, '596, '664, '979, '315 and RE44,904 patents (The IP Crew, Sept. 17, 2020); that same nine-patent set is confirmed for the companion RCN case (PatSnap case analysis). One-line sketch of the '596: titled "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," invented by James A. Roskind and John D. Robinson and originally assigned to AOL Inc. (App. No. 11/673,513, filed Feb. 8, 2007 as a continuation; priority Jan. 12, 2003; issued Dec. 8, 2008; expired Jan. 12, 2023) — a network access point tracks a wireless device's operating parameter (power-on or onset of signal transmission) and automatically provisions/associates the device if that event falls within a time interval after provisioning is activated (Unified Patents patent page). In practice that claim maps onto Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) push-button pairing on a gateway/router (complaint-analysis excerpt). The remaining asserted patents are early-2000s vintage and, per the complaints, cover layered-OSI/optical broadband transport (the '249, asserted at least at claim 11 against Ciena 6500 Packet-Optical gear running SAOS under Mediacom's "Extream" brand, and Juniper devices running Junos OS), plus user-controllable QoS, packet classification, contention-free traffic detection, and Wi-Fi modem/router and mesh functionality (The IP Crew). The accused products/services are therefore Mediacom's network infrastructure and customer-premises gear as deployed in its broadband and Wi-Fi service offerings — not a single product — which is the classic "your network practices our patents" theory aimed at an ISP rather than an equipment vendor.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Sept. 14, 2020 in the Southern District of New York before Judge Lorna G. Schofield (Nature of Suit: Patent; the docket's "Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1341" entry is plainly a clerical coding error — that is the mail-fraud statute, not 35 U.S.C. § 271). Mediacom obtained an extension to answer (Sept. 30, 2020), then answered on Nov. 12, 2020 with a jury demand and counterclaims (Filing 20), and the parties filed a joint pre-scheduling letter the same day; an initial telephonic conference was set for Nov. 19, 2020 (Filing 16). The free docket copy I retrieved was last pulled May 17, 2021 and shows no resolution — I could not confirm the termination event, and I found no IPR or PGR petition against the '596 patent in my searches (name searches for PAE-linked PTAB challenges returned nothing on this patent), so IPR linkage here is unverified. Venue is the notable angle: this is a defendant's-home-district filing, consistent with post-TC Heartland PAE practice, and CommWorks filed the parallel RCN suit in the same district the same week; that companion case terminated by consent judgment on March 23, 2023 after 920 days, with the '596 among the nine patents asserted — making a negotiated exit on similar terms plausible for Mediacom, though I cannot source it. The case is notable as the opening shot of the CommWorks campaign: an AOL-legacy, early-2000s standard-implementation portfolio (802.11 MAC, WMM/QoS, WPS, mesh) asserted first against cable ISPs (Mediacom, RCN; also Consolidated Communications and Ubee/Altice) and then, from roughly 2023–2025, rolled out against Wi-Fi silicon and CPE vendors (D-Link, Technicolor, TRENDnet, AVM, DrayTek, VTech, NXP, TI, STMicroelectronics, Marvell, Broadcom, u-blox, Axon Networks) (IPWatchdog; PatSnap; Unified Patents portal). Market context: because the core '596 and sibling patents expired around 2023, the leverage is retrospective past-damages and nuisance-value licensing rather than injunctive relief — which explains the pattern of swift, with-prejudice, no-fee-shifting dismissals across this campaign.

Sourcing limits I want to flag: (1) the asserted-patent list for this case rests on contemporaneous trade-press reporting rather than a copy of the complaint itself — the free docket at Justia does not expose the complaint text; (2) the case's outcome and any settlement terms are unconfirmed; (3) the identity/relationship of the beneficial owner behind CommWorks and any relationship to the historical 3Com CommWorks business are not documented in the sources I could reach.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me dig into the docket, outcome, and PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line up front

I could not confirm a merits ruling, trial, verdict, or an on-the-record final disposition for CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp., No. 1:20-cv-07529 (S.D.N.Y.). The publicly retrievable docket runs only through 2020-11-12 (answer + counterclaims) and was last retrieved 2021-05-17, with no Markman order, no summary-judgment decision, and no trial in any source I could reach. The case appears to have been resolved or terminated quietly (consistent with CommWorks' portfolio-wide pattern of early, pre-Markman dismissals), but I found no dismissal order, settlement notice, or judgment entry for Mediacom, so I am flagging the final disposition as unverified rather than asserting one. Below is the verified chronology plus the caveats and the parallel proceedings I could document.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Scope discrepancy worth noting. The case metadata in this matter lists only the '596 patent (U.S. 7,463,596). The contemporaneous trade account of the Mediacom complaint states CommWorks asserted nine patents — U.S. 6,832,249; 6,891,807; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,760,664; 7,911,979; 8,116,315; and RE44,904 — with sample claim charts, accusing Mediacom's Ciena/Juniper-based network and Wi-Fi modem/router services. A litigation-intelligence entry for this docket also tags '979, '664, '285 alongside the '596. The reliable reading is that the '596 was one of several patents asserted at the outset, and that the number of asserted patents was likely narrowed later (a common pattern), but I could not retrieve the amended complaint or a narrowing order. (The IP Crew; AI Lab litigation entry)

Docket-metadata anomaly: Justia reports the cause of action as "18 U.S.C. § 1341" (mail fraud). That is plainly a docketing artifact; the complaint is a patent infringement action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284–85.

Counsel of record (verified from docket entries): For CommWorks — Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Andrey Belenky; Brandon G. Moore; Hanna Glomska Cohen). For Mediacom — Amr O. Aly. I did not verify firm affiliations for Mr. Aly from a primary source, so I won't state one.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

I found no record of a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, motion to stay pending IPR, or motion for summary judgment in this docket. The only pre-answer activity was the stipulated extension (Dkt. 12/13) and the pro hac vice motion (Dkt. 15/17). Judge Schofield's Individual Rule III.A.1 pre-motion-letter practice governed any contemplated dispositive motion (flagged in Dkt. 13), but no such letter appears in the retrieved record.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman proceeding, claim construction order, or Markman hearing is documented. The docket as retrieved ends before any scheduling order was entered (the proposed schedule was still just an attachment to Dkt. 18 as of 2020-11-12). If the case resolved in early-to-mid 2021 — the likely window, given the docket's last retrieval date of 2021-05-17 and the absence of any further entries — it did so pre-construction, meaning the '596 claims were never judicially construed and carry no narrowing effect for third parties.

---

4. Discovery milestones

No discovery orders, ESI protocols, protective orders, or discovery-dispute rulings appear in the retrievable record. Discovery presumably began after the November 2020 scheduling conference, but I could not verify any discovery milestone and will not infer specific dates.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, verdict, JMOL/new-trial motion, or fee motion is documented. There is no evidence the case reached trial.

---

6. Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal — present posture

Unconfirmed. What I can say with confidence:

• The public docket snapshot (last retrieved 2021-05-17) contains no dismissal, no judgment, and no stipulation of discontinuance, but it is also plainly stale — so absence of a termination entry there is not evidence the case is still open.
• CommWorks' contemporaneous campaign shows a strong, repeated pattern of early resolution without any merits ruling:
  • Comcast (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366): stipulated dismissal of Comcast Corporation 2021-06-17, remaining Comcast entities continuing. (docketalarm)
  • Altice USA / CSC Holdings v. CommWorks (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323-JLH, filed 2021-09-17, a declaratory-judgment action on the '249, '807, '285, '596, '979): terminated by Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (D.I. 27), AO-120 recorded 2022-06-21. Note this case did involve the '596. (AO-120 form)
  • Later CommWorks campaign cases (e.g., Vyve Broadband, CommScope, Zyxel, TI, NXP, STMicro) all resolved by voluntary or joint dismissal — several with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs, and none producing an invalidity or non-infringement adjudication on this family.
• There is no Federal Circuit appeal on this docket that I could find.

Most probable posture: settled and dismissed (likely a confidential license), pre-Markman, in 2021 — but I am labeling this an inference, not a finding, because I could not retrieve the terminating entry.

---

7. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM on the '596 patent itself. What exists in the family:

• Ex parte reexamination of U.S. 6,832,249 ('249), requested by Unified Patents, LLC — granted 2021-12-23, roughly one month after filing, with the examiner finding substantial new questions of patentability (Unified portal: 90014909; Unified representatives Raghav Bajaj, Haynes and Boone, and in-house counsel Ashraf Fawzy and Michelle Aspen). Unified's own summary notes the '249 had been asserted against Mediacom, among others (Skybeam, AMG Technology, Consolidated Communications, Cable One, and later Comcast/RCN). (Unified Patents)
• I could not tie any AIA trial to the Mediacom case's asserted patents, and therefore no IPR-driven stay occurred here (consistent with the absence of any stay motion).

---

8. Related but distinct Mediacom matters (do not conflate)

• Sprint Communications Co. v. Mediacom Communications Corp. (D. Del., C.A. 18-363, VoIP/"VOP" patents — not the CommWorks patents). The D. Del. record includes extensive briefing on Mediacom's express/implied-license and equitable-estoppel defenses and MIL practice. This is a separate patent family and separate plaintiff; the "motion in limine"/pretrial-order materials that surface in searches on "Mediacom" belong here, not to the CommWorks case, and should not be cited as developments in 1:20-cv-07529. (D. Del. opinion)
• DigiMedia Tech, LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp. (N.D. Ga. 4:22-cv-00114-CDL, filed 2022-07-14) — a different plaintiff (IPInvestments Group affiliate) asserting four acquired Intellectual Ventures video patents. Distinct from CommWorks. (Lexology)

---

9. What I could not verify (and how to close the gaps)

1. The terminating docket entry for 1:20-cv-07529 (dismissal/stipulation/settlement) and its date and prejudice status.
2. Whether the asserted patent set was narrowed from the initial family to the '596 alone.
3. Whether any IPR on the '596 was ever filed (e.g., by Mediacom or Unified) — none surfaced, but my PTAB search was not exhaustive.
4. Whether the Mediacom case was bundled into a global CommWorks–Mediacom/Midco license alongside other campaign defendants.

To close these: pull the full PACER docket for 1:20-cv-07529 (entries after 2020-11-12), the S.D.N.Y. AO-120 report on patent actions for this case, and the PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Case Tracking System filtered on U.S. 7,463,596.

---

Corrected chronology (verified dates only)

2020-09-14 complaint → 2020-09-29/30 Mediacom extension granted (answer due 11/12) → 2020-10-02/22 CommWorks PHV admission → 2020-10-05 initial conference set for 11/19 → 2020-11-12 joint pre-scheduling letter, Rule 7.1, and Mediacom answer + counterclaims → [no further retrievable entries; docket snapshot last refreshed 2021-05-17] → present posture: unresolved/unconfirmed; likely early disposition pre-Markman.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Good progress. Now let me dig into the specific attorneys and firm identified.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Bottom line: CommWorks was represented in this S.D.N.Y. action by its long-time patent boutique Kheyfits Belenky LLP, which maintained a New York office and also litigated the parallel CommWorks suits (RCN, Comcast, Cable One, etc.) out of Austin and San Francisco. Three attorneys confirmed on the docket: Andrey Belenky, Hanna Glomska Cohen (both New York), and Brandon G. Moore (Austin, admitted pro hac vice). The firm's founding partner, Dmitry A. Kheyfits, was the architect of the CommWorks campaign and is the most likely complaint signatory, but I could not confirm a standalone ECF notice of appearance for him on the retrieved docket excerpt — flagged below.

Sourcing notes and caveats

• Firm identification: Reported contemporaneously as "CommWorks is represented by Kheyfits Belenky LLP" in coverage of the Sept. 14, 2020 complaints against Mediacom and RCN. (theipcrew.com/Law Street Media, Sept. 17, 2020 — https://theipcrew.com/tag/commworks/)
• Docket confirmation: The Justia docket summary for Commworks Solutions, LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp., 1:20-cv-07529 (S.D.N.Y.) (Judge Lorna G. Schofield) shows the appearances and pro hac vice admission cited above — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv07529/[544137](/patent/544137). Dkt. 18 (joint letter re pre-scheduling conference) was filed by Andrey Belenky for CommWorks, indicating he held the active lead-counsel role.
• On Kheyfits: The Justia "Represented By" field for the plaintiff is truncated in the retrieved page but lists, alongside Belenky and Moore, an entry beginning "Dmitry A. …" — consistent with Dmitry A. Kheyfits, but I could not verify the full name on a clean PACER docket. Treat his entry as likely but unconfirmed for this specific case.
• Local counsel: No separate New York local-counsel firm appears on the docket. Kheyfits Belenky's own New York office (Belenky, Cohen) served that function, with Austin-based Moore admitted pro hac vice.
• No sealed/in-house counsel identified. CommWorks is a subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC / Brainbox Innovations, LLC and does not appear to have used a named in-house attorney on this docket.
• Docket currency: The retrieved docket was last updated May 17, 2021 and ends with the November 2020 pleadings. Any later substitution, withdrawal, or dismissal order is not confirmed in the sources available to me — the outcome of this case remains unverified.
• Do not confuse with Sprint v. Mediacom: A separate, unrelated Sprint Communications v. Mediacom VoIP patent case (D. Del.) exists; its counsel have no bearing on this S.D.N.Y. matter.
• Later firm changes (for context only): In CommWorks' 2023–2026 enforcement wave, representation shifted to firms such as Rozier Hardt McDonough (Carey Rozier, Jonathan Hardt, James McDonough, Kenneth Matuszewski), Duane Morris, and Orrick. Those are not counsel of record in the 2020 Mediacom case.
• Patent-list discrepancy: The Sept. 2020 complaints asserted nine patents (including the '596), though the case metadata here lists only U.S. Pat. No. 7,463,596. Worth noting if claim scope matters to your analysis.

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

The docket shows the answer was filed by "Amr Aly" for Mediacom. Let me dig deeper.

Let me find the actual filings and signature blocks for Mediacom's counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Mediacom Communications Corporation

Bottom line: The free/published docket for CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp., No. 1:20-cv-07529 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) identifies one attorney of record for Mediacom: Amr O. Aly, who filed both the Answer/counterclaim and Mediacom's corporate disclosure statement. The signature block of the answer itself sits behind the PACER paywall and I could not retrieve it, so I cannot rule out additional attorneys (e.g., a Jenner associate) whose names don't surface in the free docket text.

Attorney identified on the docket

Amr O. Aly — lead counsel (defendant Mediacom)

• Firm / office: Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY (919 Third Ave.). Some third‑party directories (e.g., LawTally, LawyerDB) list Aly at Mayer Brown LLP in New York — a firm where he previously practiced; the two bios appear to be recycled from different points in his career. Jenner & Block's own current bio and 2022–2025 firm news items confirm his Jenner partnership in the relevant period, and his Jenner bio expressly lists Mediacom patent representations. I flag the Mayer Brown listing as an unresolved source conflict.
• Docket appearances / role: The only Mediacom-side entries in the public docket are attributed to him:
  • Dkt. 20 (Nov. 12, 2020) — ANSWER to the Complaint, with jury demand, and COUNTERCLAIM against CommWorks, "Document filed by Mediacom Communications Corporation … (Aly, Amr)."
  • Dkt. 19 (Nov. 12, 2020) — Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement (no corporate parent).
  • Court correspondence to Judge Schofield is listed under an "Amr O." signature, and a Sept. 29, 2020 letter motion for extension of time (Dkt. 12, granted Sept. 30, 2020, setting Mediacom's answer deadline at Nov. 12, 2020) was submitted on Mediacom's behalf.
• Notable patent litigation experience: Lead counsel for Mediacom in Global Interactive Media, Inc. v. Mediacom Communications Corp. (S.D.N.Y.) and Network Congestion Solutions LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp. (D. Del.); also lead counsel in Uniloc USA v. Avaya/ShoreTel (E.D. Tex.), Odyssey Wireless v. Motorola Mobility (S.D. Cal.), Nonend Inventions v. AT&T Mobility (E.D. Tex.), Network‑1 Security Solutions v. Alcatel‑Lucent (Motorola Solutions, E.D. Tex.), and Weatherproof Wireless v. Digi International (D. Del.). Registered patent attorney (USPTO) and himself a named inventor (U.S. Pat. No. 4,999,225). Admitted in New York, Connecticut, S.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., and the Federal Circuit; recognized in Best Lawyers (Litigation–Patent, 2024–2026) and IAM Patent 1000.

What I could not verify

• No separate local counsel appears. Aly is admitted in S.D.N.Y., so no pro hac vice motion or local‑counsel appearance was required for him. The only pro hac vice motion in the docket (Dkt. 15, granted Oct. 22, 2020) was for plaintiff's counsel Brandon G. Moore — not for Mediacom.
• No in‑house counsel entered an appearance in this case per the public docket.
• Full signature block / any additional Jenner attorneys on Dkt. 20 and Dkt. 19 are not visible in free sources (Justia's docket was last retrieved May 17, 2021 and truncates the filing text). Confirming a complete list would require pulling Dkt. 20 from PACER.
• Mediacom's counsel in other matters should not be conflated with this one. In the parallel Sprint Communications v. Mediacom patent litigation (D. Del.), Mediacom's pretrial papers were signed by Baker Botts LLP (Houston, e.g., the firm's Mediacom–Sprint case email address in D.I. 592/598). Baker Botts does not appear on this S.D.N.Y. docket, so I would not list it as counsel here absent a PACER confirmation.
• Case status/posture: Not confirmed in retrieved sources; the last free-docket activity is from 2021. This is consistent with an early settlement, but I have no source confirming a dismissal, so I am not asserting one.

Context on the plaintiff's side (for contrast, not asked but relevant to docket reading)

CommWorks was represented by Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Hanna Glomska Cohen), with Brandon G. Moore admitted pro hac vice (Dkt. 15/17). CommWorks later used Rozier Hardt McDonough / Insight PLLC in subsequent suits.

Primary sources: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv07529/544137; Jenner & Block bio, https://www.jenner.com/en/people/amr-o-aly (PDF bio: https://jenner.com/pdf/Person/1126); Best Lawyers profile, https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/amr-aly/[131513](/patent/131513); LawTally (Mayer Brown) bio, https://lawtally.com/lawyers/amr-aly/; Law Street Media/ThIP Crew coverage of the Sept. 2020 filings (plaintiff's counsel), https://theipcrew.com/news/commworks-solutions-sues-for-communications-patent-infringement/.