CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. MediaTek Inc.

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

Key finding to verify: MediaTek's financials say this case was dismissed in Dec. 2024. Let me dig deeper.

Case Overview: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00701 (E.D. Tex.)

⚠️ Status discrepancy up front. The case metadata in this prompt lists the matter as "active." The better-sourced record indicates it was voluntarily dismissed on December 12, 2024, roughly 3.5 months after filing. MediaTek's Q4 2024 unconsolidated financial report states: "CommWorks Solutions LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against the Company on August 27, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,177,285, 7,463,596, 7,911,979, RE44,904, 7,027,465 and 6,891,807. Pursuant to the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal, the court dismissed the claims against the Company on December 12, 2024" (MediaTek Q4 2024 financials). Third-party docket analytics also show the docket as "Closed" (Ex Parte case page). I could not retrieve the underlying Rule 41(a) notice or dismissal order text, and the public docket mirrors (Justia, RPX Empower) appear stale as of the last crawl. Treat "dismissed without prejudice on plaintiff's motion, Dec. 12, 2024" as the working conclusion, with the metadata's "active" flag as an unresolved inconsistency. Also note a second metadata gap: the prompt lists only 6,891,807 as the patent at issue, but the complaint's Exhibit list shows six patents (Exs. A–F: '285, '596, '979, RE'904, '465, '807) (Justia docket).

Parties and accused technology. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with a registered office at 44 Milton Ave., Suite 254, Alpharetta, GA — a patent-holding/licensing vehicle, not an operating company. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies CommWorks as a Non-Practicing Entity asserting "acquired patents" (Stanford NPE DB); a Rule 7.1 disclosure filed in a later CommWorks action identifies its corporate parent as Brainbox Innovations, LLC (CourtListener, CommWorks v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716). MediaTek Inc. is a Taiwan-domiciled fabless semiconductor designer and one of the world's largest suppliers of Wi-Fi connectivity and smartphone SoCs; the complaint named only the Taiwanese parent, not subsidiary MediaTek USA Inc. The accused instrumentalities are MediaTek chips, SoCs and module-level products implementing standardized Wi-Fi features: (a) Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality in consumer/IoT connectivity chips such as the MT7688, MT7628, MT7620 and MT7922 (mapped to the '807/'285/'596/'979 family), and (b) Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) / 802.11-2007+ QoS functionality, e.g., the MT7921 (mapped to the '465/RE'904 family) (complaint analysis, Ex Parte). In other words, the theory was that MediaTek's compliance with ubiquitous Wi-Fi Alliance certification profiles — not any custom feature — constitutes infringement, with the "accused product" being a component sold into routers, gateways and IoT devices rather than a finished end-user product.

The asserted patents (all early-2000s priority, and per the complaint all owned exclusively by CommWorks): U.S. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" — an access point tracks an operating parameter (power-on / onset of transmission) of a wireless device and provisions it if that event falls within an activatable time interval; accused claim 17 / WPS. U.S. 7,177,285 and 7,463,596 (same title/family; '285 accused at claim 1, '596 at claim 1) and U.S. 7,911,979, "Time Based Access Provisioning System and Process" (claim 1) — continuations off the '807 disclosure covering the same time-window provisioning concept. U.S. 7,027,465 and RE44,904, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" ('465 claim 1; RE'904 claim 1) — extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame, comparing it to a search pattern, and forwarding matches to a high-priority queue without parsing upper-layer protocols; the RE'904 is a May 20, 2014 reissue in the same family as the '465 (the reissue relationship is stated in third-party complaint analysis and is consistent with shared title/specification language, though I did not independently confirm the reissue lineage against the USPTO reissue record). The complaint pre-emptively pleaded Alice/§101 eligibility and willfulness, alleging MediaTek had a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (willful blindness) — a notable pleading feature since none of these disclosures is a post-Alice "computerized" invention.

Procedural posture and why this case matters. Filed August 27, 2024 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (case no. 2:24-cv-00701; summons issued and AO 120 filed Aug. 28, 2024). Marshall/Gilstrap mattered for the usual reasons — a deep patent docket, a well-developed local patent rules regime, and historically plaintiff-favorable case timelines — and because MediaTek, as a foreign (Taiwanese) corporation, is subject to suit in any judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) and § 1400(b), making venue objections essentially unavailable. That combination (foreign chipmaker + E.D. Tex.) is the standard optimized filing configuration. Substantively, the case is notable for three reasons. First, supply-chain escalation: CommWorks spent 2020–2023 suing ISPs and router OEMs (RCN in S.D.N.Y., Charter and Extreme Networks in W.D. Tex., Consolidated Communications, TRENDnet in C.D. Cal., EarthLink, VTech, AVM, DrayTek, Mikrotik), and it had previously treated MediaTek only as a third-party discovery target — in CommWorks v. RCN, CommWorks moved in W.D. Tex. to compel MediaTek source code, with MediaTek arguing the code sat with MediaTek-Taiwan, and the magistrate transferred the motion to the issuing court (CommWorks Sols. v. RCN Telecom Servs., No. A-22-MC-00133-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2022)). Suing the chipmaker directly in 2024 was a move up the value chain. Second, standardization-as-infringement: the case illustrates the risk that FTO analysis of Wi-Fi Alliance-mandated WPS and WMM features is effectively industry-wide, since the asserted claims read on standard behavior rather than vendor-specific design. Third, litigation economics: the December 2024 dismissal fits the campaign's demonstrated pattern of short-lived filings resolving before claim construction — TRENDnet was dismissed with prejudice after 259 days (PatSnap case study), Texas Instruments was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2025 following a joint stay/settlement motion, and EarthLink was dismissed in October 2025 — the classic licensing-first, nuisance-value-settlement playbook, also reflected in the MediaTek report's list of other NPE suits terminated by voluntary dismissal (InnoMemory, Deepwell IP, ServStor). One weakness in the record: I found no PTAB challenge to any of the six asserted patents; the only CommWorks-related PTAB proceeding surfaced is Unified Patents' IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846, which is not asserted here, and its exhibits include a CommWorks settlement/license agreement. So the dismissal was not IPR-driven on this record — but I was unable to complete a full IPR sweep for the asserted patents before running out of search steps, so treat "no IPR" as unverified rather than confirmed.

Verification notes / open items: (1) The Rule 41(a) notice and dismissal order for 2:24-cv-00701 were not retrievable from free docket mirrors; any with-prejudice term is unknown. (2) All plaintiff-side counsel of record identified are from the CommWorks campaign team — James F. McDonough III, Carey M. Rozier, Jonathan L. Hardt and Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC) — as reflected in parallel CommWorks dockets; MediaTek's counsel in this specific case is not confirmed. (3) The patents' pre-CommWorks chain of title (the "CommWorks" name derives from a legacy telecom equipment lineage, but I did not verify an assignment chain to 3Com, UTStarcom, or any other original assignee) is unsourced here and should not be assumed.

I'll research the docket and parallel proceedings before drafting the chronological development list.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00701 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line, stated up front: this is a short-lived, pre-answer case. It went from complaint to voluntary dismissal in three and a half months without ever reaching a responsive pleading, a motion, claim construction, discovery of consequence, trial, or appeal. There is no merits adjudication of any asserted claim in this docket, and no PTAB proceeding on any of the six asserted patents. Everything of legal substance about these patents resides in the campaign around this case, not inside it.

⚠️ Step-limit caveat: I hit my tool-call budget while attempting a full PTAB sweep and a PACER/CourtListener RECAP pull for docket entries after Filing 4. Docket entries 5+ for this case are therefore not verified from a primary source; I flag each such gap below rather than filling it.

---

I. Pre-suit context (2020–2024)

Strategic read: the 2024 complaint against MediaTek is a deliberate move up the supply chain from ISP/router-OEM defendants (RCN, Comcast, Charter, Extreme, Consolidated, TRENDnet, EarthLink) to the Wi-Fi chip supplier whose standardized WPS/WMM functionality is the alleged instrumentality.

---

II. Filing and initial pleadings (Aug. 2024)

Pleading features of substance (from complaint analysis, Ex Parte complaint analysis):

• Claim mapping: '285 claim 1, '596 claim 1, '979 claim 1, '807 claim 17 (WPS family — MT7688/MT7628/MT7620/MT7922); RE44,904 claim 1 and '465 claim 1 (WMM/802.11-2007+ QoS — MT7921).
• Pre-emptive § 101 pleading: the complaint affirmatively pleads that each patent's claims "are not directed to an abstract idea" — a per-patent Alice anticipatory defense, unusual in an NPE complaint.
• Willfulness theory: MediaTek alleged to have "a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others, including instructing its employees to not review the patents of others," i.e., willful blindness, plus induced/contributory infringement directed at downstream router/IoT users.
• Note the metadata gap carried forward: the case metadata lists only '807 as "patent at issue"; the complaint asserts six patents. The metadata is incomplete, and the "active" status flag is contradicted by the record (below).

Correction to a common assumption: the complaint named only MediaTek Inc. (Taiwan parent), not MediaTek USA Inc. MediaTek is a foreign corporation, so venue/personal-jurisdiction objections under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(3) and 1400(b) were essentially foreclosed — consistent with the E.D. Tex./Marshall filing choice.

---

III. Responsive pleading by MediaTek — none found on the public record

• No answer and no counterclaims are documented. A counterclaim would appear as a docket entry after the ~21-day (or extended) response deadline; none is reflected in any mirror I could reach (Justia's last crawl is 2024-08-28; the Ex Parte and RPX mirrors show the case only as docketed and later "Closed").
• Not confirmed: whether MediaTek filed an extension of time, a Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion, or an answer-then-dismissal stipulation. This gap matters because in the immediately following CommWorks case against Qualcomm, Qualcomm filed a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue on 2025-02-28, and CommWorks voluntarily dismissed four days later (2025-03-04; order 2025-03-06) (Justia, CommWorks v. Qualcomm, 2:25-cv-00154). That is suggestive of the campaign's response pattern to dispositive threshold motions, but I have no source showing MediaTek filed one in this case. Do not assume it.
• MediaTek's counsel in this specific case is unconfirmed. The only confirmed counsel of record are CommWorks-side campaign attorneys (James F. McDonough III, Carey M. Rozier, Jonathan L. Hardt, Kenneth A. Matuszewski — Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, per the not-yet-updated docket).

---

IV. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

There is no record of any motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, motion to stay pending IPR, motion for summary judgment, or § 101 motion in 2:24-cv-00701. The case terminated before the point at which E.D. Tex. local patent rules would have generated a Docket Control Order, infringement contentions, or an invalidity-contentions deadline. Given MediaTek's demonstrated willingness to challenge patents at the PTAB (see §VIII), the absence of any MediaTek IPR petition against these six patents is itself a notable non-event — but see the verification gap in §VIII.

---

V. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

No Markman hearing, no Phillips briefing, no claim-construction order. Zero claims of any of the six asserted patents were construed. No stay-pending-IPR dynamic arose because no IPR was filed. The patents' substantive scope remains unadjudicated in this venue.

---

VI. Discovery milestones — none of strategic significance

No scheduling order, no contentions, no discovery on the public docket. Contrast with the RCN matter, where MediaTek source code was the discovery flashpoint — the very friction that plausibly motivated suing the chipmaker directly. That discovery fight never materialized here.

---

VII. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion, no appeal. No § 285 fee litigation occurred (compare CommWorks v. TRENDnet, where dismissal was with prejudice with each side bearing its own fees/costs per the parties' joint request — PatSnap case study, C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-08048).

---

VIII. Final disposition: voluntary dismissal (Dec. 12, 2024)

Corroboration: third-party analytics list the docket as "Closed" — Ex Parte case page. MediaTek's report groups this matter with cases terminated by dismissal, and states that for the dismissed/terminated matters it can determine the outcome (i.e., no residual exposure).

Open items on the disposition:

1. Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice is unknown. The Rule 41 notice and dismissal order text were not retrievable from free mirrors (Justia's crawl stops at Filing 4). A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice filed before a responsive pleading is presumptively without prejudice; if the dismissal came via stipulation under 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or court order under 41(a)(2), the terms could differ. In the same campaign, the Axon Networks dismissal was expressly without prejudice (C.D. Cal., notice 2024-12-20), while the TRENDnet and Texas Instruments dismissals were with prejudice (C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-08048; E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00439, order 2025-07-15). So prejudice terms in this campaign cut both ways — do not infer.
2. Whether consideration changed hands (a license vs. a walk-away) is undisclosed. The MediaTek report does not mention a license; nothing in the public record shows one.
3. No appeal was taken by either side (nothing in the Federal Circuit or the district docket).

Metadata conflict, restated: the case metadata says "active." The better-sourced record — defendant's audited financial report plus two docket aggregators — says closed on 2024-12-12. Treat "dismissed on plaintiff's motion, Dec. 12, 2024" as the working conclusion and the "active" flag as stale metadata.

---

IX. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

Finding: no IPR or PGR was ever filed on U.S. 6,891,807; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979; 7,027,465; or RE44,904, so far as I could determine. Consequently, PTAB activity had no effect on this litigation — the case ended on the plaintiff's own motion, not in response to any institution decision, FWD, or estoppel exposure.

Two caveats and one useful data point:

• Verification gap (material): I exhausted my search budget before completing a systematic PTAB sweep of all six patent numbers. "No IPR" is a reasoned negative, not a confirmed one. Note that all six patents are expired or near-expiry (the complaint itself pleads inducement only "until the '465 patent's expiry," meaning the '465 lapsed pre-suit) — expired patents are unattractive IPR targets, which supports the negative finding.
• Nearest CommWorks PTAB precedent (different patent): Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297, on U.S. 8,923,846 ("Recovery Techniques in Mobile Networks") — not asserted here. Instituted 2022-02-14; oral hearing 2022-11-16; Final Written Decision 2023-02-13 holding claims 1–6, 9–13, and 16–20 unpatentable. Petitioner argued collateral estoppel from a reexamination that cancelled claims of related U.S. 7,769,374. The record also includes a CommWorks Settlement and License Agreement as an exhibit (Docket Alarm IPR2021-01297 documents). Relevance: it establishes that CommWorks' portfolio has been invalidated at the PTAB before, and that CommWorks licenses in settlement — but it is a different patent family from the six asserted here, and I found no IPR against the Wi-Fi provisioning/QoS family.
• MediaTek as a sophistication counterpoint: MediaTek actively IPRs patents asserted against it, e.g., it filed and then terminated IPR2024-00150 (U.S. 7,292,835) by joint motion after settling the ParkerVision W.D. Tex. case in Aug. 2024 (Joint Motion to Terminate, IPR2024-00150), and per ParkerVision's 10-K it ran a sequence of IPRs against ParkerVision's '686 and '593 patents. So MediaTek had the capability and demonstrated appetite to file IPRs — which makes the absence of any MediaTek IPR against the six CommWorks patents analytically interesting. The most likely explanations (unverified) are that the case was resolved too quickly to file, and that the patents' expiry made IPRs uneconomic.

---

X. The parallel-actions frame (what actually resolved the campaign)

Because this case has no merits record, its legal significance lies in the surrounding docket. Chronology of the contemporaneous CommWorks campaign:

Pattern conclusion: the MediaTek dismissal is not an outlier — it is the template. CommWorks files multi-patent Wi-Fi complaints against deep-pocket targets, extracts a quick resolution or withdraws, and never gets to claim construction. TRENDnet went 259 days to a with-prejudice dismissal with no Markman; Qualcomm collapsed in 26 days upon a venue motion; TI settled in ~81 days. The MediaTek case's 107-day life and Rule 41(a) exit fit squarely.

---

XI. Additional metadata conflicts and verification notes

1. Patent count: metadata says one patent ('807); complaint asserts six. Metadata should be corrected.
2. Status: metadata says "active"; record says closed 2024-12-12.
3. Docket entries 5+ unverified. Justia's crawl ends 2024-08-28. The specific Rule 41(a) instrument (notice vs. stipulation), any extension-of-time entries, the dismissal order's prejudice terms, and MediaTek's litigation counsel of record are all unretrieved. PACER/JPML access would be required to close these.
4. No IPR on the asserted patents is my finding but not confirmed — the PTAB sweep was truncated. This is the single most important open item for anyone assessing invalidity risk on this family, given IPR2021-01297's adverse FWD on a related CommWorks patent.
5. No appeal, no re-filing against MediaTek, and no license agreement are shown anywhere in the public record; treat a confidential settlement as possible but unsourced.
6. Not established: the pre-CommWorks chain of title for the six patents (the "CommWorks" name traces to the 3Com/UTStarcom divestiture lineage — 3Com's FY2007 10-K confirms the May 23, 2003 sale of the CommWorks division — but no assignment chain to the current Alpharetta, GA LLC is verified here).

Net assessment: the legal holding of this docket is a null set — no motion practice, no construction, no judgment, no PTAB. Its value to an analyst is as a campaign datapoint: a 107-day, pre-answer, Rule 41(a) exit by a litigation-funded NPE against a foreign chipmaker, with the accused technology being Wi-Fi Alliance-mandated WPS and WMM behavior, and with the asserted patents never tested on validity or scope in any forum.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record for this case.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Bottom line. On the plaintiff side this is a single-attorney, single-firm representation. The only attorney I can confirm as counsel of record is James F. McDonough III of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Atlanta, GA), who signed and filed the complaint (Dkt. 1) and the AO 120 notice (Dkt. 3), and who is the sole "Represented By" entry for CommWorks on the docket. Because the case was voluntarily dismissed roughly 3.5 months after filing and before any answer, the appearance record is unusually thin — likely no NOTICE of Attorney Appearance was ever filed by anyone else, which is normal in CommWorks's short-lived filings. Two other Rozier Hardt attorneys (Hardt and Rozier) and one additional name from the prior section are probable but unconfirmed for this docket; I flag each below rather than assert it.

Confirmed

Sourcing for the above. The Justia docket entry for Filing 1 and Filing 3 both carry the filer tag "(McDonough, James)," and the same docket's party block lists "Represented By: James Francis McDonough, III" under Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC (Justia docket, 2:2024cv00701). Firm name, Atlanta office address and direct contact are confirmed on the firm's own attorney page (rhmtrial.com/attorneys) and in a U.S. Supreme Court service affidavit in which McDonough is identified as "Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, Counsel for Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC, 659 Auburn Avenue NE, Unit 254, Atlanta, GA 30312" (Nextremity Solutions v. —, No. 24-726 amicus affidavit, Feb. 6, 2025).

Probable but not confirmed on this docket

Two structural observations worth flagging

1. No separate local counsel appears to have been engaged. Although E.D. Tex. practice often pairs out-of-state NPE counsel with a Texas local-counsel firm, the docket shows only the Atlanta-based Rozier Hardt McDonough firm filing. This matches the pattern in CommWorks's other E.D. Tex. cases (EarthLink, BT Wearables, Nearby Systems) and the DataCloud line, where the same firm files directly. That said, I could not pull the complete attorney list, so I cannot rule out a later-filed appearance.

2. The thin record is a function of the dismissal, not of missing research. MediaTek's Q4 2024 report states the court dismissed the claims on plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal on December 12, 2024 (MediaTek Q4 2024 Unconsolidated Report) — i.e., under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any responsive pleading, which is exactly the posture that leaves a docket with a complaint, a summons, an AO 120, and virtually no attorney appearances. Consistent with that, no defense counsel is shown on the public docket for MediaTek in this case, so I have no adversary-side appearance to cross-check against.

Open items / limitations (be explicit)

• The full PACER docket for 2:24-cv-00701 was not retrievable. Justia's mirror is stale — it states "This docket was last retrieved on August 28, 2024" and contains only Dkts. 1–3 (Justia). RPX Empower shows the case but its detail pages did not render counsel in my retrievals (RPX Empower), and the Ex Parte analytics page lists the case as "Closed" without an attorney roster (Ex Parte). So the attorney roster above should be read as confirmed-as-of-Dkt.-3, not as a certified complete list.
• The complaint PDF text itself was not returned in my searches, so I could not read the signature block verbatim (which would settle whether Hardt, Rozier, or Matuszewski also signed, and the firm's stated address of record). The Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 3 filer tags are the strongest available proxy.
• Nothing is sealed. There is no indication of sealed filings or sealed counsel in this matter; the gap is docket staleness, not sealing.
• Metadata cross-check: the prior section's counsel list was sourced from "parallel CommWorks dockets" rather than this docket, and that is exactly where I could not close the loop. Only McDonough's representation here is directly evidenced.

Practical takeaway for anyone serving or contacting plaintiff's counsel: direct all correspondence to James F. McDonough III, Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, 659 Auburn Ave. NE, Unit 254, Atlanta, GA 30312, jim@rhmtrial.com, (404) 564-1866 — he is the only attorney whose appearance in 2:24-cv-00701 is documented.

I'll research MediaTek's counsel of record in this case.

Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00701 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: I could not identify any counsel of record for MediaTek in this case, and the available record affirmatively suggests none ever appeared.

This is a negative finding, not a gap I can paper over with a plausible-sounding name, so I want to be precise about what the record shows and what it doesn't.

What the docket actually contains. Every free docket mirror I could reach shows the same three-entry docket, all plaintiff-side, all dated August 27–28, 2024, and no defendant appearance:

Both Justia and the Ex Parte analytics page are explicit that the docket "was last retrieved on August 28, 2024" / shows the case as "Closed," with no attorney field populated on the defendant side (Justia docket; Ex Parte case page). The only "Represented By" tag on the entire docket is McDonough for the plaintiff. RPX Empower's page for the matter also surfaces no defendant counsel in the retrievable content (RPX Empower).

Why "no appearance" is the likely reality, not a crawl artifact. The case was dismissed December 12, 2024 — roughly 3.5 months after filing, per MediaTek's own Q4 2024 report (MediaTek Q4 2024 Unconsolidated Report). A near-immediate voluntary dismissal before any responsive pleading is exactly the pattern in which a defendant never enters an appearance at all: under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss by notice without a court order so long as the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — precisely the procedural posture here. The MediaTek report's phrasing ("Pursuant to the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal, the court dismissed the claims") is consistent with either a 41(a)(1) notice or a 41(a)(2) order, and I was unable to retrieve the underlying notice or dismissal order text to distinguish them. Caveat: if the dismissal was in fact under 41(a)(2) with a signed order, that would imply MediaTek had appeared (or at least that the court retained jurisdiction to condition dismissal), which would mean an appearance exists on the docket after the Aug. 28, 2024 crawl cutoff that I simply cannot see for free. I am flagging that as the one live scenario in which a defendant-side attorney is on this docket.

What I could not rule out. My search steps were exhausted before I could pull a current PACER docket sheet (the authoritative source) or check whether MediaTek filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss for improper venue/§ 101 or an extension of time. Any of those would carry a signature block. The docket entries numbered 4 and above are simply not visible in any free source I reached, and I did not find a single reported opinion, Law360 item, or firm press release connecting a defendant-side lawyer to this docket.

---

Context: MediaTek's known outside patent litigation counsel (NOT counsel of record in this case — do not cite as such)

Because the case-specific answer is empty, the useful adjacent information is who MediaTek generally uses, so you can target a PACER pull or a conflicts check. I am labeling each of these as unverified for this docket:

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan — MediaTek appears as a listed client on the firm bios of John T. McKee (NY; E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex./ITC trial practice, top-100 PTAB petitioner counsel; bio) and Kevin Hardy (multi-jurisdictional SEP/FRAND trial practice, E.D. Tex. jury trials; bio). These bios establish an ongoing MediaTek relationship, not an appearance in 2:24-cv-00701.
• Dickinson Wright — identified as the firm of record in a different MediaTek matter, the NTT/Nippon Telegraph & Telephone dispute in E.D. Tex. and IPR2020-01607 (per a third-party expert CV, Spanish-language version, at edwinhernandez.com). Weak sourcing; treat as a lead only.
• Frost Brown Todd LLP — John M. Hintz — appears as MediaTek-side counsel in a later E.D. Tex. matter, GenghisComm Holdings, LLC v. MediaTek North America Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01070 (PACER Monitor). Same caveat: different case, different year, and the snippet's attribution is ambiguous as between MediaTek USA and a co-party.

Note also that in E.D. Tex. practice, a foreign defendant of MediaTek's profile would ordinarily pair national patent trial counsel with a local counsel admitted to the Eastern District bar (the district's local rules and Judge Gilstrap's practice expectations contemplate this), so if an appearance does exist on the unretrieved portion of the docket, expect a two-firm signature block.

---

What would resolve this

To close it out authoritatively:

1. Pull the PACER docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00701 (last retrieved free on 8/28/2024) and check docket entries 4 onward — specifically for a Notice of Attorney Appearance, an Agreed Motion for Extension of Time, or a Motion to Dismiss, any of which would name MediaTek's counsel.
2. Order the Rule 41 dismissal filing (the notice/motion and any order) — plaintiff-side filed, but the certificate of service and any joint stipulation will list defense counsel if one had appeared.
3. Check the Tranaco/MediaTek Taiwan filings — MediaTek's quarterly reports describe this matter but, per my review, do not name litigation counsel.

Verification status

• Confirmed: No counsel of record for MediaTek is visible in any free docket source; the retrievable docket contains only plaintiff-side entries through 8/28/2024 and the case was dismissed 12/12/2024.
• Unverified: Whether a defendant appearance exists at docket entries ≥ 4 after the 8/28/2024 crawl cutoff; the identity of any MediaTek in-house attorney handling the matter; the precise dismissal mechanism (41(a)(1) vs. 41(a)(2)).
• Explicitly not asserted: I have not named any attorney as counsel of record in this case, because I found no filing that puts one there.