CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc.

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

Key finding: the docket shows a voluntary dismissal in March 2025. Let me dig deeper.

Let me verify the dismissal details, the patents actually asserted, and CommWorks' background.

Important lead: a parallel/refiled case in W.D. Tex. (7:25-cv-00101). Let me verify.

I'll research this case across docket sources, court records, and PTAB filings.

Important development found: the E.D. Tex. case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed and refiled in W.D. Tex. Let me dig deeper.

I'll research this case and its counsel of record.

Bottom line

CommWorks Solutions, LLC's counsel of record in CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00154 (E.D. Tex.) all come from a single firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC ("RHM") — no outside/local E.D. Tex. firm and no in-house counsel appear on the docket. Four attorneys entered appearances on the day of filing (Feb. 6, 2025). The case was voluntarily dismissed on March 4, 2025 (Dkt. 13) and closed by Judge Gilstrap on March 6, 2025 (Dkt. 14), so the appearance list is short and final; briefs and motions, if any, would be minimal.

Docket sources: Justia docket, 2:25-cv-00154; RPX Empower.

Counsel of record for the plaintiff

Important caveats / sourcing notes

• No formal "lead counsel" designation appears on this docket. What I can source is that McDonough filed the substantive plaintiff filings (Dkts. 2 and 13) and that all four attorneys filed notices of appearance on Feb. 6, 2025 (Dkts. 3–6). Calling McDonough "lead" is an inference from filing practice across the CommWorks campaign, not a docket label.
• Office locations for Rozier and Matuszewski are not confirmed in the material I retrieved. The two addresses verified from filings are Atlanta (McDonough) and Austin (Hardt) — CourtListener parties page, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00363. I did not find a verified office for Rozier/Matuszewski, so I won't guess.
• No separate E.D. Tex. local-counsel firm (e.g., a Marshall/Tyler firm) appears on this docket. Whether that reflects a Local Rule AT-2 posture or simply the case's rapid dismissal, I can't confirm.
• No in-house counsel for CommWorks appears. CommWorks is a Georgia LLC whose corporate parent is disclosed as Brainbox Innovations, LLC (see the Rule 7.1 statement in CommWorks v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716) — no officer/director name surfaced for this case.
• No sealed filings or counsel issues: the docket was retrieved through Mar. 7, 2025 and shows no sealing, no pro hac vice motions, and no withdrawal.

Case context relevant to counsel's work here

Qualcomm and Qualcomm Technologies appeared through Richard S. Zembek and Daniel Alejandro Prati (Norton Rose Fulbright) and moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) on Feb. 28, 2025 (Dkt. 11). Four days later CommWorks filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 13), and Judge Gilstrap closed the case (Dkt. 14). CommWorks then refiled against Qualcomm in the W.D. Tex. (7:25-cv-00101), where the complaint is signed by McDonough and Hardt, each marked "*Admitted to the Western District of Texas." That refiling pattern — E.D. Tex. filing, venue motion, voluntary dismissal, W.D. Tex. refiling — is consistent across RHM's CommWorks campaign.

One flag on the case metadata: the E.D. Tex. docket's complaint exhibits (Dkt. 1) run to patents such as 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979; RE44,904; and 7,027,465, and the '807 patent is more prominently asserted in the parallel W.D. Tex. action (7:25-cv-00101, Count VI, asserting at least claim 17 of the '807 patent against WPS functionality). The parties, court, case number and the '807 patent identification in the prompt all check out; the exhibit list discrepancy is worth noting for accuracy.

I'll research the defense counsel for Qualcomm in this case. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Key docket findings are in. Let me verify the defense attorneys' firm affiliations and roles.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — Qualcomm Inc. & Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line: Only two defense attorneys ever entered an appearance in E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑00154, both from Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (Houston). Both appeared on February 28, 2025, one week before the case was voluntarily dismissed. No local counsel and no Qualcomm in‑house attorney appeared on this docket.

Discrepancy flag (metadata vs. docket)

The case metadata lists the defendant as "Qualcomm Inc." only. The E.D. Tex. docket is captioned CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al and names two defendants — Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Both were represented by the same two attorneys. Cite the docket as the more complete record.

---

1. Richard S. Zembek — Lead counsel of record

• Firm / office: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Fulbright Tower, 1301 McKinney St., Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77010‑3095.
• Docket role: First-filed appearance for both Qualcomm entities — Notice of Attorney Appearance, Doc. 9 (Feb. 28, 2025). He is the signature/filing attorney on the defense's two substantive filings:
  • Doc. 11 — MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) (improper venue), with attachments (Declaration of D. Prati; Exhibits 1–2; Proposed Order), filed Feb. 28, 2025.
  • Doc. 12 — Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement for both Qualcomm entities.
  • Both were terminated by Doc. 14, Order Dismissing Case (Judge Gilstrap, Mar. 6, 2025), following CommWorks' Doc. 13 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Mar. 4, 2025).
• Experience note: Registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 43,306; B.S. Electrical Engineering, Union College; J.D. Vanderbilt). Chambers USA Band 2, Intellectual Property – Texas; Super Lawyers 2013–2026; Best Lawyers (Litigation–IP, Litigation–Patent, Patent Law) since 2015. At Norton Rose Fulbright he is Head of Technology & Innovation, US / Global Head of Technology. His telecom/wireless/standards patent practice is a direct fit here. Qualcomm‑specific track record: back‑up counsel for Qualcomm Inc. in IPR2020‑01491 (Qualcomm v. Monterey Research); pro hac vice counsel for Qualcomm in the FTC/consumer MDL, Stromberg v. Qualcomm, N.D. Cal. 3:17‑md‑02773; and long ITC/GPU and mobile‑chip defendant work. He has also appeared in the ParkerVision v. Qualcomm litigation line.
• Sources: NRF bio; Chambers profile; Martindale; IPR2020‑01491 mandatory notices.

2. Daniel Alejandro Prati — Defense counsel of record

• Docket role: Notice of Attorney Appearance, Doc. 10 (Feb. 28, 2025) for Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. He is also the declarant on the venue motion — Declaration of D. Prati, Doc. 11‑1 — i.e., the factual support for the 12(b)(3) improper‑venue challenge.
• Firm / office: Not stated in the docket text of Doc. 10. He filed contemporaneously with Zembek off the same defense team and the same documents, which strongly indicates he is also Norton Rose Fulbright (Houston); I could not independently confirm his firm, office, or seniority (associate vs. counsel/partner) from the sources retrieved. Treat the NRF affiliation as a high-confidence inference, not a verified fact.
• Experience note: No public patent‑litigation profile with notable case history was located for him. He should not be described as lead counsel — Zembek is the filing/signature attorney.

---

Negative findings (worth stating affirmatively)

• No local counsel was designated in this case. Unlike many E.D. Tex. patent actions, no separate Texas local‑counsel appearance appears on the docket before dismissal. (E.D. Tex. does not strictly require local counsel, so this is not a rule violation — it simply means none exists to report.)
• No Qualcomm in‑house counsel appeared of record. The only defense appearances are Docs. 9 and 10.
• No answer, corporate disclosure beyond the Rule 7.1 statement, or protective order was ever filed — the case was dismissed roughly four weeks after filing, mooting further counsel activity.

Cross-reference to the refiled W.D. Tex. action

This is consistent with the previously generated overview: the same two attorneys re‑appeared for both Qualcomm entities in the refiled case, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al, W.D. Tex. 7:25‑cv‑00101 (filed Mar. 4, 2025) — Doc. 12 (Zembek) and Doc. 13 (Prati), both filed March 25, 2025 (docket). So the operative defense team going forward is Zembek (lead) + Prati, NRF Houston, in the Western District case where the dispute continues.

Caveat: the E.D. Tex. docket was last retrieved March 7, 2025 (per CourtListener/Justia) and reflects a closed case; the W.D. Tex. docket was last retrieved March 26, 2025. Both dockets show no subsequent defense appearances as of those retrievals, but a case that is proceeding in the W.D. Tex. may have added counsel since — that would need a fresh PACER pull to confirm.