CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC

I'll research this case across dockets, opinions, and patent sources.

Let me dig into the consent judgment, the asserted patent's family, and the parallel IPR activity.

Case Overview: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC

Parties and their business models. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with its principal place of business at 44 Milton Avenue, Suite 254, Alpharetta, GA 30009 — a purely licensing/assertion vehicle, not an operating company (Compl. ¶1, Dkt. 1). Its Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure identifies Brainbox Innovations, LLC as its corporate parent, and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies CommWorks in the "Patent Asserter / acquired patents" category — i.e., a classic PAE holding a portfolio acquired from an operating company rather than one it developed (Unified Patents docket; Stanford NPE Database). The asserted family traces back to Nokia Corporation, which was the assignee of record on the '465 patent's priority filing (Dec. 17, 1999) — so this is a Nokia-origin wireless-networking portfolio that was carved out and monetized. RCN Telecom Services, LLC is a Delaware LLC headquartered at 650 College Road East, Suite 3100, Princeton, NJ 08540 — a residential broadband/cable ISP, now an Astound Broadband affiliate (Compl. ¶2; CPUC filing referencing "RCN (an Astound affiliated entity)"). RCN's Rule 7.1 disclosure stated "No Corporate Parent" (Unicourt docket).

The accused technology and patents. CommWorks does not accuse RCN of making chips; it accuses RCN of using and inducing use of consumer premises equipment — Wi-Fi routers, gateways and access points — in providing broadband service to subscribers. The clearest confirmation of the accused instrumentalities comes from a collateral discovery fight in which the W.D. Tex. transferred CommWorks's motion to compel MediaTek to SDNY: "CommWorks seeks information about MediaTek's chips, which are contained in some of the Wi-Fi routers provided to its customers by Internet service provider RCN. In the underlying suit, CommWorks accuses RCN of infringing its patents through provision of the Wi-Fi routers and access points to its customers" (CommWorks Sols. v. RCN Telecom Servs., No. A-22-MC-00133-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2022)). The infringement theories cluster around industry standards: IEEE 802.11e/WMM QoS (EDCA access categories), WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup), and 802.3ah / ITU-T G.984 (GPON) provisioning (Compl. ¶¶6–18). The complaint 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. Your metadata keys the case to the '465 patent, which is the one you should treat as central. Technical sketches: the '465 patent, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" (issued Apr. 11, 2006; App. No. 10/167,986 filed June 11, 2002), claims a method of detecting priority of data frames by extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined offset in a frame, comparing it to a search pattern, and flagging the frame as a priority frame — a protocol-independent alternative to walking every header, designed to run on cheap APs; the complaint maps claim 1 to WMM's QoS Control field / TID-User-Priority-to-Access-Category mapping (Compl. ¶¶81–84 summary). Critically, RE44,904 ("the '904 Reissue Patent," reissued May 20, 2014, App. No. 13/171,882) is a reissue of the '465 patent under the same title — so two of the nine counts in this case were effectively the same invention asserted twice (Google Patents family linkage; Compl. ¶15). The other patents cover time-based wireless provisioning ('807, '596, '979 — the WPS family), globally accessible broadband QoS ('249), and network path provisioning ('664, '285, '315).

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed September 14, 2020 in S.D.N.Y., assigned to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil; venue was pleaded on RCN's "regular and established place of business" at 593 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10016 (Compl. ¶¶5–6). S.D.N.Y. is a notable choice for an ISP campaign because it is not a plaintiff-friendly patent venue and because TC Heartland venue must be grounded in the defendant's own physical presence — CommWorks had to rely on RCN's Manhattan office rather than on the location of accused products. The plaintiff filed a Statement of Relatedness asking the action be treated as related to 1:20-cv-07529 (Unified Patents docket); note that caption's defendant is not confirmed in the sources I reviewed, and your case summary's statement that this action "was also docketed as 1:20-cv-07529" appears to be a misreading of that relatedness filing — treat the two docket numbers as parallel, not identical. RCN answered with a jury demand on November 12, 2020 (Dkt. 25), represented by DLA Piper (Richard L. Brophy, Carla J. Baumel, both admitted pro hac vice from Illinois) (Unicourt docket; PatSnap party table). The case ended in a consent judgment after roughly 920 days — i.e., on or about March 2023 per PatSnap's docket analysis, though I could not independently verify the exact entry date or the substantive terms of that judgment; no financial terms appear in the public record I found. The case is notable for three reasons. First, it was part of CommWorks's 2020 opening wave against ISPs — alongside NextLink (E.D. Tex.) and Consolidated Communications (2:20-cv-00159, E.D. Tex., filed May 27, 2020) — before the campaign escalated against Comcast (6:21-cv-00366-ADA, W.D. Tex., Apr. 15, 2021; dismissed July 1, 2022 after a March 8, 2022 claim construction order) and Charter (6:22-cv-00156, Feb. 11, 2022) (Stanford NPE Database; AO 120, Comcast docket). Second, CommWorks later pivoted the same portfolio down the supply chain to chipmakers (STMicroelectronics, Texas Instruments, NXP, Microchip, u-blox) and CPE vendors (Adtran, DrayTek, AVM, Extreme Networks, Axon), making the RCN case an early data point in a campaign that ran from ISP end-users to component suppliers (CourtListener STMicro docket). Third, the portfolio drew third-party validity challenges tied to this suit: Unified Patents filed IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846 (Patent Owner's Response filed June 8, 2022, citing the Comcast claim construction order as Ex. 2001) and, on July 1, 2022, the USPTO granted Unified's ex parte reexamination of U.S. 7,760,664 (control no. 90/015,057) — a patent Unified's own write-up says was "asserted against eight companies, including RCN Telecom Services, LLC and Charter Communications" (Unified Patents; Docket Alarm, IPR2021-01297 Paper 12). I did not locate a verified final written decision in IPR2021-01297, so the outcome of that challenge should be treated as unconfirmed.

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

Let me dig into the docket, the related case, and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me get the full docket and pin down the consent judgment date and PTAB activity.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-07534 (S.D.N.Y.) — Legal Developments & Outcome

Sourcing note up front: The S.D.N.Y. docket for 1:20-cv-07534 is thin in the free databases I could reach, and I could not retrieve the text of the termination order itself. Several propositions below (especially the consent-judgment date) come from commercial litigation databases (PatSnap/Unified Patents portal) rather than PACER, and are flagged as such. I did not fabricate any docket number, date, or ruling.

One correction to the existing summary: The case was not "also docketed as 1:20-cv-07529." The complaint's Rule 7.1/relatedness filing states that this action is related to 1:20-cv-07529, which is a separate, same-day CommWorks suit against Mediacom Communications Corp. in the same district (assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield). See complaint/relatedness entries via Unified Patents' case portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20York%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-07534 and the Mediacom docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv07529/[544137](/patent/544137)

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2020-09-14 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1), jury demand. Filed by Dmitry Kheyfits (Kheyfits Belenky LLP). Complaint PDF: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--20-cv-07534/Commworks_Solutions_LLC_v._RCN_Telecom_Services_LLC/docs/1.pdf
  • Patents pleaded: the complaint 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 (Compl. ¶ 3).
  • Metadata conflict to flag: the case metadata lists only 7,027,465 as "patents at issue," and the prior summary says only the '465 count was expressly pleaded. The face of the complaint pleads all nine. I treat the nine-patent assertion as what was filed, with the '465 (Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection, issued 2006-04-11) squarely among them. Where the two sources diverge, the operative pleading is the better evidence of what was asserted.
  • Parties/venue: CommWorks is a Georgia LLC (Alpharetta, GA) with corporate parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC (Rule 7.1, Dkt. 3). RCN is a Delaware corporation (Princeton, NJ), and CommWorks pleaded a "regular and established place of business" at 593 Third Avenue, New York, NY (Compl. ¶¶ 1–6). Accused products included Juniper devices and Wi-Fi routers/access points supplied to RCN subscribers (Law Street Media, 2020-09-17: https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/commworks-solutions-sues-for-communications-patent-infringement/).
• Statement of Relatedness filed with the complaint, tying the action to 1:20-cv-07529 (Mediacom).
• 2020-10-27 — PHV granted for Richard L. Brophy (RCN) (Dkt. 19).
• 2020-11-05 — Extension of time granted; RCN's answer deadline moved to 2020-11-16 (Dkt. 20).
• 2020-11-09 — PHV granted for Carla J. Baumel (RCN) (Dkt. 23).
• 2020-11-12 — RCN's Answer with jury demand (Dkt. 25) and RCN Rule 7.1 disclosure, "No Corporate Parent" (Dkt. 24). The docket text for Dkt. 25 shows an answer only; I found no counterclaims by RCN (contrast the parallel Mediacom case, where Mediacom's 2020-11-12 answer did include counterclaims). Treat "no RCN counterclaims" as likely but not fully confirmed.
• Defense counsel: Armstrong Teasdale LLP (Brophy, Baumel) and later DLA Piper (per PatSnap's counsel roster: https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-v-rcn-telecom-9-patent-network-tech-consent-judgment-patsnap/). Plaintiff-side counsel over the life of the case included Kheyfits Belenky LLP and Rakoczy, Molino, Mazzochi & Siwik LLP (Sokoloff).

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay: none found. There is no indication RCN moved to dismiss, to transfer venue, or to stay pending IPR. The only motions on the early docket were pro hac vice applications and an extension of time.
• No summary-judgment practice appears in the record; the case terminated before dispositive motions.
• Stay pending IPR: No such motion is documented in this case (see §7 re: PTAB timing).

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• This case did not reach a Markman ruling. No claim-construction order in 1:20-cv-07534 was located.
• Important parallel: Judge Albright's court in the related CommWorks v. Comcast action (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA) did construe terms of the '249, '465, '285, '664, '846, and RE42,883 patents in a 2022-03-08 Claim Construction Order (ECF 35). That order is actually in the record of this case family because CommWorks filed excerpts of the Comcast claim-construction briefing and order as PTAB exhibits. See IPR2021-01297 Exhibit 2001 (Comcast CC order) and Exhibit 2002 (Comcast's Opening Claim Construction Brief, 2021-10-15): 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. This is a sister-case development, not a ruling in the RCN case, but it is the most probative construction guidance for the '465 and its siblings in the CommWorks campaign.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• The most significant discovery event was third-party chip-vendor discovery. CommWorks subpoenaed MediaTek USA, Inc. for chip and firmware source code for Wi-Fi chips used in RCN's routers, and moved to compel in the W.D. Tex. because MediaTek refused, arguing the responsive material was held by MediaTek-Taiwan, which had not been served.
• 2022-03-22 — Transfer Order, CommWorks Sols. v. RCN Telecom Servs., No. A-22-MC-00133-RP (W.D. Tex.) (Mag. J. Dustin M. Howell): the subpoena-enforcement motion was transferred to the S.D.N.Y. issuing court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), because the underlying action was pending there. The order recites that CommWorks was "in the process of discovering similar source code from other third-party chip makers in the underlying suit." Opinion: https://app.midpage.ai/document/commworks-solutions-llc-v-rcn-1000196179011 and http://g.casetext.com/case/commworks-sols-v-rcn-telecom-servs-1
  • Strategic significance: CommWorks was building an infringement record at the component/source-code layer rather than relying solely on end-product teardown — a resource-intensive strategy that broadened the discovery footprint to non-party silicon vendors and explains much of the 2021–2022 discovery timeline.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion is documented. The case was resolved by consent judgment before trial and before any dispositive or Markman practice in this forum.

6. Settlement / Judgment / Final Disposition

• Termination basis: Consent Judgment (case metadata; PatSnap confirms "The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment"). PatSnap states the case was "resolved by consent judgment after 920 days," which from the 2020-09-14 filing date implies a termination around 2023-03-22 — treat that date as an estimate, not a verified docket date. I could not retrieve the consent-judgment entry number, its terms, or any license/payment figures.
• No appeal. A consent judgment terminated the action; no Federal Circuit activity on this case number was found.
• Posture: Closed (terminated). Note that the settlement was case-specific: the consent judgment did not adjudicate validity or infringement of the '465 or the other asserted patents, leaving them available for CommWorks's later campaigns.

7. Parallel PTAB / USPTO Proceedings and Their Effect

CommWorks's portfolio drew sustained Unified Patents challenges in 2021–2022, but the ones I could verify target patents asserted against RCN and against other defendants, and none was a PTAB IPR on the '465:

• Effect on the litigation: Because no stay was sought or granted in 1:20-cv-07534, the reexaminations ran concurrently with the district case. The '249 and '664 reexams (plus the earlier '249 challenge) sit exactly in the window between the 2022 discovery fight and the ~early-2023 termination, and are a plausible driver of RCN's willingness to resolve — but I have no direct evidence tying the reexams to the settlement, so treat causation as inference only.
• No IPR/PGR on the '465 patent (the metadata-listed patent) surfaced in my searches. If a '465 challenge exists, I could not locate it; state that as a gap rather than a negative finding.
• Related USPTO/court cross-effects elsewhere: The '249 challenge ran alongside Altice USA v. CommWorks, No. 1:21-cv-01323 (D. Del.), a declaratory-judgment action filed 2021-09-17 and voluntarily dismissed (AO 120 noting D.I. 27, dated 2022-06-21) — showing that CommWorks's patents were being attacked on multiple fronts while RCN was pending.

8. Analytical Takeaways

1. Forum strategy. CommWorks filed twin S.D.N.Y. complaints on 2020-09-14 (RCN and Mediacom) rather than in W.D. Tex., even though its later and larger ISP campaign (Comcast, Vyve) landed in Judge Albright's court. The S.D.N.Y. cases resolved early.
2. The '465 was one of nine, not the whole case. Reading the metadata literally understates the scope: RCN faced a nine-patent assertion spanning QoS/OSI-layer provisioning, contention-free traffic detection ('465), time-based wireless access provisioning, and network-path provisioning.
3. Discovery, not motion practice, drove the timeline. The defining contested event was the 2022 MediaTek source-code subpoena fight, resolved by a Rule 45(f) transfer (W.D. Tex. → S.D.N.Y.), not by a stay or dispositive ruling.
4. Consent judgment closed it without precedent. No Markman, no invalidity or infringement adjudication, no fee award, no appeal — leaving the '465 and its siblings intact and available for CommWorks's 2025 assertion wave (AVM, DrayTek, EarthLink, STMicroelectronics, NXP and others, several of which were voluntarily dismissed).

---

Confidence summary

• High confidence (pleading/docket-based): complaint date and nine asserted patents; parties, venue, relatedness to 07529; PHV and answer dates; the W.D. Tex. transfer order (2022-03-22).
• Medium confidence: absence of RCN counterclaims; absence of any stay/SJ motions.
• Low confidence / flagged: exact consent-judgment date (~2023-03-22), its terms, and any causal link to the Unified reexaminations.
• Not found: any Markman order in this case; any IPR/PGR on the '465; any fee motion or appeal.

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

Let me pull the docket entries and notices of appearance directly.

Let me verify the specific appearances docketed in this case (not just the related Mediacom case).

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

Now let me drill into each attorney's role, firm, and admission.

Counsel of Record — Defendant RCN Telecom Services, LLC

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-07534-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) (Vyskocil, J.)

Bottom line: RCN's defense was staffed almost entirely out of Armstrong Teasdale LLP — a St. Louis–based IP litigation team (Brophy, Baumel) supported by the firm's New York office (Palella) and other AT attorneys (Whitehead, Gottuso) — with DLA Piper LLP (US) also identified as appearing on the defense side. Two out-of-state AT lawyers, Richard L. Brophy and Carla J. Baumel, were admitted pro hac vice in October/November 2020, which is the clearest documentary confirmation of who was actually doing the work.

Verification caveat up front: My search budget for this task ran out mid-verification. The roster below rests on docket-aggregator records (UniCourt's S.D.N.Y. docket extract, PatSnap's litigation record, Law360's attorney-case listing) plus court filings I could corroborate. I was not able to independently pull a current PACER docket sheet, and for two names (Katsantonis, Tzeng) I could not confirm firm, office, or role. Those gaps are flagged rather than filled in.

---

Confirmed from docket entries

1. Richard L. Brophy — Lead counsel (defense)

• Firm/office: Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO (7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800, St. Louis, MO 63105).
• Docket basis: Motion for pro hac vice admission at ECF No. 18 (filed 10/26/2020), granted by Judge Vyskocil at ECF No. 19 (10/27/2020); he then filed RCN's operative pleading, the Answer with jury demand at ECF No. 25 (11/12/2020).
• Experience note: Partner in AT's IP litigation group; his Armstrong Teasdale signature block identifies him as "Partner – IP Litigation." He is also lead defense counsel for RCN and affiliated entities in the long-running UMG Recordings v. RCN Telecom Services, No. 3:19-cv-17272 (D.N.J.) copyright litigation and in the parallel Grande Communications ISP cases — i.e., the same client, contemporaneously, in a bet-the-company case.

2. Carla J. Baumel — Defense counsel (patent-focused), admitted pro hac vice

• Firm/office: Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Denver, CO (per her AT bio, "ASSOCIATE, Denver, CO"); admitted pro hac vice in S.D.N.Y. by order at ECF No. 23 on motion at ECF No. 22.
• Experience note: Patent litigator with a biology/patent background whose AT bio touts patent litigation and counseling; her later Robins Kaplan bio describes representing "a telecommunications provider in patent litigation involving Wi-Fi routers, access points, chip technology, source code, and confidential technical information" — a description that maps onto this very case (the CommWorks discovery fight over MediaTek chip source code was litigated in W.D. Tex., No. A-22-MC-00133-RP). Note the trailing asterisk on her AT bio ("not licensed in Colorado") and that she has since moved on: Colorado AAG (Antitrust) 2021–2023, then AUSA, D. Minn., now Robins Kaplan.

3. Charles Palella — Defense counsel, New York–admitted (local-counsel role)

• Firm/office: Armstrong Teasdale LLP, New York, NY (919 Third Ave., 37th Fl. during this period; firm now lists him at 400 Park Ave.).
• Docket basis: Listed as a defendant attorney on the case by both the UniCourt docket extract and PatSnap's litigation record.
• Experience note: 40+ years of New York commercial/appellate litigation — insurance coverage, professional-liability defense for engineering/architectural firms, arbitration; he also serves as assistant general counsel to Armstrong Teasdale and was previously a partner at Montgomery McCracken. He is not a patent specialist, which is consistent with a local-counsel/New York-admissions role alongside Brophy's Missouri-based IP team. (One wrinkle: New York State OCA registration data lists Montgomery McCracken as his employer in the 2020 snapshot and Armstrong Teasdale thereafter, so his firm affiliation at the moment of his initial appearance is ambiguous — I could not resolve it.)

4. Andrew B. Whitehead — Defense counsel (per Law360/PatSnap), role unconfirmed

• Firm/office: Armstrong Teasdale LLP; office not confirmed in my research.
• Docket basis: Law360's attorney profile page for Whitehead lists "September 14, 2020 — Commworks Solutions, LLC v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, New York Southern; Patent"; PatSnap lists him among the seven RCN defense attorneys.
• Note: I could not verify his title, office, or specific patent-litigation track record within my search budget. Treat firm affiliation as well-sourced, role/experience as unverified.

5. Kyle G. Gottuso — Defense counsel (per PatSnap), role unconfirmed

• Firm/office: Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO — his name appears in the St. Louis address block (7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800) in AT's filings in UMG Recordings v. RCN, No. 3:19-cv-17272 (D.N.J.), where he was admitted pro hac vice for RCN.
• Note: Same client, same firm, same period; his inclusion on this S.D.N.Y. defense team is reported by PatSnap but I could not confirm a standalone appearance here.

---

Reported but NOT independently confirmed

6. Chris Katsantonis — PatSnap lists him as counsel for RCN; the same record attributes appearances in this case to DLA Piper LLP (US). I could not confirm his firm, office, or that he entered an appearance. Unverified — do not rely on this entry without a PACER pull.

7. Wenkai Tzeng — Same posture: listed as RCN counsel by PatSnap, with DLA Piper LLP (US) named as a defense firm. Firm/office/role unverified.

Data artifact to discount: PatSnap's defendant-firm list also includes the "Colorado Department of Law." That is almost certainly a database aggregation error — it reflects Carla Baumel's later employer (Colorado Attorney General's Office, Antitrust Section, from 2021; she formally withdrew from the Google Play MDL matters on July 12, 2023, In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., No. 3:21-md-02981 (N.D. Cal.)). A state AG's office would not represent RCN in a private patent suit, and no Colorado AG entry appears in the S.D.N.Y. docket extract.

---

Procedural frame you should hang the counsel list on

---

What is not in the record

• No in-house RCN attorney appears on the S.D.N.Y. docket. The UniCourt and PatSnap extracts show only outside counsel. (RCN in-house personnel do appear as custodians and privilege-log subjects in the parallel D.N.J. copyright case, but that is a different matter and no in-house lawyer entered an appearance here.)
• No sealed-appearance problem to report — the appearances above are ordinary public docket entries. I did, however, find no publicly available transcript or opinion that names counsel at argument in this case; the only substantive S.D.N.Y.-related ruling I located is the W.D. Tex. transfer order in the MediaTek subpoena ancillary, No. A-22-MC-00133-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2022), which is captioned as arising from "CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, 1:20-CV-7534-MKV (S.D.N.Y.)" but which addresses MediaTek's counsel, not RCN's.

Recommended next step: a PACER/RECAP pull of the 1:20-cv-07534 docket sheet (all entries between ECF 1 and ECF 25, plus any notices of appearance or withdrawal after March 2023) to confirm the appearances of Whitehead, Gottuso, Katsantonis, and Tzeng, and to confirm DLA Piper's role — the aggregator records are consistent with each other but are not primary sources.