CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Skybeam Acquisition Corp. et al.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a well-grounded overview.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the patent family, and the broader litigation campaign.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company (Alpharetta, GA) that does not appear to make or sell products; it is a patent-assertion entity. Unified Patents describes it as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC," and its portfolio traces to the CommWorks business unit of 3Com, which UTStarcom acquired in 2003 — the source of the networking/Wi-Fi patents it has been asserting since at least 2020 (Unified Patents, CommWorks Solutions patent challenged, July 30, 2021; CommWorks cellular patent held invalid, Feb. 13, 2023; Stanford NPE Litigation Database entries for the asserted patents at npe.law.stanford.edu). The defendants — Skybeam Acquisition Corp., Skybeam, LLC, and JAB Wireless, Inc., all doing business as Rise Broadband — are one corporate family and an operating company. Rise Broadband, headquartered in Englewood/Greenwood Village, Colorado, bills itself as "the nation's largest fixed wireless broadband service provider," serving roughly 200,000 residential and commercial customers across ~16 states; parent JAB Wireless was incorporated in 2005 and rebranded the Skybeam, Digis, T6, Prairie iNet, and Rhino properties under the "Rise" name in 2015 (Rise Broadband press kit; FCC DA 22-1062, which also reflects the later GI Partners transaction via "GI DI Iris Acquisition"). Rise serves the Waco, Texas area, which is why it was sued in the Western District of Texas. This is the classic NPE-vs.-operating-company posture, with a small rural/fixed-wireless ISP as the target rather than the equipment manufacturer.

Accused technology and asserted patents. The case metadata lists four patents, all from CommWorks's "time-based access provisioning" family, which the campaign maps onto Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) and related timed/automated provisioning of Wi-Fi client devices: U.S. 6,891,807 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued May 10, 2005, app. 10/341,847); U.S. 7,177,285 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," app. 10/961,959); U.S. 7,463,596 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," app. 11/673,513); and U.S. 7,911,979 ("Time Based Access Provisioning System And Process," app. 12/323,399). In CommWorks's parallel complaints, the '979 patent is asserted against WPS-capable devices described as using "a provisioning activation button, time-based provisioning logic, [and] access control list," while the provisioning family generally covers initiating device provisioning when a tracked event (e.g., power-on or onset of transmission) occurs within a designated time interval. The accused instrumentalities here are best understood as Rise Broadband's fixed-wireless Internet service and the Wi-Fi gateways/access points/routers through which it provisions subscribers — but I could not retrieve the actual complaint (Dkt. 1) for 6:21-cv-00368, so the specific accused product list is not verified, and public platform listings are inconsistent (RPX lists "5 Patents-in-Suit" for this case; a third-party docket summary showing exhibits covering U.S. 6,832,249, 7,027,465, 7,177,285, 7,911,979, and 8,116,315 appears to be cross-contaminated with the companion Comcast complaint). I flag this rather than assert an unverified product list.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it is notable. CommWorks filed on April 15, 2021 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright (6:21-cv-00368-ADA), as part of a same-day coordinated wave that also included CommWorks v. Comcast Cable Communications, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA (filed the same day), with a separate RCN Telecom action pending in S.D.N.Y. (No. 1:20-cv-7534) (Comcast status report, Dkt. 19 in 6:21-cv-00366). The docket shows an unopposed 45-day extension of the answer deadline (Dkt. 9, granted May 10, 2021, answer due June 21, 2021), a joint motion to stay all deadlines filed June 21, 2021 (Dkt. 12), a motion to dismiss with prejudice filed June 24, 2021 (Dkt. 13), and an order granting the stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. 14, entered July 27, 2021; the case is recorded as terminated June 24, 2021 — roughly ten weeks from filing) (Patexia Research docket, Case 6:21-cv-00368; UniCourt case summary). Venue matters because W.D. Tex./Waco in 2021 was the nation's busiest and most plaintiff-favorable patent docket under Judge Albright, with fast schedules and a well-known "case readiness"/CMC regime. The case is notable as a data point in the large CommWorks/IP Investments Group assertion campaign, which has swept in ISPs (Consolidated Communications, Mediacom, Cable One/Sparklight, RCN, Comcast, Altice, Charter, Vyve), OEM/ODM equipment makers (Ubee, D-Link, Technicolor, Adtran, Extreme, AVM), and Wi-Fi chipmakers (Qualcomm, Broadcom, Texas Instruments, u-blox, STMicroelectronics) (IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" entries; Stanford NPE Database). It also illustrates the IPR/reexam counter-pressure the portfolio drew from Unified Patents — an IPR against CommWorks's U.S. 8,923,846 that ended in an all-claims-invalid final written decision on Feb. 13, 2023, and a December 2021 ex parte reexamination grant on U.S. 6,832,249 — though I found no IPR specifically targeting the four patents asserted against Skybeam/Rise, and the case settled far too quickly (before claim construction) for any PTAB linkage to develop. Industrially, it is a marker of how NPE activity reached the rural fixed-wireless broadband (WISP) segment, where FCC-subsidized providers with thin litigation budgets face pressure to take early licenses — consistent with the quick, with-prejudice dismissal here.

Sourcing note: docket events and party identities above are grounded in the Patexia/UniCourt docket records, the companion Comcast status report, and RPX/Unified/Stanford databases; the exact list of accused Rise Broadband products and the precise patent set (four per case metadata vs. five per RPX) could not be confirmed from the primary complaint and should be treated as unverified.

I'll research this case and its related proceedings.

Let me research the parallel PTAB proceedings and the broader CommWorks campaign.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Skybeam Acquisition Corp. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00368-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was one of the shortest-lived cases in the CommWorks campaign. It lasted roughly 70 days from complaint to stipulation of dismissal (104 days per RPX if measured to the dismissal order). The docket never got past initial pleadings: no answer, no counterclaims, no motion to dismiss/transfer, no IPR stay motion, no scheduling order, no claim construction, no discovery, no trial, no judgment, no fee motion, no appeal. It terminated by private settlement memorialized as a dismissal with prejudice.

---

Chronological developments

2021-04-15 — Complaint filed. CommWorks Solutions, LLC (a Georgia LLC, Alpharetta, GA; described by Unified Patents as an NPE subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC) filed a complaint for patent infringement against three related entities operating as Rise Broadband: Skybeam Acquisition Corp., Skybeam, LLC, and JAB Wireless, Inc. Dkt. 1. Complaint exhibits on the docket include EoU/claim-chart exhibits and patent copies, e.g., "Exhibit D – US7911979," "Exhibit E – US8116315," and Exhibits 1–12. This was filed the same day as the companion Waco case against Comcast, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA, indicating a coordinated multi-defendant filing wave.

Patent scope note: The case metadata identifies four patents at issue — 7,177,285; 6,891,807; 7,463,596; 7,911,979 — i.e., the "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" family (covering WPS-style push-button provisioning). The pre-existing case summary states only the '285 patent was asserted. RPX's docket profile for this case lists "5 Patents-in-Suit." I could not retrieve the complaint PDF itself, so the precise asserted set should be treated as four-to-five patents from the '807/'285/'596/'979 family, not confirmed from the primary document.

2021-04-15 — Ancillary filings. RULE 7 disclosure statement (Dkt. 4); notice of attorney appearance by Catherine Bartles (Dkt. 5); AO 120 patent form forwarded to the USPTO (Dkt. 3); summonses issued as to all three defendants (Dkts. 6–8).

2021-05-05 — First extension request. Dkt. 9, an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer, filed on behalf of Skybeam Acquisition Corp. by Tricia Wisenbaker Macaluso (the only defense-side appearance reflected in the available docket data). No Rule 12 motion, no counterclaims, and no venue challenge accompanied it.

2021-05-10 — Extension granted. Text order by Judge Albright extending the answer deadline 45 days, through and including 2021-06-21, for all three defendants. This is a routine Albright practice and confirms all three defendants had been served.

2021-06-04 — Dkt. 10. Notice of change of address by plaintiff's counsel Andrey Belenky (no substance).

2021-06-16 — Dkt. 11. Judge Albright's Standing Order regarding Scheduling Order, entered 2021-06-17 — the generic pre-answer scheduling framework. No case-specific scheduling order ever issued.

2021-06-21 — Joint motion to stay all deadlines. Dkt. 12. Filed by CommWorks (Dmitry Kheyfits), styled as joint — the same day the defendants' answer was due. A joint stay motion filed on the answer deadline is the classic indicia of a settlement in principle being papered.

2021-06-24 — Motion/stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Dkt. 13, "Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice" filed by CommWorks with a proposed order (the clerk re-docketed it as a motion because a proposed order was attached). This is the event the case metadata identifies as the termination date, and the Comcast case's Rule 26(f)/readiness report in No. 6:21-cv-00366 expressly describes this case as having "settled and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on June 24, 2021."

2021-07-27 — Court action on the two motions.

• Text order granting the Dkt. 12 joint motion to stay, staying all deadlines for thirty (30) days — which, given the simultaneous dismissal filing, appears to have been entered as a housekeeping matter.
• Dkt. 14, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, signed by Judge Albright (entered 2021-07-28). This is the operative final disposition.

2021-07-28 — Dkt. 15. Report on Patent/Trademark (AO 120) sent to the USPTO, closing the case out administratively.

Disposition: Dismissal with prejudice on stipulation, each side bearing its own fees and costs (no fee-shifting order appears on the docket). No consent judgment, no license terms, and no payment amounts were disclosed publicly.

---

What never happened (and why it matters)

Because nothing substantive was litigated, this docket produced no claim construction, no validity ruling, and no merits precedent on the '285/'807/'596/'979 patents. The dismissal with prejudice binds only these defendants on these patents/accused products (and, as is customary, likely reflects a paid license or covenant not to sue).

---

Parallel PTAB activity on the asserted patents

• I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition directed at the four patents asserted here (7,177,285; 6,891,807; 7,463,596; 7,911,979) during or around this case. This is consistent with the Comcast case's readiness report, which stated there were "no known IPR, CBM, or other PGR filings" in the CommWorks Waco wave as of mid-2021. I flag this as a negative finding rather than a verified absence — a full PTAB docket sweep on each patent number would be needed to confirm.
• What PTAB activity did exist in the portfolio is on different patents, so the defensive efforts did not reach this case:
  • Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 — petition filed 2021-07-30 (i.e., five weeks after this case settled) challenging U.S. Patent 8,923,846 ("Method for contention-free traffic detection"-family), with a Hall-Ellis declaration on the public-accessibility of ETSI/GSM prior art and a Haas declaration on the technical merits. Unified's in-house counsel (Ashraf Fawzy, Michelle Aspen) and outside counsel Raghav Bajaj (Haynes and Boone) handled it. The '846 patent was not asserted against Skybeam.
  • Ex parte reexamination of U.S. 6,832,249 — Unified requested reexam (~November 2021); the USPTO granted it on 2021-12-23, finding substantial new questions of patentability (control no. 90/014,909). The '249 patent was asserted against Comcast, RCN, and other defendants — not Skybeam.
  • Ex parte reexamination of U.S. 7,760,664 — Unified requested ~June 2022; granted 2022-07-01 (control no. 90/015,057). Also not asserted against Skybeam.
• Effect on this litigation: none, because the case closed before any PTAB filing that touched its patents. But the timing is strategically telling: defendants in this campaign appear to have resolved matters privately rather than litigating to Markman or funding IPRs.

---

Parallel and related litigation (context for why this case resolved fast)

CommWorks was running a coordinated, multi-front assertion campaign on the same 802.11 QoS/WPS/mesh portfolio. Related matters:

• CommWorks v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-7534 (S.D.N.Y.) — the lead case, filed ~September 2020, asserting nine patents (including '249, '807, '465, '285, '596, '664, '979, '315, RE44,904). CommWorks used this case to run 15 third-party subpoenas to router makers, chipmakers, and standards bodies — the model it replicated in Waco.
• CommWorks v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — filed the same day as this case (2021-04-15). Comcast answered 2021-06-18 with no counterclaims; the readiness report describes this Skybeam case as a "related case" that had just settled.
• Altice USA, Inc. v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01323-JLH (D. Del.) — filed 2021-09-17, a declaratory judgment action by Altice/CSC Holdings against CommWorks on the same five patents ('249, '807, '285, '596, '979). Terminated by Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, D.I. 27 (AO 120 recorded 6/21/2022).
• CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, No. 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.) — filed 2020-05-27 (earlier wave).
• Subsequent wave (showing the portfolio stayed live after this settlement): Charter Communications (6:22-cv-00156), Technicolor (1:22-cv-02827), D-Link (6:22-cv-00806), Ubee Interactive (6:23-cv-00064), Vyve Broadband (6:23-cv-00147), Adtran (5:23-cv-01327) and Trendnet (2:23-cv-08048), plus the 2024–2026 campaign against chipmakers (Texas Instruments, DrayTek, AVM, NXP, STMicroelectronics, Grandstream, Axon Networks, u-blox).

The consistent pattern across these cases — and echoed here — is early, private, with-prejudice disposition before Markman, with no merits ruling and no fee-shifting.

---

Assessment and remaining open points

1. This case was a settlement vehicle, not a test case. Facing an answer deadline and a joint stay motion on the same day, the parties resolved on undisclosed terms. The 30-day stay order (2021-07-27) entered alongside the dismissal order suggests the dismissal was papered contemporaneously and the stay was administrative.
2. The dismissal with prejudice is the only durable legal consequence — it bars re-assertion against these Rise Broadband entities on these patents, but carries no invalidity or non-infringement finding that third parties could leverage.
3. Unsourced/unverified items I would not state as fact:
   • The exact set of asserted patents and claims (metadata says four; RPX says five patents-in-suit; the docket shows exhibits for '979 and 8,116,315 as well).
   • Defense counsel Tricia Wisenbaker Macaluso's firm affiliation (docket confirms her appearance for Skybeam Acquisition Corp. on Dkt. 9; I did not verify the firm).
   • Plaintiff's counsel roster (Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis, Andrey Belenky, Brandon Moore, Dmitry Kheyfits, Catherine Bartles per the docket/unicourt record — firm affiliations not independently verified).
   • Whether any consideration changed hands; settlement terms are not public.
   • Confirmation that no IPR/PGR was ever filed against '285/'807/'596/'979 (negative search result only).

Key citations: Dkt. 1 (Complaint, 2021-04-15); Dkt. 9 & 5/10/2021 text order (extension); Dkt. 11 (Standing Order, 2021-06-16); Dkt. 12 (Joint Motion to Stay, 2021-06-21); Dkt. 13 (Motion/Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, 2021-06-24); Dkt. 14 (Order Granting Stipulation of Dismissal, entered 2021-07-28); Dkt. 15 (AO 120, 2021-07-28); Case Readiness Status Report, CommWorks v. Comcast, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA (Dkt. 19) (confirming the June 24, 2021 settlement and the absence of IPR/PGR filings); Unified Patents, IPR2021-01297 (filed 2021-07-30); Unified Patents insight on ex parte reexam grants for U.S. 6,832,249 (2021-12-23) and U.S. 7,760,664 (2022-07-01).

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

I have the plaintiff-side attorney list. Let me verify with the actual docket and firm details.

Let me verify the specific complaint signature block for this case and the attorney backgrounds.

Plaintiff Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Skybeam Acquisition Corp. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00368-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

CommWorks was represented by a two-firm team: an Austin/New York IP boutique with national patent-litigation practice and a Tyler, Texas firm that served as the Texas/local filer. The case was on the docket for only ~10 weeks (filed 4/15/2021; dismissal order 7/27/2021), so the appearance record is thin. No attorney in this case was formally designated "lead counsel" on the docket — Judge Albright's docket contains no lead-counsel designation, and no pro hac vice applications were filed in this case before it settled. The role labels below are my inference from who signed what.

Caveats and sourcing notes

• The Complaint signature block in the CommWorks cases identifies all five as "Attorneys for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC," splitting Kheyfits/Moore (Austin) and Belenky (New York) under Kheyfits Belenky LLP, and Davis/Bartles under The Stafford Davis Firm, PC. See the parallel-case signature blocks at D.E. 14 in CommWorks v. Comcast, No. 6:21-cv-00366 (W.D. Tex.) and the CommWorks v. Extreme Networks complaint.
• No filings are sealed in this case and the docket is complete; the appearance record above is drawn from the docket sheet (D.E. 1–14) as mirrored on Patexia and UniCourt for 6:21-cv-00368.
• No pro hac vice motions and no formal lead-counsel designation appear in this docket. Kheyfits, Moore, and Belenky appear as ECF filers without a pro hac vice order in this case (unlike, e.g., the later 2025 CommWorks cases in the same district). If you need their admission status in W.D. Tex. specifically, that would require a PACER attorney-admissions check rather than the docket sheet.
• Firm office locations are as stated in the contemporaneous signature blocks; Kheyfits Belenky has since moved its Austin office (to 12600 Hill Country Blvd., Suite R-275) and previously used 1140 Avenue of the Americas in New York — the addresses above are the ones of record in 2021.
• One metadata discrepancy worth flagging: the case metadata lists patents 7,177,285 / 6,891,807 / 7,463,596 / 7,911,979, while the Complaint exhibits in this docket appear as U.S. 6,832,249; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 7,911,979; and 8,116,315. This doesn't affect the counsel identification, but the asserted-patent set for this specific case may need reconciliation.

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

Good progress — the docket shows one defendant attorney. Let me verify her firm and check for any other defendant counsel.

Let me pull the full docket sheet to confirm whether any other defense counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record — Defendants (Skybeam Acquisition Corp.; Skybeam, LLC; JAB Wireless, Inc. d/b/a Rise Broadband)

Bottom line

Only one attorney ever appeared on behalf of the defendants in this case. There is no separate lead counsel, no national patent-trial counsel, and no in-house attorney of record on the docket. The case was filed 04/15/2021, defense counsel entered a single uncontested motion, and the case was dismissed with prejudice roughly ten weeks later (Dkt. 13–14), so no answer, no protective order, and no substantive defense filings were ever made by any defendant.

---

The sole defense attorney of record

Docket footprint (this case):

• Dkt. 9 — Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, filed 05/05/2021 (filed by Macaluso on behalf of Skybeam Acquisition Corp.); granted by text order 05/10/2021, extending the response deadline for all three defendants (JAB Wireless, Skybeam Acquisition Corp., and Skybeam, LLC) to 06/21/2021.
• No other filing by any defense attorney. No notice of appearance, no Rule 7 disclosure statement, no answer, no counterclaims.
• She is also the only defense attorney identified in third-party docket aggregators (UniCourt: "Defendant Attorney — Tricia Wisenbaker Macaluso").
• The termination documents — Dkt. 12 (Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines, 06/21/2021), Dkt. 13 (Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, 06/24/2021), and Dkt. 14 (order granting dismissal, signed by Judge Albright) — were filed by plaintiff's counsel (Dmitry Kheyfits), not by defense counsel.

Relevant experience / note: Ms. Macaluso is a commercial litigator, not a patent specialist. Her published practice description covers commercial, financial-services, and product-liability litigation (plus some bankruptcy work) in Texas state and federal courts; her public bios do not list patent litigation as a practice area. She has appeared in several W.D. Tex. and N.D. Tex. matters (e.g., Browne v. Ciox Health, LLC, E.D. Tex. No. 4:19-cv-00667; White Cap LP v. McSpadden; EWC Franchisor LLC v. The Waxxpot Group LLC, N.D. Tex. No. 3:25-cv-00462). Her role here is consistent with local Texas counsel handling an early-stage answer extension — but I want to be explicit that no public source confirms she was "local counsel" to an unappeared lead firm; that is my inference from the docket's brevity and from the standard Albright-era practice of pairing a Dallas/Austin local firm with out-of-state patent counsel.

---

Explicit gaps and cautions

1. No lead or national patent counsel identified. If Rise Broadband retained patent-focused lead counsel (e.g., from a telecom/IP boutique), that attorney never filed an appearance, so nothing appears on the public docket. I cannot name one, and I will not guess.
2. No in-house counsel of record. Rise Broadband/Skybeam's legal department (JAB Wireless is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado) is not identified on the docket as counsel of record.
3. The docket is unusually thin (15 entries total). The only defense-side document is Dkt. 9. Because the case resolved before an answer or Rule 7 corporate disclosure, there is no signature block from a defense firm other than Macaluso's.
4. Firm attribution timing. Macaluso was at BCLP during this litigation (2021) and moved to Seyfarth Shaw in September 2023; a contemporaneous PACER docket from 2021 would therefore list BCLP, not Seyfarth. If you pull the current PACER attorney list, expect to see the Dallas address and a phone/fax in the (469) 608-xxxx / (214) 853-xxxx range associated with her then-firm listing.
5. Case-termination description. The court's own order (Dkt. 14) grants a stipulated dismissal, and the parallel CommWorks v. Comcast case readiness report characterizes it as "[t]he parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on June 24, 2021." The docket text for Dkt. 13 reads "Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice by CommWorks Solutions, LLC," so the dismissal was with prejudice notwithstanding the "stipulation" framing.

---

Useful sources for verification

• Patexia document list for 6:21-cv-00368 — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CommWorks-Solutions-LLC-v-Skybeam-Acquisition-Corp-et-al-id-[151691](/patent/151691)/documents
• RPX Insight case page — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-[1130597](/patent/1130597)-commworks-solutions-v-skybeam-acquisition
• UniCourt (attorney list, court documents) — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-commworks-solutions-llc-v-skybeam-acquisition-corp-et-al-[880930](/patent/880930)
• CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Case Readiness Status Report (Doc. 19) — corroborates the 06/24/2021 dismissal in the Skybeam case: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--21-cv-00366/CommWorks_Solutions_LLC_v._Comcast_Cable_Communications_LLC_et_al/docs/19.pdf
• Seyfarth Shaw firm announcement (Sept. 19, 2023) confirming Macaluso's move from Bryan Cave and Dallas office co-founding.
• Martindale-Hubbell profile (education, admissions) — https://www.martindale.com/attorney/ms-tricia-wisenbaker-macaluso-[1642452](/patent/1642452)/

Recommended next step if you need certainty: pull the PACER docket for 6:21-cv-00368 directly (the "Attorneys" and "Parties" tabs), which will show every attorney who entered an appearance and any withdrawn appearances. Based on the public aggregators, expect exactly one name.