CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.

I'll research this case and its context thoroughly before drafting.

Now let me dig into the parties, the patent's provenance, IPR history, and the dismissal.

Let me verify the dismissal details, PTAB/IPR history, and the judicial assignment context.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Texas/Delaware-organized non-practicing entity. Unified Patents identifies it as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC," and a 2021 declaratory-judgment complaint by Altice USA characterized CommWorks and sister entities (DataCloud Techs., DigiMedia Tech., CDN Innovations) as part of "a broader, coordinated patent assertion campaign driven by Brainbox" (Unified Patents; IPWatchdog, Sept. 22, 2021). Its asserted portfolio is acquired, not developed: the patents-in-suit trace to Nokia Corporation and were later divested. Defense counsel is Dallas IP boutique Klemchuk PLLC (Darin Klemchuk, Richard Wynne, Zachary Tiritilli), and plaintiff's counsel is Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (James F. McDonough III, Jonathan L. Hardt) — per secondary-source reporting and the docketed appearances (Dkts. 5, 9, 11, 13). Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of Geneva-based STMicroelectronics N.V., a global semiconductor manufacturer whose wireless SoCs and IoT modules supply automotive, industrial, and consumer markets. CommWorks pleaded venue in part on ST's Austin, Texas office at 11809 Domain Drive, Suite 300, and on ST having previously not contested W.D. Tex. venue (Compl. ¶¶ 15–16).

Accused technology and asserted patents. The complaint targets STMicroelectronics Wi-Fi chips, modules, and SoCs supporting Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/IEEE 802.11-2007+ QoS and Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) — specifically naming the CW1100 Wi-Fi chip, the SPWF04S series (SPWF04SA/SPWF04SC), the U8500 Android reference designs with CW1100 (HREFP_v2.0 and v2.2), the CW1200 802.11a/b/g/n chip, and the X-NUCLEO-IDW04A1 expansion board (Compl. ¶ 18; ECF No. 1). Notably, the accused set is dominated by legacy ST-Ericsson-era parts (CW1100/CW1200 radios and the NovaThor U8500 platform) alongside current IoT modules — an analyst observation, not a court finding. The infringement theory is standards-based: each count is supported by an "Evidence of Use" exhibit mapping claims to standardized behavior, and the complaint contains an apparent clerical artifact referring to the accused products as the "TI Wi-Fi Multimedia Products," i.e., boilerplate carried over from CommWorks' parallel suit against Texas Instruments. The metadata's single listed patent understates the case: the complaint pleads five counts — Count I, U.S. Pat. 7,177,285 and Count II, U.S. Pat. 7,463,596 (WPS push-button provisioning/device-association methods); Count III, U.S. Pat. 7,911,979 (provisioning system with provisioning logic); Count IV, RE44,904 (issued May 20, 2014, Compl. ¶ 64); and Count V, U.S. Pat. 7,027,465, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" (issued Apr. 11, 2006; App. No. 10/167,986, filed June 11, 2002; continuation of PCT/EP99/10097, priority Dec. 17, 1999; inventor Petri Hautala; assignee Nokia). In one line: the '465/RE'904 family lets low-cost access points detect priority traffic by extracting a bit pattern at a known frame offset and comparing it to a search pattern, avoiding deep packet inspection — the hook for WMM/802.11e QoS. Its 1999 priority date and 433 days of PTA are material; Google Patents lists the '465 patent as "Expired – Lifetime," which if correct would bar prospective relief and cap damages to the pre-suit look-back window (verify before relying on it).

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Aug. 25, 2025 in the W.D. Tex., Midland/Odessa Division as No. 7:25-cv-00363-DC, assigned to Judge David Counts under the court's July 25, 2022 Order Assigning Business of the Court as it Relates to Patent Cases, with an automatic referral to a magistrate judge (Dkt. 7, Aug. 27, 2025). Service was effected Sept. 2, 2025 (Dkt. 8); ST obtained an extension to respond (Dkts. 10, 12). The docket shows the case is no longer pending, contrary to the case metadata: CommWorks filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on Oct. 31, 2025 (Dkt. 14), the court closed the case on Nov. 3, 2025 (Dkt. 15), and the AO-120 report followed Nov. 4, 2025 (Dkt. 16) (CourtListener docket). Secondary sources describe the dismissal as with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); I could not verify that from the primary notice text, and the same-day, same-division dismissal of CommWorks' parallel Marvell case (7:25-cv-00354) was reported as without prejudice — so the preclusive effect should be treated as unconfirmed. The case is notable on four axes. First, it is part of a serial, near-simultaneous August 2025 W.D. Tex. wave against Wi-Fi silicon vendors (Marvell, 7:25-cv-00354; NXP, 7:25-cv-00395), layered on a 2025 E.D. Tex. wave (AVM, 2:25-cv-00026; DrayTek, 2:25-cv-00024; TI, 2:25-cv-00439 before Judge Gilstrap) and an E.D. Va. suit against u-blox (1:25-cv-02504) — plus an earlier cable/ISP campaign (Comcast, RCN, Charter, Cable One, EarthLink). Second, the filing-division choice matters: Midland/Odessa rather than Waco indicates plaintiffs are spreading patent filings beyond Judge Albright's docket. Third, the case illustrates standardization-as-infringement: asserting patents over WMM and WPS — features that are effectively mandatory in Wi-Fi CERTIFIED products — against chipmakers rather than end users, which invites § 101/§ 112 and standard-limitation defenses that never got litigated here. Fourth, the IPR linkage is real but indirect: Unified Patents has attacked CommWorks assets repeatedly — an ex parte reexamination granted Dec. 23, 2021 on U.S. 6,832,249 and an IPR final written decision on Feb. 13, 2023 invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. 8,923,846 — but my searches surfaced no PTAB proceeding on the '465 patent, and the 70-day, pre-answer exit means no merits or validity ruling was ever reached on any of the five patents here.

Sourcing note: docket entries, the complaint PDF, and patent bibliographic data are primary. Party structure (IP Investments Group/Brainbox), counsel rosters, and the "with prejudice" characterization come from secondary aggregators (Patsnap, Unified Patents, IPWatchdog) and should be confirmed against PACER before being relied on; I found no Reuters/Law360/RPX coverage of this specific docket.

I'll research this case thoroughly across court dockets, PTAB records, and legal news sources.

Key finding already: the case appears to have ended in a voluntary dismissal. Let me verify the docket details and search for PTAB activity on these patents.

Now let me check for PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents and look at the broader CommWorks campaign.

Bottom line

This case never reached the merits. CommWorks voluntarily dismissed the entire action with prejudice on 2025-10-31, 67 days after filing — before STMicroelectronics served an answer or any Rule 12 motion — and the court closed the case on 2025-11-03. There is no answer, no counterclaims, no motion to dismiss/transfer/stay, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding on the asserted patents that I could find. The dismissal was one of a cluster of near-simultaneous CommWorks dismissals in late October 2025 across multiple defendants, which is the strategically significant fact.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Important correction to the case metadata. The prompt lists the patent at issue as 7,027,465 only. In fact the complaint asserted five patents, each with its own "Evidence of Use" exhibit: U.S. 7,177,285 (Ex. A), 7,463,596 (Ex. B), 7,911,979 (Ex. C), RE44,904 (Ex. D), and 7,027,465 (Ex. E) — i.e., Counts I–V. Compare the identical exhibit set used by CommWorks in its parallel 2025 suits (DrayTek, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00024; VTech, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00433). The '465 patent issued 2006-04-11 (App. No. 10/167,986, filed 2002-06-11), titled "Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection"; the complaint alleges WMM (Wi-Fi Multimedia) / 802.11-2007+ functionality infringes it, and that WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup) functionality infringes the '979/'596 family (complaint text).

Accused products: STMicroelectronics Wi-Fi SoCs/devices — CW1100 Wi-Fi chip, SPWF04S series (SPWF04SA/SC), CW1200 802.11a/b/g/n, U8500 Android reference designs with CW1100, and X-NUCLEO-IDW04A1 (plus "substantially similar" products).

Venue pleading, notably: the complaint anchored W.D. Tex. venue on STMicro's Austin office (11809 Domain Drive, Suite 300) and on STMicro's prior failure to contest venue in MIMO Research v. STMicroelectronics, No. 6:22-cv-00668-ADA, Purdue Univ. v. STMicroelectronics, and Luminatronics v. Texas Instruments — an anticipatory defense against a § 1400(b)/TC Heartland transfer motion that never materialized.

Representation: Plaintiff — Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (James F. McDonough III, Jonathan L. Hardt; firm also active in the sister suits). Defendant — reported as Klemchuk PLLC (Darin M. Klemchuk, Richard L. Wynne Jr., Zachary R. Tiritilli) (PatSnap case note). The three defense notices of appearance (Docs. 9, 11, 13) are consistent with a multi-lawyer defense team. Caveat: defense counsel attribution rests on a litigation-intelligence blog, not on a PACER document I could read directly.

No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed — this is the fact that made Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) available and is confirmed by the court's own order language in the sibling case (below).

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None were filed. Specifically:

• Motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2)/(3)/(6), § 101): none.
• Motion to transfer venue (§ 1404(a)/§ 1406, or intra-district division transfer): none. (Contrast the Marvell case below, which was reassigned from Judge Counts to Judge Albright.)
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none — and it is doubtful one was available, since no IPR existed on these patents.
• Summary judgment: none.
• The only contested-relief motion was the unopposed extension of time to answer (Doc. 10), granted 2025-09-15 (Doc. 12).

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Markman briefing, no hearing, no claim construction order. Zero substantive judicial analysis of any asserted claim. (For contrast, the same plaintiff's asserted patents were construed in CommWorks v. Comcast, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA — Amended Claim Construction Order, ECF 35 (2022-03-08) — but on a different patent, U.S. 8,923,846, and in a different case.)

---

4. Discovery milestones

None of record. The case was dismissed ~67 days after filing, in the window when W.D. Tex. patent cases typically exchange Rule 26(f) conference reports and proposed scheduling orders — not discovery. No scheduling order, no infringement contentions/invalidity contentions exchange, no protective order appears on the docket. The only substantive "work product" dates from before filing: the five "Evidence of Use" exhibits, which read as claim charts prepared for the 2025 assertion campaign (the STMicro complaint text even contains copy-over language referring to "TI Wi-Fi Multimedia Products," indicating a template reused from the Texas Instruments complaint).

---

5. Termination: voluntary dismissal with prejudice

Docket: CourtListener 71193236; closing order reported as 2025-11-03 with case closed 70 days after filing (PatSnap).

Legal effect. Because STMicro had served neither an answer nor a summary-judgment motion, the notice was self-effectuating — the district court's order was a housekeeping confirmation. The court used precisely that reasoning (citing In re Amerijet Int'l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015)) in the companion CommWorks dismissal: "Plaintiff's notice is therefore 'self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.'" (order text quoted from CommWorks v. NXP USA, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00395, Doc. 14 → quoted at PatSnap NXP note). I did not obtain the verbatim STMicro order text; the language above is from the near-identical sibling order.

Consequences: dismissal with prejudice = a merits-terminating disposition that bars CommWorks from re-asserting these five patents against STMicroelectronics on the same accused products (res judicata/covenant-type protection for STMicro), but it carries no invalidity holding, no claim construction, and no non-infringement ruling. The patents remain presumptively valid and un-adjudicated. No post-judgment motions (JMOL/new trial/§ 285 fees) were filed — none were possible.

---

6. Settlement/dismissal context: this was a coordinated campaign resolution, not an isolated retreat

The STMicro dismissal was filed the same day (2025-10-31) as at least two other CommWorks dismissals, and within days of others. That pattern is the strategic story here:

Inference (label it as such): the Marvell docket's express "Notice of Settlement" (2025-10-29) plus the synchronized with-prejudice dismissals of Marvell, NXP, and STMicro on 2025-10-31 strongly suggest a portfolio-wide license/settlement wave in late October 2025 rather than litigation risk forcing CommWorks out. I found no public confirmation of a CommWorks–STMicro license, so the settlement hypothesis for this specific case is not documented — only its timing correlation.

---

7. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings

No IPR or PGR was filed against any of the five patents asserted in this case (7,027,465; RE44,904; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979) as far as my searches show. Because the case died in 67 days and STMicro never answered, there was no IPR-driven stay motion and no IPR estoppel consequence. Caveat: this is a negative search result from web sources; I could not complete a direct PTAB docket/PTAB-CTS verification in this session, so treat it as "no evidence found," not affirmative proof.

Adjacent portfolio PTAB history (different patent — do not conflate):

• Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 (U.S. 8,923,846, mobile-network information recovery; asserted by CommWorks against Comcast in W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA): petition filed 2021-07-30; instituted on all challenged claims 2022-02-14; Final Written Decision 2023-02-13 holding all challenged claims unpatentable, panel Chagnon, Trock, Kenny (Unified Patents; Patexia). Related cancellation: narrowed claims of U.S. 7,769,374 were cancelled in inter partes reexamination, a fact Unified used for collateral-estoppel arguments against CommWorks.
• The '465 patent has been in CommWorks' assertion portfolio since at least 2020 — it was one of nine patents asserted in CommWorks v. RCN Telecom Services, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-7534 (complaint), and is asserted across the 2025 campaign — which is consistent with a long-running, largely un-adjudicated portfolio.

Ownership: CommWorks is an NPE; its Rule 7 disclosures in the 2025 campaign identify Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent (e.g., EarthLink complaint, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716), while Unified Patents described CommWorks as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC." Those two statements are reconcilable (IP Investments Group → Brainbox → CommWorks) but I did not verify the chain from a primary filing in this case.

---

8. Current posture

Closed. No live district court proceeding, no appeal (the dismissal with prejudice left nothing appealable), no PTAB proceeding on these patents, and no fee-shifting motion. The only remaining "activity" is the broader portfolio campaign against other Wi-Fi SoC/device makers (u-blox, Broadcom, DrayTek, VTech, etc.), where the same five-plus patents remain un-adjudicated and therefore still available as assertion leverage.

Sourcing notes / limits: docket events and dates are drawn from the CourtListener/RECAP docket for 7:25-cv-00363 and the mirrored Justia docket; the complaint text from the RECAP PDF; the closing-order reasoning from the parallel NXP order and from a third-party litigation-intelligence summary (PatSnap) rather than the STMicro order PDF itself. I did not independently pull PACER for the case, did not obtain the executed Rule 41(a) notice's signature block, and could not verify the identity of the referred magistrate judge or the precise terms of any settlement (if one exists).

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

Now let me research the plaintiff's counsel's backgrounds and the firm's broader patent litigation work.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Bottom line: The docket reflects only two plaintiff-side appearances, both from the same firm — Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC ("RHM"). No in-house counsel, no co-counsel firm, and no additional appearances ever hit the docket before the case was dismissed. The docket does not formally designate a "lead" attorney, so the role characterizations below are my inference from the signature block, the summons, and firm bios — not a court designation.

---

1. James F. McDonough, III — first-named / primary counsel (de facto lead)

• Listed first in the complaint signature block and named in the summons as "plaintiff's attorney" — the contact point for service of the answer — which is why I treat him as the primary/lead plaintiff counsel. (Complaint, Dkt. 1; Summons, Dkt. 6)
• Experience: Emory Law J.D. (cum laude, technology-commercialization certificate); worked ~7 years as a network/systems engineer before law school. Describes himself as a patent litigator of ~17 years (as of Aug. 2025) who has "helped patent owners enforce their patents, primarily in the area of electronic devices," and has served as lead counsel in hundreds of litigated matters. Technology focus includes wireless networks, semiconductors, optical networking, encryption, and telecommunications — directly on point for the Wi-Fi/WMM/WPS patents here. (RHM bio; McDonough PTAB declaration, Aug. 2025)
• Notable matters: Patent-owner-side enforcement of a 40+ patent fleet-management portfolio (Fleet Connect Solutions matters, including Fleet Connect Solutions v. NexTraq, N.D. Ga.); IKEA Systems B.V. v. AR Design Innovations, IPR2022-01169 (pro hac vice for patent owner); Lumenco IPR proceedings (IPR2024-00836/-00838/-00839); Golden Rule roof-flashing patent case (settlement); prior MDL/data-breach class work with an $11.2M settlement. (PTAB filings)

2. Jonathan L. Hardt — co-counsel; Texas-side counsel of record

• Entered a separate Notice of Attorney Appearance (Dkt. 5, filed 8/25/2025) — the only appearance docketed for the plaintiff; both he and McDonough appear on the CourtListener parties page as "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED." (Dkt. 5; Parties page)
• Experience: St. Mary's University School of Law J.D., summa cum laude, first in class (2006); law clerk to Hon. David Folsom, E.D. Tex. (2006–07) — the district where he now practices most. Formerly Vinson & Elkins, WilmerHale (D.C. IP litigation group), and Williams Simons Landis; founded RHM in 2021. States 19 years of patent-litigation experience, "primarily in the area of electronic devices and wireless communications." Has been lead attorney in multiple ITC Section 337 investigations and has served as local counsel in the E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and multiple district courts. (RHM bio; Hardt PTAB declaration, Aug. 6, 2025)
• Notable matters: Patent-owner representation in the Court of Federal Claims Giesecke+Devrient matter (with related E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00100); Assa Abloy Global Solutions v. Liberty Access Technologies Licensing (Federal Circuit win blocking transfer from N.D. Ill. to Texas); Jetaire Aerospace indefiniteness reconsideration win (U.S. Pat. 9,849,998); venue-transfer win as counsel for declaratory-judgment defendant Liberty Access.

---

Additional observations

• No other plaintiff counsel. Despite the complaint asserting five patents ('285, '596, '979, RE44,904, and '465 — note the case metadata lists only the '465), no third attorney, no in-house counsel, and no co-counsel ever appeared for CommWorks. CommWorks is a non-practicing entity, so there is no corporate legal department to appear.
• No sealed/withheld appearances. The docket is complete and public; nothing indicates a sealed appearance or counsel practicing without entry of record.
• Firm profile. RHM is a small patent-assertion boutique that is a prolific filer of plaintiff-side W.D. Tex. complaints. The same McDonough/Hardt pairing appears in numerous parallel matters — DataCloud Technologies v. Lattice Semiconductor (7:26-cv-00083), Liberty Access Technologies Licensing v. Brivo Systems (7:26-cv-00054), Nearby Systems cases, and Illumidine v. Fitly — so this was a standard RHM two-attorney team, not a purpose-built group. (PacerMonitor listings)
• Posture caveat. The metadata in this prompt lists the case as "pending," but the CourtListener docket shows a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 14, Oct. 31, 2025) and an Order Dismissing Case (Dkt. 15, Nov. 3, 2025), with the AO-120 patent report filed Nov. 4, 2025 — i.e., the case closed roughly 70 days after filing, with no answer or merits motion ever filed, so there is no Rule 26(f) report or scheduling order that would formally designate lead/trial counsel. A secondary AI-generated blog reports the dismissal was with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and that defendant STMicroelectronics was represented by Klemchuk PLLC (Darin M. Klemchuk, Richard L. Wynne Jr., Zachary Russell Tiritilli); I could not verify that defendant-side representation against a primary source (PACER/the docket sheet), so treat it as unconfirmed. (CourtListener docket)
• Confidence: High on the two plaintiff attorneys and their contact/firm details (multiple corroborating primary sources: complaint, summons, docket appearance, firm bios). Medium-low on role labels ("lead" vs. "local"), since no court document designates them, and on the dismissal particulars, which rest on the RECAP docket and a secondary source rather than a retrieved opinion.

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

Let me pull the full docket entries and verify the defense counsel.

Let me dig into the specific appearance entries and verify the Klemchuk attribution.

Bottom line first

Counsel of record for the defendant exists on the docket — three attorney-appearance notices were filed for STMicroelectronics, Inc. in September 2025 (Dkt. 9, 11, 13) — but the names on those entries are not recoverable from the free sources I could reach, and the only source I found that names defense counsel is a third‑party, AI-generated case summary. I therefore cannot give you a verified attorney list, and I'm flagging that explicitly rather than guessing.

Two case-status corrections that materially affect this question:

• The case is closed. CommWorks filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on Oct. 31, 2025 (Dkt. 14); the court entered an Order Dismissing Case on Nov. 3, 2025 (Dkt. 15); the AO‑120 patent report followed Nov. 4, 2025 (Dkt. 16). The prompt's "pending" status is stale. (CourtListener docket; Docket update feed)
• ST never answered. The dismissal was a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) unilateral dismissal, which is only self-effectuating before the defendant serves an answer or MSJ. The docket confirms no answer and no Rule 12 motion, which is why the defense-side record is so thin: no answer, no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure, no invalidity contentions, no IPR. The only defense filings were appearances and a stipulated extension.

What the docket actually shows for STMicroelectronics

The three appearance notices (Dkt. 9, 11, 13) are the counsel-of-record event you're asking about; the fact pattern (multiple appearances plus a consented extension) is the normal lead-counsel-plus-local-counsel structure for an out-of-state defendant in W.D. Tex.

Why I can't name them — and the one unverified lead

• RECAP/CourtListener has the docket metadata but not the entry text. The appearance entries are docketed but the filings themselves are not in the RECAP collection, and the parties page for this case lists counsel only for the plaintiff — James F. McDonough, III and Jonathan L. Hardt of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Atlanta, GA / Austin, TX). (CourtListener parties page) The Justia docket mirror is also stale (last retrieved Aug. 25, 2025), so it shows nothing after the complaint. (Justia docket)
• Unverified secondary source: A Patsnap Eureka case write-up states that STMicroelectronics was represented by Klemchuk PLLC (Dallas, TX) — specifically Darin M. Klemchuk, Richard L. Wynne Jr., and Zachary Russell Tiritilli. (Patsnap Eureka) I could not corroborate this against PACER, the docket text, a firm press release, or Law360/Reuters, and Patsnap Eureka is machine-generated litigation commentary of the kind that frequently mis-assigns counsel. Treat this as a lead to check, not a finding. If it is accurate, the natural roles would be Klemchuk as lead, with Wynne and Tiritilli on the team — but I am not asserting that as fact.
• I found no evidence of in-house STMicroelectronics counsel entering an appearance, and no W.D. Tex. "local counsel" designation beyond whatever the appearance forms themselves say.

How to close the gap (five-minute PACER pull)

1. Pull the PACER docket for 7:25-cv-00363-DC and open Dkt. 9, 11, and 13 ("Notice of Attorney Appearance"). The W.D. Tex. appearance form requires the signer's name, bar number, firm, address, phone/fax, and email, so the entries themselves are dispositive.
2. Open Dkt. 10 (the extension motion) — the certificate of conference/service and signature block will identify who was negotiating with McDonough and Hardt.
3. Cross-check Dkt. 15 (Order Dismissing Case) and Dkt. 16 (AO‑120), which sometimes restate the appearing parties.
4. If you need counsel data for related proceedings, note that CommWorks runs a serial campaign on these Wi‑Fi/WPS patents (Stanford NPE database lists prior '979 suits against Charter, Ubee, Consolidated Communications, and a 2026 follow-on against Microchip Technology Inc., 7:26‑cv‑00043, also before Judge Counts) — the same defense-side firms tend to recur across that campaign, which may help you sanity-check whatever PACER shows.

Sources: CourtListener docket and feed for 7:25‑cv‑00363; the RECAP complaint PDF (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172860958); Justia docket mirror; Patsnap Eureka (secondary, unverified). No sealed filings appear to be implicated — the gap is simply that the appearance documents are not in the free RECAP collection.