CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Technicolor USA Inc. et al.

I'll research this case across docket sources, patent records, and industry coverage.

Now let me dig into the specific patent, the case outcome, and the NPE structure.

Case Overview: CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Technicolor USA Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-02827-SCJ (N.D. Ga.)

The parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with its registered office in Alpharetta, Ga. (Fulton County) — the same address used in its other complaints. It is not an operating telecom equipment maker; it is a patent-assertion entity and, per reporting on the filing, "an affiliate of Georgia-based NPE IPInvestments Group" that acquired the asserted family from Intellectual Ventures LLC (Lexology case note, July 29, 2022). In a parallel PTAB proceeding CommWorks identified Brainbox Innovations, LLC as a real party in interest (IPR2021-01297, Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices). Its litigation counsel here (Kheyfits, Belenky, Moore, Cohen) were admitted pro hac vice in August 2022, with Atlanta firm Meunier Carlin & Curfman also active for CommWorks in the related PTAB matter. Defendants are the U.S. arms of the French connected-home/broadband-CPE group: Technicolor USA, Inc. and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC. Note a caption wrinkle: the case metadata names Technicolor SA (not Connected Home) as the second defendant, while the docket and the October 17, 2022 answer are captioned against Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC and Technicolor USA, Inc. (docket). The defendants' Rule 7.1 disclosure identified Vantiva SA as their corporate parent — the entity formerly known as Technicolor SA, which was renamed in late 2022 when the connected-home business was carried forward under the Vantiva name (Dkt. 22). So the corporate-defendant identity was shifting at precisely the time this case was filed.

Accused technology and asserted patents. CommWorks' theory is standards-implementation infringement: it accuses "dozens of Technicolor routers, access points, gateways, devices, and other products with Wi-Fi-related technology" (Lexology) — the docket exhibit list shows product-specific evidence such as the Technicolor CGA4234 gateway, a Wi-Fi Alliance certificate (WFA79883), and the Wi-Fi Multimedia Technical Specification (docket exhibits, via UniCourt). The metadata records RE44,904 as the patent at issue; the complaint as filed apparently swept in a six-patent Wi-Fi family (IPWatchdog's filing roundup lists 6,891,807; 7,027,465; RE44,904; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; and 7,911,979, and the docket exhibit list is consistent with that set). Roughly, they divide into two groups: (1) contention-free traffic detection / WMM-QoS — RE44,904 ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," reissued May 20, 2014) and its sibling 7,027,465. Asserted claim 1 of RE44,904 covers extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame, comparing it to a search pattern, identifying the frame as priority, forwarding it to a high-priority queue during a "special period for sending priority traffic," and adjusting the duration of that special period based on statistics of sent priority frames — i.e., the WMM/802.11e EDCA TXOP-adaptation concept (STMicro complaint ¶¶44–46, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00363); and (2) time-based wireless provisioning / WPS — 7,177,285, 7,463,596, 7,911,979, and 6,891,807, which claim granting or associating a device when a tracked operating parameter (power-on or onset of transmission) occurs within a defined time interval, mapped by CommWorks onto Wi-Fi Protected Setup push-button provisioning. One caveat: I could not confirm from a primary USPTO record which original patent RE44,904 reissues; CommWorks' pleadings describe it as a reissue in the '465 family, and it is pleaded side-by-side with the '465 patent, so treating it as the '465 patent's reissue would be an error.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed July 18, 2022 in the Atlanta Division of the N.D. Ga. before Judge Steve C. Jones (case number 1:22-cv-02827-SCJ), with both sides demanding a jury. Defendants obtained two agreed extensions and answered on October 17, 2022, with a discovery cutoff of July 14, 2023 (docket). Georgia is CommWorks' home district — an unusual choice for an NPE whose later waves ran through E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap) and W.D. Tex./Waco, and it matters here for two reasons: filing at home means no serious venue-transfer fight under TC Heartland, and it kept the case out of the rocket dockets that CommWorks otherwise favored, which is consistent with a lower-cost, license-leverage posture rather than a push toward trial. The case is recorded as closed, but the freely accessible docket data stops at the October 2022 answer, so I could not retrieve the specific dismissal entry for this case; the file's exact termination mechanism, date, and terms are not well sourced. That said, the outcome fits CommWorks' demonstrated pattern in this campaign: the vast majority of its suits end by stipulation of dismissal or consent judgment rather than merits adjudication — e.g., the CommScope/ARRIS case (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00510) dismissed with prejudice on a joint motion stating the parties "have resolved Plaintiff's claims," and the NXP case (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00395) dismissed with prejudice by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice — neither producing any claim construction or validity ruling.

Why it's notable. This was one of the opening shots of CommWorks' first coordinated campaign — reportedly 11 actions filed across multiple districts beginning in 2020–2021 against ISPs and equipment makers including Charter, D-Link, Mediacom, Comcast, RCN, and Cable One — and it is a textbook example of an IV-spun portfolio being re-cut into standards-implementation claims and asserted against the Wi-Fi/CPE supply chain rather than end users (Lexology; Unified Patents campaign page). It is also notable for triggering a sustained defensive response: Unified Patents has run an active ex parte reexamination campaign against the CommWorks portfolio (e.g., the USPTO granted a reexam on U.S. 7,760,664 on July 1, 2022, less than a month after Unified's filing) and filed IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846 (Unified Patents). The presence of a reissue patent (RE44,904) in the asserted set adds a distinct legal overlay — reissue claim scope, the two-year recapture rule, and intervening-rights defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 252 for products made before the May 20, 2014 reissue — that a later trial court would have had to address had the case survived. Market context: the named defendants are a top-tier supplier of set-top boxes and broadband gateways to U.S. ISPs, so a licensing resolution here (as appears to have occurred) had downstream implications for the ISP customers who deploy those devices — which is presumably the leverage the campaign was designed to create. CommWorks subsequently expanded the same portfolio against chip vendors (Broadcom, Qualcomm, STMicro, NXP, u-blox) and network vendors (Extreme, Intel, Adtran, CommScope/ARRIS, EarthLink, Vyve), confirming that this Technicolor action was an early proof-of-concept assertion rather than an isolated dispute.

Sourcing notes / unverified points: (i) the exact dismissal date and terms in this case; (ii) whether RE44,904 was subject to a Unified Patents reexamination; (iii) the specific original patent reissued as RE44,904; and (iv) whether Technicolor SA was ever served given the Connected Home caption. The PatSnap litigation write-ups are AI-generated and I did not rely on them for any factual assertion above.

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

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Technicolor USA Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-02827-SCJ (N.D. Ga.)

Important sourcing note up front: The public docket for this case that I could retrieve is only current through 2022-10-17 (Dockets.Justia shows "docket last retrieved on October 17, 2022"; UniCourt shows the same cutoff). The case metadata I was given marks the matter closed, but I was unable to retrieve the actual closing entry (dismissal order, stipulation, or judgment) from a primary source. Everything below is grounded in the docket entries I could verify; where the record is silent I say so rather than inferring.

---

1. Parties, patents, and counsel

• Plaintiff: CommWorks Solutions, LLC — an NPE affiliate of Georgia-based IPInvestments Group; its Rule 7.1 disclosure in related cases identifies Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent. (The Lexology case note calls it an IPInvestments Group affiliate; CommWorks' PTAB mandatory notices in IPR2021-01297 identify Brainbox Innovations as an RPI.)
• Defendants as docketed in N.D. Ga.: Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC and Technicolor USA, Inc. The case caption supplied to me names "Technicolor SA," and IPWatchdog's 2022-07-29 roundup lists both "Technicolor USA Inc" and "Technicolor SA" — but the N.D. Ga. docket I retrieved names Connected Home USA LLC, not Technicolor SA. The Defendants' 2022-10-17 corporate disclosure identifies Vantiva SA as corporate parent (Technicolor rebranded to Vantiva in 2022), which is likely the source of the "SA" reference.
• Patents pleaded: The complaint (Doc. 1) asserted a six-patent Wi-Fi/networking portfolio — U.S. 6,891,807; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979; 7,027,465; and RE44,904 ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," reissued 2014-05-20). Your case metadata lists only RE44904; notably, a later case-tracker page for this exact docket lists the asserted patents as '465, '596, '285, '807, '979, and '904. So RE44,904 was one of several asserted patents, and the pleadings-stage record shows the full six.
• Accused technology: Dozens of Technicolor routers, gateways, access points and set-top/Wi-Fi devices — exemplars include the Technicolor CGA4234 Gateway (Exhibit 7 to the complaint) — with WMM/802.11e QoS functionality (complaint Exhibits 12–13 include the Wi-Fi Multimedia Technical Specification). The RE44,904 theory is the familiar WMM/EDCA one: detecting a priority frame from a bit pattern in the QoS Control field and transmitting it in a reserved TXOP period.
• Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Andrey Belenky, Brandon Gregory Moore, Dmitry Kheyfits, Hanna Glomska Cohen, Daniel Arthur Kent (Kheyfits Belenky LLP / associated Georgia counsel; pro hac vice orders at Docs. 11–14, 2022-08-03).
  • Defendants: Nathan R. Miles (Morris Manning & Martin LLP) and Daniel Huynh (Docs. 22–23).

---

2. Chronology of legal developments

2022-07-18 — Complaint filed. Doc. 1, with 13+ exhibits including copies of the asserted patents (Ex. 1 = '807; Ex. 4 = '596; Ex. 6 = RE44,904), accused-product documentation, Wi-Fi certifications, and the WMM technical specification. Jury demand by Plaintiff. Assigned to Judge Steve C. Jones. Filed alongside CommWorks' broader 2020–2022 campaign (Charter, D-Link, Mediacom, Comcast, RCN, etc.).

2022-07-27 to 2022-08-03 — Pro hac vice admissions. The Clerk approved PHV applications for Belenky, Moore, Kheyfits and Cohen (Docs. 7–10), and Judge Jones entered the corresponding orders (Docs. 11–14, all 2022-08-03). Doc. 17 (2022-08-18) shows returned mail to Moore re Doc. 12 — clerical, not substantive.

2022-08-04/05 — First answer extension. Joint motion (Doc. 15); order (Doc. 16, 2022-08-05) extending Defendants' response deadline to 2022-09-16.

2022-09-13/15 — Second answer extension. Joint motion (Doc. 20); order (Doc. 21, 2022-09-15) extending the response deadline to 2022-10-17. Two stipulated extensions before any responsive pleading is itself a mild signal of early settlement/licensing discussions.

2022-10-17 — Answer and corporate disclosure.

• Doc. 23: Answer to Complaint with jury demand by both Technicolor entities. The docket text itself records the then-operative discovery cutoff: 2023-07-14, confirming a scheduling order had issued.
• Doc. 22: Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure identifying Vantiva SA as parent.
• I did not find any recorded counterclaims (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) in the retrieved docket. It is possible counterclaims were pleaded inside Doc. 23, but that cannot be verified from the docket text, so I do not assert it.

No substantive pre-trial motion practice is documented. There is no motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion in the retrievable record. (This is expected: Technicolor's response deadline was extended to 2022-10-17 and the answer was filed the same day.)

No Markman proceeding. There is no claim-construction order, no joint claim-construction statement, and no Markman hearing in any source I located. The case did not reach claim construction on the record available.

Discovery. The only verifiable milestone is the 2023-07-14 discovery cutoff recited in Doc. 23. No discovery motions, protective orders, or ESI disputes appear in the retrieved docket.

Trial / verdict / post-trial motions. None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion is documented. The case did not go to trial on any available record.

Final disposition — case "closed"; mechanism not verifiable. The metadata states the case is closed, and an analytics entry for docket 1:22-cv-02827 lists status "Closed." However, I could not retrieve the operative dismissal/judgment entry. No evidence of a merits ruling (invalidity, non-infringement, or damages) exists. Given (a) the pre-answer extension pattern, (b) the absence of any motion practice, and (c) CommWorks' documented pattern in parallel 2022–2025 suits (Technicolor's sister cases against TRENDnet, Vyve, CommScope/ARRIS, Adtran, NXP, STMicroelectronics and EarthLink all ended by stipulated dismissal with or without prejudice rather than adjudication), the most likely disposition is a confidential settlement/license followed by a stipulated or voluntary dismissal, but this is inference, not a cited fact. I flag it as unresolved.

---

3. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings

• Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 (U.S. 8,923,846) — a third-party (Unified Patents) IPR against a CommWorks portfolio patent. CommWorks' 2021-08-25 mandatory notices in that IPR identify Brainbox Innovations, LLC as an RPI and list Meunier Carlin & Curfman (Lawrence A. Aaronson, Warren J. Thomas) as counsel. U.S. 8,923,846 is not one of the patents asserted against Technicolor.
• Unified Patents' ex parte reexamination campaign. The Lexology case note (2022-07-29) states Unified Patents had "an active campaign attacking the CommWorks patent portfolio via ex parte reexamination." That campaign is portfolio-wide and not specific to RE44,904.
• No IPR/PGR on RE44,904 is documented in the sources I located. I searched for a Technicolor- or Unified-filed IPR on RE44,904 and found no petition, institution decision, or final written decision. One analytics page does list Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC as a "challenger" associated with this docket and the patents '465/'596/'285/'807/'979/'904, which could indicate a third-party USPTO filing by Technicolor — but the page is ambiguous and I could not confirm it against PTAB records, so I treat it as unverified.
• Effect on the litigation: Because the N.D. Ga. case appears to have terminated before any PTAB deadline ripened, there is no documented instance of a stay, an IPR-based invalidation, or a PTAB-driven claim narrowing affecting this case. The asserted patents were not judicially or administratively invalidated in connection with 1:22-cv-02827.

---

4. Strategic significance

1. Volume NPE assertion, rapid early-exit pattern. This case fits CommWorks' standard playbook: a six-patent Wi-Fi/802.11 QoS portfolio (acquired from Intellectual Ventures), dozens of accused consumer gateways/routers, venue chosen in the plaintiff's home district (Atlanta), two stipulated extensions of the response deadline, then termination before Markman. Across the parallel campaign (TRENDnet, Vyve, Adtran, NXP, STMicroelectronics, EarthLink, AVM, DrayTek), CommWorks consistently resolved claims by stipulated dismissal — with or without prejudice — without ever obtaining a merits ruling. That means RE44,904 remains unintelligible as precedent and remains an active assertion tool against the wider Wi-Fi supply chain.
2. RE44,904 is a reissue patent and the recurring centerpiece. It has been asserted against Charter/RCN, Extreme, Adtran, Broadcom, Marvell, STMicroelectronics, NXP, TRENDnet and others in the 2020–2025 wave — the "WMM/802.11-2007+" QoS-detection theory is CommWorks' most portable claim family. A reissue patent carries the extra risk of invalidity under the recapture and original-patent-claim rules (35 U.S.C. § 251(d)), making it a natural IPR target; that no such IPR is documented here is a notable gap in the defensive record.
3. Technicolor/Vantiva posture. Technicolor's N.D. Ga. entities were subsidiaries of what became Vantiva SA; a settlement here would have been a low-cost portfolio exit for a set-top/gateway business being spun off, rather than a test case. The defense team (Morris Manning & Martin) was local-counsel driven, and no invalidity counterattack (IPR or DJ) is visible on this docket.

---

5. What I could not verify (do not treat as fact)

• The specific closing docket entry (voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1), stipulated dismissal, or court order) and its date and prejudice status.
• Whether the Answer (Doc. 23) contained invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims.
• Whether Technicolor filed any IPR/PGR or ex parte reexamination request on RE44,904 or the other asserted patents.
• Any license or settlement terms.
• Whether the case ever reached a scheduling order beyond the 2023-07-14 discovery cutoff recited in Doc. 23.

To close these gaps you would need a current PACER pull for 1:22-cv-02827 (Dkt. 24 onward) and a PTAB/P-TACTS search for RE44,904 and U.S. 6,891,807 / 7,177,285 / 7,463,596 / 7,911,979 / 7,027,465.

Sources: Dockets.Justia docket 1:2022cv02827 (docket entries 11–23); UniCourt case page for 1:22-cv-02827; IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup, 2022-07-29 (case and patent list); Lexology case note, 2022-07-29 (parties, IV acquisition, Unified Patents reexam campaign); PTAB IPR2021-01297 Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices (CommWorks/Brainbox RPI); complaint exhibits and RE44,904 infringement theory as quoted in CommWorks' related complaints (E.D. Tex. / W.D. Tex. 2024–2025 filings).

I'll research the counsel of record for CommWorks Solutions, LLC in this case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Technicolor USA Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-02827-SCJ (N.D. Ga.)

Bottom line

The docket in this case shows a five-attorney plaintiff team: four out-of-state attorneys from Kheyfits Belenky LLP (admitted pro hac vice on August 3, 2022) plus one Georgia-licensed attorney who served as local counsel and filed all four pro hac vice applications. The court's docket sheet does not formally designate a "lead counsel," so the role labels below are inferred from filing patterns and from CommWorks' contemporaneous filings in companion cases; I flag where that inference is soft.

Caveat on completeness: the N.D. Ga. docket as reflected on free aggregators (Justia Dockets, UniCourt) was last refreshed in October 2022. The case is now closed. I could not retrieve the complaint's signature block itself, so I cannot independently confirm the exact ordering of names on the pleading. No sealed appearances are indicated, and no filing suggests additional plaintiff-side counsel appeared later.

---

Attorneys appearing for CommWorks

---

Docket support

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint with jury demand, filed July 18, 2022 (filing fee receipt AGANDC-11934306), by CommWorks Solutions, LLC.
• Dkts. 7, 8, 9, 10 — Applications for admission pro hac vice of Andrey Belenky, Brandon Gregory Moore, Dmitry Kheyfits, and Hanna Glomska Cohen, respectively, all filed by D.G. Kent for CommWorks Solutions, LLC (July 26 – Aug. 1, 2022).
• Dkts. 11, 12, 13, 14 — Orders granting those PHV applications, signed by Judge Steve C. Jones on Aug. 3, 2022. Each order is followed by the clerk's entry "Attorney [name] added appearing on behalf of CommWorks Solutions, LLC."
• Dkt. 19 — Request for Leave of Absence by Daniel Arthur Kent (Aug. 25, 2022), confirming his active role as the Georgia-based attorney of record.
• UniCourt's party/attorney extract for 1:22-cv-02827 lists the plaintiff-side attorneys as: Brandon Gregory Moore, Daniel Arthur Kent, Dmitry Kheyfits, Hanna Glomska Cohen, and Andrey Belenky — i.e., exactly the five above, with no others.

(Sources: Justia Dockets, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gandce/1:2022cv02827/[305414](/patent/305414); UniCourt, https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-commworks-solutions-llc-v-technicolor-connected-home-usa-llc-et-al-[1244644](/patent/1244644))

---

Where I could not verify

1. No formal "lead counsel" designation. N.D. Ga. docket sheets do not separately designate lead vs. local counsel. The Kheyfits-as-lead label rests on his role in CommWorks' other cases and the signature blocks of the parallel complaints (e.g., CommWorks v. Comcast, W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00366, where Kheyfits signed first as counsel for plaintiff), not on anything in this docket.
2. The complaint's signature block. Dkt. 1's attachment text was not retrievable in the searches I ran, so I cannot state with certainty whose names are affixed to the pleading.
3. Hanna Glomska Cohen's current firm. The Kheyfits Belenky affiliation is documented for 2022 (the relevant time for this case); her present-day firm is unconfirmed.
4. No in-house counsel identified. Nothing in the record suggests CommWorks (an Alpharetta, GA-based entity affiliated with IPInvestments Group / Brainbox Innovations, LLC) had in-house counsel appearing in this matter.

---

Related representation worth separating out

• PTAB / IPR counsel is a different firm. In Unified Patents v. CommWorks Solutions, IPR2021-01297 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,923,846), CommWorks' lead counsel was Lawrence A. "Larry" Aaronson (Reg. No. 38,369), with back-up Warren J. Thomas (Reg. No. 70,581), both of Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, 999 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1300, Atlanta, GA 30309. That is Patent Office representation in a separate forum, not an appearance in 1:22-cv-02827.
• Co-counsel in CommWorks' Texas filings. In several companion suits the Kheyfits Belenky team was joined by Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis and Catherine (Susan) Bartles of The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler, TX), and in some later cases by James Francis McDonough III, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt, Carey Matthew Rozier, and Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski. None of these attorneys appears on the 1:22-cv-02827 docket, so they should not be listed as counsel in this Georgia case.

---

Practical note for follow-up

If you need a definitive lead/local designation for this file, the cleanest source is PACER itself: pull the docket report for 1:22-cv-02827 (N.D. Ga.) and inspect Dkt. 1's signature block plus the § 7.1/NDGA LR 83.1(B) pro hac vice orders, which list the sponsoring local attorney by name. That is the document that would confirm Kent as the sponsoring (local) counsel rather than merely an attorney who happened to file the PHV papers.

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

Let me dig deeper into the specific attorney names and firm affiliations.

Let me check the later docket history (the case is now closed) and look for a full docket sheet.

Counsel of record for Defendants — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Technicolor USA Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-02827-SCJ (N.D. Ga.)

Bottom line: Two attorneys appear on the defense side in the docket records I could retrieve — Daniel L. Huynh (then of Morris, Manning & Martin LLP, Atlanta; now Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Atlanta) and Nathan R. Miles (Morris, Manning & Martin LLP, Atlanta).

---

1. Daniel L. Huynh — lead counsel

• Firm / office: In this 2022 case, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Atlanta, GA (Atlanta Financial Center, 3343 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 1600). He left MMM and is now a partner in Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP's Atlanta office (1230 Peachtree St. NE). At the time of this case he was an MMM partner in the IP/technology litigation group (he joined MMM as a partner in April 2019 from Alston & Bird's patent litigation group).
• Docket evidence: Listed in the case's attorney records as a Defendant Attorney, and is the e-filer of the joint motions to extend the defendants' answer deadline (Dkt. 15, filed Aug. 4, 2022; Dkt. 20, filed Sept. 13, 2022).
• Patent litigation experience: Strong and directly on point. His own firm biography states he "represented Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC in multiple patent infringement cases as lead counsel (NDGA, EDTX)" and "represented Vantiva SA in multiple patent infringement matters as lead counsel (WDTX)" — Vantiva SA is the renamed corporate parent (the Dkt. 22 Corporate Disclosure Statement identifies Vantiva SA as the corporate parent of the Technicolor entities here). Other listed matters include Nokia ITC Section 337 investigations (3G/802.11 portfolios), SITA Information Networking Computing (N.D. Tex.), Bevi/Hydration Labs (S.D.N.Y.), and Coca-Cola (N.D. Ga.). He is registered with the USPTO and recognized in Best Lawyers for Litigation–Intellectual Property.
• Note on role label: "Lead counsel" is grounded in his own bio's description of the Technicolor representations; I did not retrieve a formal docket entry designating lead trial counsel.

2. Nathan R. Miles — Georgia counsel (local-counsel role by inference)

• Firm / office: Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Atlanta, GA (Atlanta Financial Center, 3343 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 1600).
• Docket evidence: Named as a Defendant Attorney in the case attorney records; he is the e-filer of the Answer with jury demand (Dkt. 23, Oct. 17, 2022) and the Corporate Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 22, Oct. 17, 2022), both filed on behalf of both Technicolor USA, Inc. and Technicolor Connected Home USA, LLC.
• Background: Senior associate in MMM's Commercial Litigation practice (U. Ga. J.D. 2018; law clerk to Justice Robert Benham, Ga. Supreme Court; admitted in Georgia and to the N.D. Ga.). His published profile describes complex commercial litigation, insurance-coverage, and tort/product-liability work rather than a standalone patent-litigation specialty — consistent with a Georgia-admitted litigation associate supporting the patent team; I found no filing that expressly labels him "local counsel," so treat that characterization as inference.

---

Important caveats and gaps

• Docket currency. The retrievable docket sheets (Justia Dockets; UniCourt) were last refreshed Oct. 17–21, 2022. The case is now closed per the case metadata, but I could not retrieve the later entries (e.g., the dismissal/termination order) or screen for any additional notices of appearance filed after October 2022. Later-entering counsel, if any, are not captured here.
• Party-name discrepancy. Your case metadata names Technicolor USA Inc. and Technicolor SA; the PACER docket title names Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC and Technicolor USA, Inc. I found no appearance by Technicolor SA (the French parent) in the records retrieved — it may not have been served or may never have appeared.
• No notice-of-appearance documents retrieved. Both names appear via the docket's "attorney" listings and as filers/signatories on Dkts. 15, 20, 22, and 23. I did not see the underlying notices of appearance in the retrieved docket excerpt.
• No in-house counsel identified on the public docket for the defense.
• No sealed filings indicated as the reason for any missing entries; the limitation here is docket-update date, not sealing.

For context (not requested): plaintiff CommWorks Solutions was represented by Brandon G. Moore, Dmitry Kheyfits, Hanna Glomska Cohen, and Andrey Belenky (all admitted pro hac vice, Dkts. 8–14) plus Georgia counsel Daniel Arthur Kent.

Suggested verification: pull the full PACER docket for 1:22-cv-02827-SCJ (or the CourtListener/RECAP docket) to confirm the termination order and check for post-October-2022 appearances, and confirm Huynh's and Miles's roles from the notices of appearance themselves.