CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Case Overview and Background

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, No. 2:25-cv-00439 (E.D. Tex., filed Apr. 25, 2025)

The parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with a registered office in Alpharetta, Georgia — a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) with no products or operations, whose business is licensing and litigating a portfolio of wireless-networking patents. Its Rule 7.1 disclosures in its contemporaneous 2025 E.D. Tex. filings identify Brainbox Innovations, LLC as its corporate parent (CourtListener, CommWorks v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716, Dkt. 2), and trade reporting describes CommWorks as an affiliate of Georgia-based IPInvestments Group that acquired its patents from Intellectual Ventures LLC (Lexology, July 2022). Texas Instruments Incorporated is an operating semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Dallas — the mirror-image defendant in these suits — and here the accused technology is TI's own silicon rather than a downstream router. Plaintiff's counsel is Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Carey M. Rozier, James F. McDonough III, Jonathan L. Hardt, Kenneth A. Matuszewski — see the attorney-appearance entries at Dkts. 4–6); TI's appearance counsel is reported as Amanda A. Abraham of The Roth Law Firm PC (per the PatSnap case write-up, which is an AI-generated secondary source and should be treated as unverified).

The accused technology and asserted patents. The complaint (Dkt. 1) attaches seven "Evidence of Use" exhibits (Exhibits A–G) and targets TI's Wi-Fi connectivity chipsets implementing three standardized feature sets: Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/IEEE 802.11-2007+ quality-of-service, Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS), and Wi-Fi mesh — the CC3x00 SimpleLink family (CC3100, CC3200, CC3220, CC3235, CC3300, CC3301), the WL18xx module family, and mesh devices such as the CC2564C, spanning on the order of 70 part numbers according to PatSnap's docket summary (the specific part list is not independently verified here). Note a metadata discrepancy worth flagging: the case record supplied to me lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 as "the" patent at issue, but the docket's exhibit list shows the complaint asserted a family of related patents. The confirmed asserted set, matching CommWorks' parallel 2025 filings against AVM, DrayTek, MikroTik, EarthLink and Grandstream (Dkt. 1 exhibits there are identical), is: (1) U.S. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" (issued May 10, 2005; App. 10/341,847) — the parent patent, claiming an access point that tracks an operating parameter of a wireless device (power-on or onset of signal transmission) and provisions it only if that event falls within an activatable time interval, i.e., push-button setup (asserted claim 17); (2) U.S. 7,177,285, same title (issued Feb. 13, 2007) — a '807-family continuation covering the provisioning/association process, mapped to WPS; (3) U.S. 7,463,596 — same family, claiming a provisioning structure requiring minimal device capability/user proficiency and blocking unauthorized devices; (4) U.S. 7,911,979 — same family, claiming provisioning initiated without a user interface on the device; (5) U.S. 7,027,465, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" (issued Apr. 11, 2006; App. 10/167,986) — extracting a bit pattern at a predetermined frame offset, comparing it to a search pattern, and flagging the frame as priority, so an AP can detect QoS traffic without parsing upper-layer protocols (asserted claim 1), mapped to WMM; (6) RE44,904 — a May 20, 2014 reissue in the same contention-free traffic-detection family, also mapped to WMM; and (7) Exhibit G, the seventh patent, which PatSnap identifies as U.S. 9,554,304 — I could not independently confirm that identification, so treat it as unsourced. Each count pleads direct and (for some patents) induced/contributory infringement, willfulness, and a preemptive Alice § 101 shield ("the claims … are not directed to an abstract idea"), a tell that CommWorks anticipates eligibility and standardization defenses.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. The suit was filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — the district's dominant patent venue, chosen by CommWorks for its concentrated patent docket, experienced bench, and fast case-management schedule, and the same forum in which it filed most of its 2025 campaign (DrayTek 2:25-cv-00024, AVM 2:25-cv-00026, MikroTik 2:25-cv-00252, EarthLink 2:25-cv-00716). Procedurally the case is short and uneventful: TI was served April 29, 2025 (Dkt. 8), obtained an extension to answer (Dkts. 9–10, answer due July 3, 2025), and the court set a scheduling conference for July 16, 2025 (Dkt. 11). On July 1, 2025 the parties filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement (Dkt. 12), which Judge Gilstrap granted July 8 (Dkt. 13). On July 15, 2025 CommWorks filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing "all claims in this action with prejudice" (Dkt. 14), and the court entered its order dismissing with prejudice the same day (Dkt. 15), with the AO-120 termination notice filed at Dkt. 16 — roughly 81 days from filing, with no answer, no claim construction, and no merits ruling (Justia docket; RPX Empower).

The case is notable on three fronts. First, it marks CommWorks' migration up the supply chain: its 2020–2023 campaigns targeted ISPs and router/gateway OEMs (Comcast, Charter, RCN, Mediacom, Consolidated, D-Link, Technicolor, Ubee), whereas the 2025–2026 wave names the chip suppliers whose WMM/WPS/mesh-compliant silicon sits inside those products — TI, STMicroelectronics (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00363), and Broadcom and Qualcomm parts identified in related complaints — a strategy that raises the value per assertion but also invites indemnification dynamics and industry-wide defense coordination. Second, because the patents map to near-universal Wi-Fi Alliance/IEEE 802.11e/WPS functionality, the exposure is systemic rather than product-specific, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database shows '807 alone accruing 18+ assertions since 2020 (Stanford NPE DB). Third, the IPR/reexam linkage: Unified Patents has run an active challenge campaign against this portfolio, including IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846 and ex parte reexaminations; I have not verified whether any of the seven TI-asserted patents has a pending or instituted PTAB proceeding, so that should be checked before drawing conclusions about validity risk. The practical takeaway is that TI exited cheaply and quietly — a settlement that produced no precedent and, per the stipulation's plain terms, bars CommWorks only as to TI's accused products, while leaving the same patents live against MediaTek, Qualcomm, NXP, Broadcom, and others. The stipulation recites no consideration and the settlement terms are confidential, so any characterization of the deal as a "licensing settlement" is inference, not record fact.

I'll research this case systematically across the sources you named.

Good — I have the core docket. Now let me dig into the asserted patents, the complaint, and the PTAB parallel proceedings.

Now let me find the actual TI complaint details and the PTAB/IPR landscape for CommWorks's portfolio.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00439 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a five-patent-to-seven-patent assertion that never generated a single merits ruling. Filed 2025-04-25, served 2025-04-29, and dead by stipulated dismissal with prejudice on 2025-07-15 — 81 days after filing, before TI ever filed an answer. There was no motion practice beyond an agreed extension and a joint stay pending settlement, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and (as far as I can find) no IPR petition against the Wi-Fi patents asserted here. The disposition was almost certainly a negotiated license/resolution; the terms are not public.

Sourcing note: The docket below is drawn from the Justia/RPX docket mirror for 2:25-cv-00439 (docket last retrieved 2025-07-15), the RPX litigation-document copy of the complaint, and PTAB records. CommWorks's docket moves quickly and settlements are confidential, so anything about the substance of the deal is inference, not record.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

No answer was ever filed, and therefore no counterclaims (no invalidity, non-infringement, inequitable conduct, or antitrust counterclaims; no § 101 motion). TI's only appearances in the case were the extension application and counsel's signature on the later joint stay motion. The agreed first extension (from ~2025-05-20 to 2025-07-03) was itself a strong early signal of settlement-track discussions.

Asserted patents. The case caption/metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued 2005-05-10, app. 10/341,847 filed 2003-01-13). CommWorks's standard Wi-Fi campaign set is seven patents: the '807 patent and its time-based-provisioning family (7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,911,979), the contention-free-traffic-detection pair (7,027,465 and its reissue RE44,904), and 9,554,304 — which is what secondary trackers report for the TI case. I could not independently verify the exact seven-patent list from the TI complaint itself in the accessible record, so treat the precise list as probable but not confirmed. What the complaint text does confirm is the accused-instrumentality theory: "any TI chips and/or devices and/or software supporting Wi-Fi Multimedia and 802.11-2007+ functionality, including, for example, the TI Wi-Fi Multimedia Products," plus WPS-capable devices (Counts IV and V to RE44,904 and the '465 patent respectively). See complaint excerpt at RPX Insight doc. 16108218.

Two pleading features are strategically relevant:

• Prior notice: CommWorks pleaded a February 2021 notice letter to TI establishing knowledge for induced infringement, and pleaded indirect infringement "from February 2021 until the ... patent's expiry." The parallel EarthLink complaint pleads an April 17, 2020 notice letter, indicating a coordinated 2020–2021 demand campaign.
• Pre-emptive § 101 pleading: allegations that claims "are not directed to an abstract idea and are not limited to well-understood, routine, or conventional activity" — an anticipatory defense against Alice motions.
• Willful blindness boilerplate: the standard CommWorks allegation that the defendant "has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others."

Expired-patent economics. Several asserted patents were on their face expired or nearly so: the '465 patent (filed 2002-06-11) and RE44,904 expired in June 2022; the '807 patent (filed 2003-01-13) expired on its face in January 2023. That frames the entire case as a back-damages claim inside the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback (i.e., back to April 2019) — no injunction, no ongoing royalty. It is a key reason a defendant can price a license cheaply and a plaintiff has little to gain from litigating to judgment.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. Specifically:

• No motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2)/(3)/(6)) or § 101 motion.
• No motion to transfer venue — notable given TI's Dallas-area headquarters; TI did not contest E.D. Tex. venue.
• No motion to stay pending IPR. None was needed: no IPR on the asserted Wi-Fi patents had been filed by TI or any third party (see §5).
• No summary judgment or Daubert practice — the case ended before the CMC.

The only motions were procedural: TI's unopposed answer extension (2025-05-12) and the parties' Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement (Dkt. 12, filed 2025-07-01), granted by Judge Gilstrap on 2025-07-08 (Dkt. 13).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. Judge Gilstrap's order of 2025-06-26 (Dkt. 11) set a Scheduling/Case Management Conference for 2025-07-16; that conference was cancelled on 2025-07-09 following the stay. No scheduling order issued, no joint claim-construction/pre-markman statement, no Markman hearing, no claim-construction opinion. CommWorks therefore obtained zero claim-scope guidance across its campaign — which is itself significant for the portfolio's future leverage (no adverse construction on terms such as "onset of a signal transmission" or "automatically associating," terms that repeated CommWorks complaints flag as likely disputes).

4. Discovery milestones

None with strategic significance — no discovery occurred. The Rule 26(f) conference and initial disclosures would have followed the CMC; the stay and dismissal intervened. The only pre-discovery record activity was the AO 120 patent-reporting form and party disclosures. No protective-order disputes, no IPR-estoppel-relevant document productions.

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings

I identified no IPR or PGR against the seven Wi-Fi patents asserted here in the accessible PTAB record. The one CommWorks IPR I can confirm is adjacent, not parallel:

• IPR2021-01297, Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC — U.S. Patent 8,923,846. Petition filed 2021-07-30; instituted 2022-02-14; Final Written Decision 2023-02-13 holding claims 1–6, 9–13, and 16–20 all unpatentable (35 U.S.C. § 318(a)). The '846 patent is a cellular/mobile-communications patent (recovery of information in a mobile network) that CommWorks had asserted against Comcast in W.D. Tex. (6:21-cv-00366), not one of the Wi-Fi patents asserted against TI. Effect on this litigation: none directly, but it demonstrates real unified-defense exposure to CommWorks's portfolio and the risk profile that drives its quick-settlement strategy.

Consequence for the TI case: with no IPR petition on file, there was no stay motion, no IPR estoppel, and no PTAB invalidation risk to depress settlement value — the opposite of the dynamic in CommWorks's Comcast case, where the '846 patent was invalidated.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No pretrial order, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59 motions, no fee motion (no prevailing party was established — a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice leaves both sides to bear their own costs absent agreement).

7. Final disposition

1. 2025-07-01 — Joint motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement (Dkt. 12).
2. 2025-07-08 — Order granting stay (Dkt. 13).
3. 2025-07-09 — CMC cancelled (referencing Dkt. 13).
4. 2025-07-14/15 — Stipulation of Dismissal filed by CommWorks (Dkt. 14; McDonough), expressly invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): "dismissing all claims in this action with prejudice."
5. 2025-07-15 — Order dismissing the case with prejudice (Dkt. 15, Judge Gilstrap); AO 120 termination notice transmitted to the USPTO (Dkt. 16).

Because dismissal was bilateral under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it became effective on filing without judicial approval and bars any future CommWorks suit against TI on these patents/accused products. It carries no issue-preclusive effect on patent validity or claim scope, since no merits adjudication occurred. No appeal was taken or is available on these facts.

The financial terms (lump-sum license, running royalty, or covenant not to sue) are not in the public record. Given the ~10-week post-service timeline, pre-answer posture, expired patents, and absence of any PTAB or claim-construction development, an early, discounted portfolio license or paid-up settlement is the most plausible reading — but I'd flag that as inference. Note also that a dismissal "with prejudice" as to TI's products is not a global release of the larger chipset supply chain.

8. Broader campaign context (why the timeline matters)

The TI case is one node in a coordinated 2025–2026 wave by CommWorks (disclosure statements identify parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC; Unified Patents's 2023 post described CommWorks as a subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC — I could not reconcile those two corporate-parent accounts):

• CommWorks v. AVM GmbH, 2:25-cv-00026 (filed 2025-01-12) — dismissed without prejudice 2025-06-19.
• CommWorks v. SIA Mikrotikls, 2:25-cv-00252 (filed 2025-03-03).
• CommWorks v. Broadcom, 2:25-cv-02998 (C.D. Cal., filed April 2025).
• CommWorks v. TI, 2:25-cv-00439 (filed 2025-04-25) — dismissed with prejudice 2025-07-15.
• CommWorks v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716 (filed 2025-07-15) — dismissed 2025-10-03/10.
• CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics, 7:25-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex., filed 2025-08-25) — dismissed 2025-10-31/11-03.
• CommWorks v. U-blox, 1:25-cv-02504 (E.D. Va.) — intradistrict transfer to Norfolk 2025-12-31.
• CommWorks v. Grandstream Networks, 2:26-cv-00794 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-09-04).

Pattern: file, serve, settle fast, dismiss — with the "without prejudice" AVM exit and "with prejudice" TI exit suggesting different deal structures. The TI result signals that Wi-Fi SoC vendors facing this portfolio can expect early-license resolutions rather than merits rulings, and that no claim-construction or invalidity precedent exists to constrain CommWorks going forward.

---

Confidence flags

• High confidence (docket-sourced): all dates, docket entry numbers, counsel, the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation, the with-prejudice dismissal order, and the absence of any answer, counterclaim, Markman, or trial activity.
• High confidence: IPR2021-01297 facts (petition, institution, 2023-02-13 FWD invalidating all challenged claims of the '846 patent) and that the '846 patent is not one of the Wi-Fi patents asserted against TI.
• Medium confidence: the precise seven-patent TI assertion list — the metadata and trackers point to '807 plus six portfolio mates, and the complaint text confirms '465/RE44,904 and WMM/WPS theories, but I could not pull the full exhibit list from the TI complaint in the accessible record. The PatSnap litigation write-ups are AI-generated secondary analyses and should be corroborated against PACER.
• Inference, not record: that the dismissal followed a paid license/covenant. No settlement agreement, license, or fee award appears on the docket.

Bottom line

Only one law firm appeared for CommWorks in this case: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC ("RHM"), a plaintiff-side patent boutique with offices in Atlanta, Austin, Denver, and Washington, D.C. Four RHM attorneys entered appearances for CommWorks in the 2:25‑cv‑00439 docket on April 25, 2025 (Dkt. Nos. 3–6), and one of them—James F. McDonough, III—signed both the case-terminating stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. 14, filed July 15, 2025) and, per the Justia party listing, is the attorney of record appearing on the complaint. There is no separately retained local-counsel firm on the docket; RHM's Texas-barred Austin partner, Jonathan L. Hardt, is the Texas-qualified attorney of record.

---

Counsel of record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

No in-house counsel appeared. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company (per its license agreements, listed at Alpharetta, GA) that monetizes a Wi‑Fi/802.11 patent portfolio; no CommWorks legal-department attorney is on the face of this docket.

Two caveats on role labels:

1. The E.D. Tex. docket for 2:25‑cv‑00439 reflects a set of attorney-appearance notices rather than a formal "lead counsel" designation, so "lead counsel" is my characterization, based on who signed the complaint/stipulation and on RHM's own lead-counsel designations in its PTAB filings (where Rozier is lead and McDonough/Hardt appear pro hac vice).
2. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on July 15, 2025 (Dkt. 15, Order Dismissing Case With Prejudice), no counsel have ongoing appearance obligations; there are no sealed appearance records, and no counsel moved to withdraw before dismissal.

---

What I could not verify

• Exact bar admissions for Matuszewski (state bar numbers, pro hac vice status in E.D. Tex.) are not publicly stated in the sources I could reach.
• The precise docket number of McDonough's appearance entry (the Justia docket snippet showed Dkt. Nos. 4–6 for Hardt/Rozier/Matuszewski; Dkt. 3 is the remaining appearance in that series and Justia's party page lists McDonough among the appearing attorneys, but I could not open Dkt. 3 itself).
• Whether any attorney beyond these four made a sealed or unfiled appearance (nothing on the public docket suggests so).
• Fee/engagement terms with RHM and whether a non-appearing firm (e.g., an earlier CommWorks portfolio counsel) coordinated the case — earlier CommWorks suits (e.g., CommWorks v. CommScope, 2023) featured different counsel (Bartles, Moore, Belenky, Kheyfits), so the 2025 wave marks a change in outside counsel.

Sources

• Docket sheet, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, No. 2:25‑cv‑00439‑JRG (E.D. Tex.), via Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00439/[237533](/patent/237533) (appearances Dkt. 3–6, 4/25/2025; stipulation Dkt. 14 signed by J. McDonough; dismissal order Dkt. 15).
• RPX Empower docket page: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-237533-commworks-solutions-v-texas-instruments
• RHM attorney listing / firm website: https://rhmtrial.com/attorneys/ ; job posting listing Atlanta, Austin, Denver offices: https://patentlyo.com/jobs/2025/06/litigation-attorney-atlanta.html
• RHM PTAB counsel designations (Rozier lead; McDonough and Hardt pro hac vice; office addresses): USPTO PTAB petition papers at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1555989](/patent/1555989)/download-documents
• Party/counsel entries in companion CommWorks suits (addresses and Texas-bar status for Hardt/McDonough): CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics, 7:25‑cv‑00363 (W.D. Tex.), https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71193236/parties/commworks-solutions-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/ ; CommWorks v. DrayTek, 2:25‑cv‑00024 (E.D. Tex.).
• Super Lawyers firm/lawyer profiles for office location and Matuszewski practice listing: https://profiles.superlawyers.com/georgia/atlanta/lawfirm/rozier-hardt-mcdonough-pllc/40199508-9a8e-491e-aed5-21f38b437c94.html
• PatSnap litigation summary (corroborates the four-name plaintiff team and the Rule 41 stipulation text): https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-solutions-v-texas-instruments-wi-fi-patent-dispute-patsnap/

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Texas Instruments in this case.

I have the docket outline. Let me dig for other defense counsel appearances and corroborating firm details.

Let me pull the full docket from CourtListener/RPX to check for any additional defense appearances.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Texas Instruments Incorporated

Bottom line: The public docket in CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Texas Instruments Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00439 (E.D. Tex.) reflects only one defense-side appearance: Amanda A. Abraham of The Roth Law Firm, P.C. (Marshall, Texas). No other attorney entered an appearance for TI, no pro hac vice motions were filed, and TI never filed an answer — the case settled and was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2025, roughly two months after service. Any lead trial counsel or in-house counsel who may have worked the matter behind the scenes is not identifiable from the public record.

---

Confirmed of record

Docket basis: Dkt. No. 9, Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint, filed May 12, 2025, by TI and docketed with the ECF filer tag "(Abraham, Amanda)"; granted at Dkt. No. 10 (extending TI's answer deadline to July 12, 2025). No separate "Notice of Attorney Appearance" for TI appears anywhere in the docket in the numbering range Docs. 1–16, as retrieved from the Justia docket mirror on July 15, 2025.

Not of record / unconfirmed

• No lead trial counsel or out-of-district counsel (e.g., Covington & Burling, which TI has used in prior E.D. Tex. and PTAB matters) appears on this docket. In TI's earlier East Texas patent cases — including the Eolas and Blue Spike matters and the June 2014 Lonestar verdict — TI's signature blocks paired The Roth Law Firm with Covington & Burling LLP (San Francisco) as lead counsel. No filing in 2:25-cv-00439 ties Covington, or any specific Covington attorney, to this case, so I will not attribute them here.
• Carl R. Roth and Brendan C. Roth (the other named Roth firm attorneys who routinely sign TI pleadings in this district) do not appear by name on any filing in this action. The firm, not those individuals, is the only confirmed defense-side representation.
• In-house TI counsel: no in-house attorney is identified in any public filing. TI's Rule 7.1 disclosure statement and corporate-representation disclosures were never filed, because TI never answered.
• Any additional counsel is unverifiable — Doc. 14 (Stipulation of Dismissal) was filed under plaintiff-side counsel James F. McDonough III's ECF credentials, and Doc. 12 (Joint Motion to Stay) is docketed generically as filed "by CommWorks Solutions, LLC." The stipulation's text confirms it was made "by and through their respective counsel" for both parties, but it does not name TI's signatories.

Why the record is so thin

TI's answer was due July 12, 2025; the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and joint motion to stay on July 1, 2025 (Dkt. 12), which Judge Gilstrap granted July 8, 2025 (Dkt. 13). The stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) followed on July 15, 2025 (Dkt. 14), with the dismissal order entered the same day (Dkt. 15) and the AO-120 form sent to the USPTO (Dkt. 16). Because the case terminated before any responsive pleading, invalidity contentions, or pro hac vice admissions, no fuller defense-side roster was ever created in the record.

---

Caveats on sourcing

• Docket entries above are drawn from the Justia docket mirror for 2:25-cv-00439 (last retrieved July 15, 2025) and a PatSnap litigation summary that independently lists "Amanda Aline Abraham / The Roth Law Firm PC" as the sole defendant-side representation. Both are consistent.
• I could not pull a fresh PACER docket or a CourtListener docket sheet for this case within this session; if the case had generated any sealed filings or an appearance entered after July 15, 2025, those would not be reflected here. Given the July 15, 2025 dismissal with prejudice and the AO-120 termination notice, post-dismissal appearances are unlikely.
• Attorney biographical details (bar numbers, admissions, prior TI representations) come from Justia/CourtListener filings in Eolas, Blue Spike, and Bell Semiconductor, the Martindale and MoreLaw profiles for Ms. Abraham, and a contemporaneous 2014 write-up of the $3M Lonestar verdict. None of that establishes her role title (e.g., "lead" vs. "local") in this specific case — that characterization is my inference from the Marshall, Texas office and the standard TI local-counsel arrangement in this district, and should be treated as such.