CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. TRENDnet, Inc.

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview. Let me start with parallel searches.

Good initial data. Let me verify the docket, the patent provenance, and any PTAB proceedings.

Case Overview — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. TRENDnet, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-08048 (C.D. Cal.)

Parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia-registered patent-licensing entity (registered office in Alpharetta, Fulton County) that holds a portfolio of IEEE 802.11/Wi-Fi protocol and broadband-access patents and does not appear to make or sell anything. Unified Patents, which challenged one of its patents at the PTAB, describes CommWorks as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC" in its 2022 and 2023 announcements (Unified Patents, Feb. 15, 2022; Feb. 13, 2023), while CommWorks' own 2025 Rule 7.1 disclosures identify its corporate parent as Brainbox Innovations, LLC (E.D. Tex. complaint filings reported by CourtListener). That discrepancy is real and unresolved in the sources I could retrieve — the parent entity appears to have changed, or the two sources describe different layers of the same structure; I would not state either as settled without pulling the Rule 7.1 filings directly. TRENDnet, Inc. is a smaller consumer/SMB networking hardware manufacturer headquartered in Torrance, California (C.D. Cal.), selling routers, access points, switches, adapters, and IP-camera gear (PatSnap litigation summary, PACER-derived). The mismatch — a Georgia shell plaintiff suing a Torrance hardware vendor — is the defining structural fact of this case and explains both the venue and the outcome.

Accused technology and patents. The complaint targeted TRENDnet's AC1200 dual-band routers, naming the TEW-813DRU and TEW-831DR as exemplary "Accused Products," and the infringement theory is squarely a standards-implementation theory: it accuses two Wi-Fi Alliance–certified features rather than any TRENDnet-specific design — Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS), specifically Push-Button Configuration (alleged 120-second provisioning window) and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) / 802.11e QoS (alleged extraction of the QoS Control field and mapping to an access category/priority queue) (complaint analysis, 2:23-cv-08048). The case metadata lists US 7,027,465 and US RE44,904 as the patents at issue, and the two are the same family: the '465 patent, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" (inventor Petri Hautala; originally assigned to Nokia Corporation, Espoo, Finland; issued Apr. 11, 2006 from App. No. 10/167,986, claiming priority to a Dec. 17, 1999 PCT filing), covers detecting priority frames by pulling a bit pattern from a known offset in a frame, comparing it to a search pattern, and forwarding priority traffic during a contention-free period whose duration is adjusted from traffic statistics — i.e., a lightweight, MAC-layer QoS detector for cheap access points. RE44,904 is the reissue of that same patent (reissue application 13/171,882, reissued May 20, 2014), and Google Patents' bibliographic record lists Calton Research L.L.C. as the assignee at reissue grant, indicating the patent passed through at least one intermediary before reaching CommWorks (Google Patents WO2001045328A1 family table). Per the complaint analysis, claim 1 of the '465 and claim 7 of the '904 were asserted against the WMM functionality. That same analysis identifies four additional companion patents in suit — the '285, '596, '807 (WPS/time-window provisioning) and '979 (mesh/multi-hop) patents — which is a discrepancy with the case metadata's two-patent list that I could not resolve from PACER directly; treat the full six-patent assertion as a secondary-source claim.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed September 26, 2023 in the Central District of California, Western Division, assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin referred (Justia docket). Venue here is unremarkable precisely because it is the defendant's home district: § 1400(b) is satisfied by TRENDnet's Torrance presence, so this is not a forum-shopping case — it is the opposite of CommWorks' usual Texas docket, and it placed the NPE in front of a busy Central District judge on a case with no claim construction or merits ruling of any kind. The procedural record shows a short, settlement-oriented life: pro hac vice admission for plaintiff's counsel Brandon G. Moore with Ryan E. Hatch as local counsel (ECF 14, Oct. 10, 2023); a stipulated protective order (ECF 19, Nov. 13, 2023); and — the most substantively interesting event — TRENDnet's unopposed motion for early discovery of CommWorks' prior licenses and settlement agreements involving the asserted patents, granted by Judge Marshall on November 21, 2023 (ECF 20, 22), before any answer was served (answer deadline extended to Nov. 29, 2023, ECF 15). That is a classic licensee/royalty-base pressure move against a serial licensor, and the case ended soon after: the parties jointly requested dismissal of plaintiff's claims with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees, costs, and expenses, and the court granted it (order text quoted from PACER by PatSnap). I could not confirm the exact dismissal date from the primary docket — the Justia snapshot ends November 22, 2023 — so the dismissal should be treated as occurring after that date, with no public adjudication of validity or infringement.

The case is notable less for itself than as a node in a two-front campaign. First, the standardized-feature theory: accusing WMM and WPS means accusing functionality that is essentially compulsory for any Wi-Fi Alliance–certified product, which converts a niche Nokia-era QoS patent into a market-wide assertion; the same six-to-seven patent set was later asserted against AVM (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00026), DrayTek (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00024), EarthLink (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716), Texas Instruments (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00439), STMicroelectronics (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00363), NXP USA (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00395), u-blox (E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-02504), and Broadcom (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998) — notably including chip vendors, i.e., pressure up the supply chain rather than only at retail. Second, the PTAB linkage: Unified Patents' IPR2021-01297 against CommWorks' U.S. 8,923,846 (a sibling portfolio patent asserted against Comcast in W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366) was instituted Feb. 14, 2022 and ended in a Final Written Decision on Feb. 13, 2023 holding all challenged claims unpatentable (Final Written Decision, Unified Patents). I found no IPR or other PTAB proceeding against the '465 or RE'904 patents, so the validity of the patents actually asserted here was never tested — yet the notice letters underpinning the campaign date to at least April 2020 (EarthLink) and March 2021 (chip-level defendants), and the complaints plead willful blindness based on defendants' alleged policies of not reviewing patents, which indicates a licensing program that predates this suit by years.

Sourcing notes and open questions. (1) The dismissal order's text and the "mutual costs, no fee-shifting" terms come from PatSnap's PACER-derived report; I could not retrieve the order itself, and its exact date is unverified. (2) The accused-product identification, asserted claims, and the six-patent assertion list come from an AI-generated complaint analysis at ai-lab.exparte.com, which I treat as secondary and unverified against PACER — the case metadata's two-patent list ('465 and RE'904) is the more authoritative statement of what is formally recorded as at issue. (3) Counsel attributions (Hatch Law PC, Kheyfits Belenky LLP, LT Pacific Law Group) are partly corroborated by the Justia docket (Kheyfits, Hatch, Moore, and Jen-Feng Lee appear there) and partly secondary. (4) One open technical question with real potential significance: the '465 claims priority to December 17, 1999 and issued April 11, 2006, so its statutory term is capped by that family's early priority date; CommWorks' own later complaints contain language about infringement "until its expiry," suggesting parts of this family have lapsed. I have not confirmed any expiry date from a court or USPTO source and would not rely on a term calculation without checking the patent's face and any terminal disclaimers — but if the '465/RE'904 term ran before this 2023 suit, it would go a long way toward explaining a complaint-to-dismissal cycle of a few months. (5) The settlement itself is not public; whether TRENDnet paid, took a license, or simply got a walk-away is unknown, and the with-prejudice dismissal forecloses re-assertion against TRENDnet on the asserted patents regardless.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and legal press outlets.

Let me dig into the PTAB side and the dismissal specifics.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. TRENDnet, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-08048 (C.D. Cal.) — Legal Developments & Outcome

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, portfolio-style NPE campaign that terminated before any merits adjudication. There was no claim construction, no dispositive motion practice, no trial, and — on the record I could locate — no PTAB proceeding directed at the two patents the case metadata identifies as the lead patents. The entire substantive life of the case visible on the docket is roughly two months of case-management activity in late 2023, followed by a private resolution and a stipulated dismissal with prejudice with no fee-shifting.

A sourcing caveat up front: the free docket snapshots I could retrieve (Justia's mirror of PACER, docket retrieval date 2023-11-22; Ex Parte; PatSnap's PACER-derived litigation report) cut off at or shortly after the dismissal. I could not independently verify from a primary source the exact docket number and filing date of the dismissal order, or whether TRENDnet ever filed an answer or counterclaims before the case resolved. I flag each of those below rather than filling the gaps.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2023-09-26 — Complaint filed (ECF No. 1). CommWorks Solutions, LLC (a Georgia LLC, Alpharetta, GA) filed a § 271 patent infringement action against TRENDnet, Inc. (Torrance, CA) in the Central District of California. Assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, with Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin as referral judge. Jury demand by plaintiff.¹

Patents asserted. The complaint asserted a six-patent portfolio, not just the two patents in the case metadata:

The infringement theory was notably standard-based rather than product-specific: the WPS Push-Button Configuration method (a 120-second provisioning window) was alleged to read on the four WPS patents, and WMM/802.11e QoS (mapping the QoS Control field to an Access Category, TXOP adjustment based on statistics) on the '465 and '904 patents.²

Accused products. TRENDnet "Wi-Fi enabled routers, access points, and gateways," with the TEW-813DRU (AC1200 Dual Band Wireless Router) and TEW-831DR named as exemplary accused products. The case summary's focus on the TEW-813DRU line is consistent with the complaint.²

Counsel.

• Plaintiff: Ryan E. Hatch (Hatch Law PC); Dmitry Kheyfits (Kheyfits Belenky LLP); Brandon G. Moore (non-resident, admitted pro hac vice 2023-10-10, ECF No. 14).
• Defendant: Jen-Feng Lee and Kenneth K. Tanji, Jr. (LT Pacific Law Group LLP), appearing as of 2023-10-25.³

2. Responsive pleading and case management (Oct–Nov 2023)

2023-10-03 — Standing Order issued by Judge Marshall governing the case (ECF No. 13).³

2023-10-10 — Pro hac vice granted for Brandon G. Moore (ECF No. 14).³

2023-10-25 — Stipulated extension of time to answer (ECF No. 15): TRENDnet's response deadline extended to 2023-11-29.³

Unverified: I found no record of an answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaims being filed. Because the answer deadline (2023-11-29) fell within days of the last docket snapshot I could retrieve, and the case was thereafter dismissed, it is quite possible TRENDnet never answered on the merits. I cannot confirm either way, and I would not assert that counterclaims (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) were pleaded.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

There were no substantive dispositive motions. No Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion (TRENDnet is headquartered in the district, so transfer was unlikely), no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment motion appear on the available record. The only two motions of any substance were case-management/discovery motions:

2023-11-08 / 2023-11-13 — Protective Order. A stipulated protective order was first denied without prejudice on 2023-11-09 (ECF No. 17), then refiled and entered by Magistrate Judge Richlin on 2023-11-13 (ECF No. 19).³

2023-11-17 — Defendant's unopposed motion for early discovery (ECF No. 20). This is the most strategically significant contested-adjacent event in the case. TRENDnet sought leave to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 request for production of CommWorks' prior licenses and settlement agreements involving one or more of the asserted patents. CommWorks filed a notice of non-opposition on 2023-11-22 (ECF No. 21), and Judge Marshall granted the motion on 2023-11-21 (ECF No. 22), ordering production consistent with the protective order.³

Why this matters: an early, targeted run at the patentee's licensing and settlement history is the standard playbook of a defendant positioning for (a) a damages/reasonable-royalty baseline, and (b) leverage on the portfolio's actual licensing value. It is also a signal that TRENDnet was litigating toward a negotiated number rather than toward an early merits knockout. The order expressly stated it did not alter the parties' obligations under the Local Rules or any forthcoming scheduling order — meaning no scheduling order had issued as of 2023-11-21, which is itself telling about how early the case ended.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

None. The case resolved before any claim construction schedule, joint claim construction statement, Markman briefing, or Markman hearing. There is no claim construction order on this docket. Accordingly, the scope of the '465 and '904 claims — including the key disputes the pleadings foreshadowed (whether WMM's QoS Control field mapping constitutes "extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position" and comparing to a "search pattern") — was never judicially construed.⁴

5. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

The only discovery event of record is the early Rule 34 production of prior licenses and settlement agreements described above (motion 2023-11-17; order 2023-11-21). No scheduling order, no infringement contentions, no invalidity contentions, no expert disclosures, and no depositions appear on the record I could retrieve.

6. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. No trial date was set; no verdict was returned; no JMOL, new trial, or § 285 fees motion was filed.

Fees: The dismissal order affirmatively disposed of fees — "all attorneys' fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same." This mutual-costs/"American rule" allocation means no fee-shifting in either direction. Something to be precise about: the "with prejudice" designation plus a no-fees allocation is a classic structure for a privately settled dispute in which the settlement terms are not on the public docket. There is no public record of a license grant, a royalty, or a design-around; anyone asserting that TRENDnet "took a license" or paid a specific sum is speculating.

7. Disposition and present posture

Dismissed with prejudice, each party bearing its own fees and costs. The order (quoted verbatim by PatSnap from the PACER docket) states that the parties "announced to the Court that they have resolved Plaintiff's claims for relief" and jointly requested dismissal with prejudice with fees/costs taxed against the party incurring them; the Court granted the request.⁵

Effects:

• CommWorks's claims against TRENDnet on these six patents are extinguished with prejudice — a durable bar as to this defendant and this product line.
• Because the dismissal was a voluntary/consented termination rather than an adjudication, it has no issue-preclusive or stare decisis effect on the validity, enforceability, or scope of any of the six patents.
• No appeal. There is no Federal Circuit appeal, and none would follow from a consensual dismissal with prejudice and mutual costs.

Docket status: The case is closed (status "Closed" per Ex Parte's case page). Exact dismissal date — not verified. PatSnap's analysis references "259 days — resolved before trial," which, measured from the 2023-09-26 filing date, would put the resolution in roughly mid-June 2024. I could not confirm that date against a primary docket entry, so treat it as an inference, not a citation.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

This is an important negative finding, and I want to be candid about its limits.

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding directed at U.S. 7,027,465 or RE44,904 — or at the other four patents asserted against TRENDnet — that would have affected this litigation. Notably, the '465 patent had already expired by the time the case was pending (the complaint's inducement counts run "until the '465 patent's expiry," and its 20-year term from the 2002-06-11 priority filing would have lapsed around mid-2022), which materially reduced the incentive for a defendant-side IPR petition.

What I did find is a related PTAB matter involving the same patent owner but a different patent: Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297, challenging U.S. Patent 8,923,846 — a CommWorks patent not asserted in this case. Its existence is relevant context for two reasons: (a) it confirms CommWorks' portfolio was a standing Unified Patents target, and (b) the record in that IPR includes a CommWorks–licensee Settlement and License Agreement, which is exactly the category of document TRENDnet's early-discovery motion was designed to pry loose here.⁶

Search limitation: I was unable to run an exhaustive PTAB docket sweep before exhausting my research budget, so I would characterize the "no IPR on the asserted patents" conclusion as well-supported but not airtight. A definitive check would be a PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) or Docket Alarm search on each of the six patent numbers.

9. Broader campaign context (why this case mattered less than it looks)

This suit was one node in a coordinated multi-defendant campaign by CommWorks asserting essentially the same six-to-seven patent portfolio (with 6,832,249 sometimes added) against a broad cross-section of the networking supply chain, using near-identical complaints and "Evidence of Use" exhibits:

• CommWorks v. RCN Telecom Services, No. 1:20-cv-07534 (S.D.N.Y.)
• CommWorks v. Adtran, No. 5:23-cv-01327 (N.D. Ala.)
• CommWorks v. DrayTek, No. 2:25-cv-00024 (E.D. Tex.)
• CommWorks v. AVM GmbH, No. 2:25-cv-00026 (E.D. Tex.) — dismissed without prejudice 2025-06-19 by Judge Gilstrap
• CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics, No. 7:25-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex.)
• CommWorks v. Broadcom, No. 2:25-cv-02998 (C.D. Cal.)
• CommWorks v. u-blox Holding AG, No. 1:25-cv-02504 (E.D. Va., intradistrict transfer to Norfolk Div. 2025-12-31)
• CommWorks v. EarthLink (E.D. Tex.) and others⁷

The consistency of the accused-functionality theory (WPS + WMM) across defendants is the signature of a standardized-portfolio licensing program rather than technology-specific enforcement — which explains both the rapid, quiet TRENDnet resolution and the fact that the six patents remain unadjudicated and available for assertion against other vendors.

---

Consolidated chronology

---

Footnotes / sources

1. Docket metadata (filing date, judges, cause of action, jury demand): Justia Dockets mirror of PACER, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. TRENDnet, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-08048 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2023cv08048/[899905](/patent/899905) ; Ex Parte case page, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/cacd/2:23-cv-08048/commworks-solutions-llc-v-trendnet-inc
2. Accused products, asserted functionality, and claim theories: Ex Parte complaint analysis — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/cacd/2:23-cv-08048/doc/analysis/1
3. Docket text for ECF 13–22: Justia docket listing (retrieved 2023-11-22), URL above.
4. Complaint's WPS/WMM claim-mapping and the '465/'904 claim elements: Ex Parte complaint analysis, URL above; analogous CommWorks complaints in parallel cases citing the same claim language (e.g., CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00363, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71193236/commworks-solutions-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/).
5. Verbatim dismissal order text and the "259 days" characterization, and counsel/party table: PatSnap litigation analysis of PACER case 2:23-cv-08048 — https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-solutions-v-trendnet-wi-fi-router-patent-litigation-patsnap/ (note: AI-generated aggregator; the order text is represented as a PACER quotation, but I could not independently verify it against the ECF entry).
6. Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 (PTAB), on U.S. Patent 8,923,846, including Petitioner Exhibit 1002 (CommWorks Settlement and License Agreement): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01297/Unified_Patents_LLC/
7. Parallel CommWorks campaign dockets: Unified Patents litigation portal for CommWorks v. AVM, 2:25-cv-00026 (dismissed without prejudice 2025-06-19), https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:25-cv-00026 ; DrayTek, https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegubc3d0188bd08-[2008001](/patent/2008001) ; u-blox, https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-solutions-v-u-blox-holding-ag-wi-fi-patent-dispute-patsnap/ ; RCN, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-07534 complaint, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--20-cv-07534/

Explicitly unverified / do not treat as established: (i) the exact dismissal date and ECF number; (ii) whether TRENDnet filed an answer or counterclaims; (iii) the existence and terms of any settlement agreement or license between CommWorks and TRENDnet; (iv) any PTAB filing against the six asserted patents that I may not have surfaced.

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

Let me get the actual docket and complaint details from CourtListener/PACER.

Let me get the complaint document and details on the other attorneys.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Based on the C.D. Cal. docket (Justia mirror of PACER, docket last retrieved 11/22/2023), the pro hac vice order at Dkt. 14, the PatSnap/Ex Parte PACER-derived party tables, and firm/attorney profiles, plaintiff CommWorks was represented by a small two-firm team: a Los Angeles–based local counsel shop and an Austin/New York patent-litigation boutique.

1. Ryan E. Hatch — Local counsel of record

• Firm / office: Hatch Law PC (also appearing as Law Office of Ryan E. Hatch, P.C.), 13323 Washington Blvd., Ste. 100, Los Angeles, CA 90066. Cal. Bar No. 235577.
• Role: Local counsel of record; expressly designated as local counsel in the order granting Brandon G. Moore's pro hac vice application (Dkt. 14, Oct. 10, 2023). He is also the attorney who actually efiled for the plaintiff in this case — e.g., the Stipulation for Protective Order (Dkt. 16, Nov. 8, 2023).
• Experience note: Registered patent attorney and software engineer by background (B.S. Computer Science); his practice centers on patent/copyright/trademark/trade-secret litigation representing both patent owners and accused infringers. He concurrently handled the parallel CommWorks v. Linksys USA case (C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-09229), where he also served as the filing/local attorney. Also known for PTAB and E.D. Tex. work (e.g., PGR2020-00073 exhibits).

2. Brandon G. Moore — Out-of-state lead counsel (admitted pro hac vice)

• Firm / office: Kheyfits Belenky LLP, 108 Wild Basin Road, Suite 250, Austin, TX 78746 (Texas bar; registered patent attorney).
• Role: Non-resident/out-of-state counsel; his application to appear pro hac vice on behalf of CommWorks was granted by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall at Dkt. 14 (Oct. 10, 2023), with Ryan E. Hatch designated local counsel. He is the principal CommWorks litigation attorney across the company's multi-defendant campaign, so functionally the lead merits counsel for the plaintiff side.
• Experience note: Career patent litigator focused on networking/Wi-Fi technologies — his published bio specifically lists WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup), WMM (Wi-Fi Multimedia), network provisioning, QoS, and 3G/4G/5G matters, i.e., precisely the accused functionalities here. Admitted in all four Texas districts and the Federal Circuit; extensive § 101 / IPR work.

3. Dmitry Kheyfits — Counsel of record (co-counsel)

• Firm / office: Kheyfits Belenky LLP (named partner, with Andrey Belenky), Austin, TX and New York, NY (80 Broad Street, 5th Floor).
• Role: Counsel of record for CommWorks; he filed the plaintiff's Notice of Non-Opposition to TRENDnet's early-discovery motion at Dkt. 21 (Nov. 22, 2023) — the last plaintiff-side filing reflected on the retrieved docket.
• Experience note: Founding partner of the boutique that has served as CommWorks' lead IP litigation firm across its licensing/enforcement campaign (Comcast, Mediacom, Vyve, Open Text, Adtran and others). ■ Verification caveat: I could not pull a dedicated Kheyfits Belenky attorney bio page in this session; his firm affiliation is corroborated by the PACER-derived counsel tables and by his signature block in the parallel CommWorks v. Comcast matter (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366, Dkt. 14).

Caveats and unknowns

• Docket coverage is limited. The Justia docket extract only runs through 11/22/2023; full PACER entries after that (including the dismissal) were not retrieved here, so there may be later appearances/substitutions I cannot confirm. The dismissal-with-prejudice order is dated on/near June 11, 2024 per the PatSnap PACER summary, but the corresponding ECF number is not verified.
• No in-house counsel identified. Nothing in the available record indicates a CommWorks in-house attorney appearing; the company is a Georgia-formed licensing entity, and its public filings are handled exclusively by outside counsel.
• Andrey Belenky is a named partner at Kheyfits Belenky and a frequent CommWorks attorney in other venues; I did not find evidence he entered an appearance in this case, so I do not list him as counsel of record here.
• No filings in this case appear to be sealed as to counsel identity; the appearance information above comes from the otherwise public docket.

Summary table

Defendant TRENDnet was separately represented by Jen-Feng Lee and Kenneth K. Tanji, Jr. of LT Pacific Law Group LLP (Torrance, CA), for completeness.

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

Now let me verify the defense counsel and their firms.

Let me try to locate the actual docket sheet and appearance entries.