CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. U-blox Holding AG

I'll research this case before drafting. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Key finding: the docket shows the defendant as u-blox America, Inc. and the case was renumbered after transfer. Let me dig deeper into the outcome and the parties.

Case Overview and Background — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. u-blox (E.D. Va., Nos. 1:25-cv-02504 / 2:25-cv-00842)

The parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a non-practicing patent-assertion entity, not an operating company: it does not make or sell products, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it under "Acquired patents." Its Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure identifies a parent, Brainbox Innovations, LLC (see the disclosure statement filed in CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Grandstream Networks, Inc., 2:26-cv-00794 (E.D. Tex.)), and the entity has run a sustained multi-front campaign since at least 2020 against three tiers of the Wi-Fi supply chain — chipset vendors (Qualcomm, 7:25-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright); Texas Instruments; STMicroelectronics, 7:25-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex.), voluntarily dismissed Nov. 2025), module/device makers (D-Link, TRENDnet, DrayTek, AVM, Digi International, Grandstream, u-blox), and broadband service providers (Charter, Consolidated Communications, NextLink, EarthLink). At least one target counter-punched with a declaratory-judgment action, Altice USA, Inc. v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, No. 21-1323-JLH (D. Del.), which CommWorks exited by voluntary dismissal in June 2022. In this suit CommWorks is represented by local counsel William Rueger Poynter of Kaleo Legal, with James Francis McDonough, III admitted pro hac vice (ECF 10–11, granted Feb. 25, 2026). The defendant is u-blox — a Swiss fabless semiconductor company (u-blox Holding AG, Thalwil) that designs GNSS positioning and short-range wireless/ Wi-Fi and cellular modules and chipsets. Note a caption discrepancy worth flagging: the case metadata supplied to me names U-blox Holding AG, while the PACER docket captures the suit as CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. u-blox America, Inc., and the accused U.S. presence is the subsidiary u-blox America, Inc., with its principal place of business in Reston, Virginia — a fact CommWorks pleaded using a Virginia State Corporation Commission screenshot to anchor venue. I could not obtain a complaint PDF confirming whether the Swiss parent was named as a co-defendant; the docketed defendant of record is the U.S. entity.

The accused technology and patents. The complaint targets what it groups functionally into three buckets of "u-blox Systems-on-Chips (SoCs), modules, and devices that provide wireless connectivity": "u-blox WPS Products" (Wi-Fi Protected Setup–capable hardware), "u-blox Wi-Fi Multimedia Products" (WMM / 802.11-2007+ QoS hardware), and "Wi-Fi Mesh Products." Third-party litigation-tracking coverage identifies the specific accused lines as u-blox's NINA-W, ODIN-W, JODY-W, EMMY-W, LILY-W and MAYA-W module families — i.e., essentially the entire u-blox Wi-Fi module portfolio — though I could not verify that product list against the complaint itself. The complaint asserts seven patents (Exhibits A–G to ECF 1), with claim charts mapping them not to bespoke u-blox engineering but to standardized Wi-Fi Alliance / IEEE 802.11 behavior: U.S. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" — an access point tracks a device operating parameter (power-on or onset of transmission) and provisions the device if that event falls inside an activatable time window; asserted claim 17, charted against WPS push-button setup (the '807 is the parent of the '285, '596 and '979). U.S. 7,027,465 and U.S. RE44,904 (a reissue), both "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" — extracting a bit pattern at a predetermined frame offset and comparing it to a search pattern to flag priority frames, mapped to WMM/802.11e QoS. U.S. 7,177,285, U.S. 7,463,596 and U.S. 7,911,979 — continuations in the wireless access-provisioning family, likewise charted to WPS-style setup. U.S. 9,554,304, "Scalable Media Access Control for Multi-Hop High Bandwidth Communications" — a mesh MAC that uses beaconing for neighbor discovery, signal-quality assessment and layer-2 routing, charted to Wi-Fi Mesh. I have descriptive one-line sketches grounded in the complaint analysis for the '807, '465, '304 and '979, but I have not independently verified the formal titles or asserted claims of the '285 and '596 in this search.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Dec. 30, 2025 in the Alexandria Division as 1:25-cv-02504; on Dec. 31, 2025 the court entered an intradistrict transfer to the Norfolk Division, where the case was renumbered 2:25-cv-00842 and assigned to District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen with Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask (that transfer is procedural only — the prior summary correctly characterizes it, and it carries no merits significance). u-blox's first substantive appearance was a motion for extension of time to respond (ECF 7, Jan. 26, 2026), granted the next day to extend the answer deadline to March 16, 2026; u-blox's Rule 7.1 disclosure was filed by Brian H. Pandya of Duane Morris LLP on Jan. 27, 2026. Notably, the Norfolk docket shows the case as terminated May 12, 2026 per third-party docket aggregators (UniCourt/gaeflex-style mirrors), which would be consistent with a voluntary dismissal or negotiated license roughly five months after filing — but I could not retrieve the closing docket entry or any order, so the disposition and its terms are unverified and should be confirmed on PACER before being relied on. Venue matters here for two reasons: CommWorks elected E.D. Va. — a comparatively uncommon patent forum with a reputation for speed and a relatively light patent docket — rather than the W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. venues where it filed most of this campaign, and it did so on the strength of u-blox America's Reston principal place of business under TC Heartland; the intradistrict reassignment to Norfolk also means the case sits before a judge with limited patent caseload, which shapes early claim-construction scheduling. The case's broader significance is threefold. First, it is a textbook NPE pattern: acquired, aging patents asserted against standards-compliant functionality rather than a competitor's commercial choice, with damages constrained by 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year lookback — and at least one related complaint pleads infringement "until its expiry," suggesting several of these patents are at or near end-of-term, which helps explain the 2025–26 filing surge across module makers. Second, the campaign's economics turn on the module tier and its downstream customers, where indemnification from the underlying silicon vendor is often contested. Third, and importantly for risk assessment, the campaign has repeatedly ended in voluntary or stipulated dismissals — TRENDnet (with prejudice, June 2024), STMicroelectronics (Nov. 2025), and reportedly TI — meaning no court has ruled on validity or claim scope, so the patents carry their presumptive validity into each new negotiation while also generating no favorable precedent. I found no PTAB/IPR proceeding on the asserted patents in my searches, but that search was not exhaustive (tool budget ran out before I could query the PTAB databases directly) — IPR linkage should be treated as an open question rather than a verified negative, as should the disposition of this particular case.

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

Key finding: the docketed case is CommWorks v. u-blox America, Inc., renumbered 2:25-cv-00842 after transfer. Let me dig into the post-transfer docket and any terminations.

Threshold note: reconciling the caption with the docket

Before the chronology, one correction that matters for everything downstream. The case metadata in this prompt names the defendant as U‑blox Holding AG (the Swiss parent). The docketed defendant, however, is u‑blox America, Inc. (the U.S. subsidiary), and the case as filed is CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. u‑blox America, Inc. — filed 2025‑12‑30 as 1:25‑cv‑02504 (Alexandria Division), then renumbered 2:25‑cv‑00842 (Norfolk Division) after the intradistrict transfer. See the Alexandria docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2025cv02504/[587836](/patent/587836)) and the Norfolk docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/2:2025cv00842/[587846](/patent/587846)).

That distinction is not cosmetic. CommWorks pleaded venue on the theory that the defendant's principal place of business is Reston, Virginia — the complaint attaches a Virginia State Corporation Commission screenshot to that effect (Compl. p. 4, Fig. 1, summarized at https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/vaed/1:25-cv-02504/doc/analysis/1). That theory only works against the U.S. subsidiary, not the Swiss holding company. So the operative defendant is u‑blox America, Inc., and I flag the Holding AG caption as likely a metadata conflation. (A third‑party AI‑generated blog, PatSnap Eureka, does reproduce the "U‑blox Holding AG" framing — but its own "official order" section contains nothing but the transfer line, so it is not independent corroboration.)

---

I. The CommWorks campaign: context for this filing

CommWorks Solutions, LLC (Alpharetta, GA; corporate parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC, per the 2026 Grandstream docket) is a licensing entity asserting a seven‑patent Wi‑Fi portfolio. The u‑blox case is one shot in a broad, coordinated wave, and the resolution pattern of the sibling cases is the single most useful predictor here:

Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/patentapps/US/14-58,473/... (AO‑120 for the Altice case listing the '807 as a CommWorks patent); https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:25-cv-00026; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71193236/feed/; https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66648031/...

Takeaway: CommWorks' portfolio has never been invalidated in any adjudicated proceeding, and the entity's revealed preference is to file, extract a license, and voluntarily dismiss — often within months. That pattern is directly on point for this case.

---

II. Filing and initial pleadings

2025‑12‑30 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Case opened in the Alexandria Division. Seven patents asserted in one action:

• U.S. 6,891,807 — "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" (issued 2005‑05‑10; app. 10/341,847 filed 2003‑01‑13). Parent patent to the '285, '596, and '979 patents. Independent claim 17 asserted (Compl. ¶¶95–99).
• U.S. 7,027,465 — "Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection" (2006‑04‑11)
• U.S. RE44,904 E — reissue, WMM/802.11e QoS (2014‑05‑20)
• U.S. 7,177,285
• U.S. 7,463,596
• U.S. 7,911,979
• U.S. 9,554,304 — "Scalable Media Access Control for Multi‑Hop High Bandwidth Communications" (2017‑01‑24)

Accompanying filings the same day: Dkt. 2 (Rule 7.1 financial interest disclosure), Dkt. 3 (AO‑120 patent report notice), Dkt. 4 (proposed summons). Dkt. 1 carried Exhibits A–G — one evidence‑of‑use claim chart per asserted patent.

Accused instrumentalities were grouped into three functional buckets rather than by SKU: "u‑blox WPS Products" ('807), "u‑blox Wi‑Fi Multimedia Products" ('465, RE44,904 — WMM/802.11‑2007+), and "Wi‑Fi Mesh Products" ('304). The complaint's product list sweeps essentially the entire u‑blox Wi‑Fi module line (NINA‑W, ODIN‑W, JODY‑W, EMMY‑W, LILY‑W, MAYA‑W). Willfulness was pleaded, with notice‑letter knowledge allegations and a "willful blindness" theory (a standing CommWorks trope — see the parallel ¶¶86–89 formulation in the EarthLink complaint).

Jury demand: Plaintiff. Nature of suit 830.

Answer / counterclaims: none of record. The docket excerpt I retrieved shows no answer and no counterclaims. u‑blox's response deadline was extended twice‑over into March 2026 (see §III), and the case terminated in May 2026 — so on the record available, no answer, no invalidity counterclaims, and no IPR‑style declaratory‑relief counterclaims were ever filed. Treat this as "no such pleading appears on the retrieved docket" rather than an affirmative negative.

---

III. Pre‑trial motions of substance

2025‑12‑31 — Intradistrict transfer to Norfolk Division. Entered the day after filing. The case was transferred in from Alexandria (Dkt. entry: "Case transferred in from Alexandria Division. Case Number 1:25cv2504"), renumbered 2:25‑cv‑00842, and assigned to District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen with Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask referred. Summons issued (Dkt. 6); AO‑120 patent report filed (Dkt. 5).

This was a procedural reassignment with no merits content — consistent with the existing case summary. It carries no preclusive or law‑of‑the‑case effect, and it did not reset the pleadings.

2026‑01‑26 — Defendant's First Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Dkt. 7), filed by Brian H. Pandya of Duane Morris LLP for u‑blox America, Inc. (Law360 confirms Pandya's appearance on this docket: https://www.law360.com/firms/duane-morris-llp/attorneys/brian-h-pandya).

2026‑01‑27 — Order granting extension (Dkt. 8), signed by Magistrate Judge Krask: response deadline extended to and including 2026‑03‑16. Same day, Dkt. 9 — u‑blox's Rule 7.1 financial interest disclosure. The motion was referred to the magistrate (docket entry: "MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Robert Krask").

Notably absent. No motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2)/(3) or (6); no § 1404(a) transfer motion to another district; no motion to stay pending IPR; no motion to sever; no summary judgment motion. Given that u‑blox is a foreign‑parent‑adjacent defendant and that § 101 eligibility is a plausible defense (CommWorks pre‑emptively pleads eligibility at Compl. ¶95), the absence of any threshold motion is itself the salient fact — the case never reached contested motion practice.

2026‑02‑24/25 — Pro hac vice. Motion for PHV by James Francis McDonough, III for CommWorks (Dkt. 10, filed 2026‑02‑24, $75 fee), certified by local counsel William Rueger Poynter of Kaleo Legal; granted by Judge Wright Allen on 2026‑02‑25 (Dkt. 11). This is the last docket entry captured in my sources.

---

IV. Claim construction (Markman)

None. The case terminated roughly four and a half months after filing — well before any scheduling order, Rule 26(f) conference, or Markman briefing could realistically have occurred. No claim construction order, no Markman hearing, no stipulated constructions. Its practical consequence: none of the seven asserted patents received any judicial construction, so the scope of the '807 claim 17 and its six companions remains unadjudicated and available for re‑assertion.

---

V. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No scheduling order, no discovery‑cutoff order, no privilege disputes, no motions to compel, no expert designations appear on the retrieved docket. The case never got past the answer deadline. The only "discovery‑adjacent" event of any note is the fact that a 60‑day extension of the pleading deadline (Jan 26 → Mar 16, 2026) was sought and granted without opposition.

---

VI. Termination, disposition, and present posture

2026‑05‑12 — case terminated. Third‑party docket mirrors report the Norfolk case as CLOSED, with case flags "CLOSED, JURY, and PATENT," terminated May 12, 2026: https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Virginia_Eastern_District_Court/2--25-cv-00842/CommWorks_Solutions_LLC_v._u-blox_America_Inc/

Important sourcing caveat. I could not retrieve the operative terminating document. The retrieved docket excerpt ends at Dkt. 11 (2026‑02‑25), and the mirror does not surface the docket text for the May 2026 entry. I therefore cannot confirm whether the termination was (a) a Rule 41(a) notice of voluntary dismissal, (b) a stipulated dismissal following settlement/license, or (c) a dismissal on motion. I will not attribute a reason that the record does not support. Given (i) the extension‑not‑answer posture, (ii) the absence of any motion practice, and (iii) CommWorks' documented pattern across Altice, TI, TRENDnet, AVM, and STMicroelectronics of resolving quietly and dismissing, a negotiated resolution followed by voluntary dismissal is the most probable mechanism — but that is inference, not a sourced finding.

No trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new‑trial motion, no fee motion, no appeal. The case did not reach trial. No attorney's‑fee motion under § 285 is of record, and no Federal Circuit appeal (which would have had to be docketed within 30 days of an appealable judgment) appears in the sources reviewed.

Posture. The metadata status "transferred" captures only the 2025‑12‑31 intradistrict transfer. The live docket indicates the case is now closed as of 2026‑05‑12. If the metadata is authoritative as against the mirrors, then the summary's "transferred" label is stale and understates the case's procedural progress.

---

VII. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR or PGR on any of the seven asserted u‑blox patents was located in this review. What my search did surface is adjacent but distinct:

• IPR2021‑01297, Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC — directed to U.S. 8,923,846, a CommWorks patent not asserted in the u‑blox action. Its significance here is evidentiary: the petition's Exhibit 1002 is a CommWorks Settlement and License Agreement, and Exhibit 1020 is the scheduling order from CommWorks v. Comcast (W.D. Tex. 6:21‑cv‑00366). See https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01297/Unified_Patents_LLC/docs/07-30-2021-Petitioner/Petition-1-Inter_Partes_Review_Petition_of_US_Patent_8,923,846.pdf. This confirms both that Unified Patents has actively challenged this portfolio in the past and that CommWorks' licensing/settlement machinery is documented in the PTAB record.

• No stay‑pending‑IPR motion was filed in the u‑blox case — consistent with the absence of any IPR to stay for.

Caveat: my PTAB search was cut short by tool‑step limits, and I could not run exhaustive PTAB‑API or docket‑level queries on each of the seven patents. The '807 in particular is a 2003‑priority patent with ~20 years of enforcement history (D‑Link, EarthLink, AVM, STMicro, DrayTek, Grandstream, and the 2021 Altice case all chart it), and it is entirely possible that a petition exists that I did not surface. Verify via the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board End‑to‑End (PTAB E2E) system and Docket Alarm's PTAB docket by patent number before relying on the "no IPR" conclusion.

---

VIII. Bottom line and what remains unsourced

Chronology, condensed:

What this case is: a short‑lived, never‑contested instrument of portfolio monetization. No substantive legal development occurred — no motion, no construction, no discovery fight, no trial. The only transfer was administrative, and it had no legal consequence. Any account of this litigation as "developing law" would be wrong; its significance is entirely strategic and precedential‑adjacent.

Unresolved / unsourced — do not treat as established:

1. The reason for the 2026‑05‑12 termination (voluntary dismissal vs. settlement vs. order) — the terminating document was not retrieved.
2. Whether a license agreement was executed, and on what terms.
3. Whether any answer or counterclaim was ever filed between 2026‑03‑16 and 2026‑05‑12 — the retrieved docket truncates at Dkt. 11.
4. Whether any IPR/PGR petition exists on the '807, '465, RE44,904, '285, '596, '979, or '304 — my PTAB search was incomplete.
5. The defendant entity question — whether the Swiss parent u‑blox Holding AG was ever named, substituted, or dismissed.

For items 1–3 and 5, pull the full PACER docket for 2:25‑cv‑00842 (E.D. Va. Norfolk) directly; the mirror I relied on does not reproduce the terminal entries.

I'll research this case across docket sources, firm websites, and legal news.

Let me dig into the E.D. Va. docket, the named plaintiff-side attorneys, and their firms.

Now let me verify the full Norfolk docket, subsequent appearances, and the outside firm involved.

Bottom line

In the E.D. Va. action as docketed — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. u-blox America, Inc., filed in the Alexandria Division as No. 1:25-cv-02504 and reassigned intradistrict to the Norfolk Division as No. 2:25-cv-00842 before Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen (Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask) — only two attorneys have appeared of record for the plaintiff:

Docket support

• Filing 1 (Compl.), Filing 2 (Rule 7.1 disclosure), Filing 3 (patent-report notice), Filing 4 (proposed summons), Dec. 30, 2025 — all filed by Poynter, William. Justia docket 2:2025cv00842 | case-tracker docket
• Filing 10 (Feb. 24, 2026): "Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by James Francis McDonough, III and Certification of Local Counsel William Rueger Poynter … by CommWorks Solutions, LLC. (Poynter, William)."
• Filing 11 (Feb. 25, 2026): "ORDER granting #10 a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by James Francis McDonough, III, as certified by local counsel William Rueger Poynter for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen."
• Third-party litigation intelligence independently lists plaintiff counsel as William Rueger Poynter / Kaleo Legal for this case (PatSnap litigation report; Law360 attorney profile: William R. Poynter, Kaleo Legal). Poynter's E.D. Va. patent practice and biography are corroborated by Kaleo Legal's own bio, Chambers USA profile, and Best Lawyers.

Important caveats — please read

1. No additional appearances have been confirmed for this case. The CommWorks campaign is normally staffed by a Rozier Hardt McDonough team — Jonathan L. Hardt, Kenneth A. Matuszewski, Carey Matthew Rozier and James F. McDonough III — all of whom filed notices of appearance in the Texas suits (e.g., SIA Mikrotikls, 2:25-cv-00252; VTech, 2:25-cv-00433; DrayTek, 2:25-cv-00024). In the E.D. Va. u-blox case, only McDonough has been admitted pro hac vice on the record retrieved (docket last retrieved Feb. 25, 2026). I cannot confirm that Hardt, Matuszewski or Rozier ever entered an appearance here, and I have not invented appearances for them.
2. The docket copy retrieved shows the case CLOSED as of ~May 12, 2026 (case flags "CLOSED, JURY, PATENT"). I could not retrieve a dismissal order or settlement document, so I make no representation as to the reason for termination or whether any judgment was entered. If the action resolved before further appearances, the two names above are the complete final plaintiff roster.
3. Party-name discrepancy: the metadata caption says "u-blox Holding AG," but the E.D. Va. docket names the defendant as u-blox America, Inc. (Reston, VA — the complaint pleads its Virginia principal place of business via a Virginia SCC screenshot). The Swiss parent's involvement is not apparent on the face of the docket.
4. Do not confuse with defense counsel. Law360's attorney index associates Brian H. Pandya (Duane Morris LLP, Washington, DC) with a Dec. 30, 2025 "CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. u-blox America, Inc., Virginia Eastern" entry (Law360 profile). I could not verify which side he represents, and given Duane Morris's typical role in these matters it most likely reflects defense-side retention. I am excluding him from the plaintiff roster as unconfirmed.
5. No in-house counsel for CommWorks Solutions, LLC appears of record. CommWorks is a wireless-licensing/NPE entity; nothing in the retrieved record identifies an in-house lawyer.
6. No IPR counsel is documented here. I did not find PTAB proceedings against the asserted patents ('807 and six others, including '465, RE44,904, '285, '979, '304, '596) that name plaintiff-side counsel in this case; counsel in IPRs, if any exist, would need separate verification.

Confidence: High for Poynter (Kaleo Legal) and McDonough's pro hac vice admission — both are grounded in specific docket entries (Nos. 1–4, 10, 11). Medium for McDonough's firm name and office (inferred from parallel CommWorks dockets and the firm's naming partner rather than from the E.D. Va. docket entry itself).

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

Let me dig deeper into the transferred case docket and defense counsel appearances.

Let me check for additional appearances, local counsel, and the case's later docket activity.

Bottom line

Based on publicly retrievable docket records, the only defense attorney who has appeared on the docket in this matter is Brian H. Pandya of Duane Morris LLP (Washington, DC office). I found no evidence of a second defense attorney, a firm-branded local-counsel entry, or in-house counsel on the docket through the last retrieved docket snapshot (Feb. 25, 2026). Critically, the docket records name a different defendant than the caption in the case metadata — see the caveat below.

⚠️ Caption discrepancy (must be flagged before the counsel table)

The case metadata caption reads CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. U-blox Holding AG. Every PACER-derived docket record I retrieved names the defendant as u-blox America, Inc. (the Reston, Virginia–based U.S. subsidiary), with the Swiss parent "U-blox Holding AG" appearing only in third-party editorial write-ups (e.g., PatSnap's summary page). The complaint's venue showing — a screenshot of the Virginia State Corporation Commission record for the defendant's Reston, VA principal place of business — is consistent with the U.S. subsidiary being the named defendant. I note this because it directly affects who defense counsel represents: the Duane Morris appearance is entered on behalf of u-blox America, Inc. I have followed the metadata caption elsewhere in this analysis per instructions, but I cannot verify a Holding AG appearance, and I found none.

Defense counsel of record

Docket grounding for Pandya's appearance:

• Dkt. 7 (Jan. 26, 2026) — "First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, by u-blox America, Inc. … (Pandya, Brian)" — filed in the transferred Norfolk case, No. 2:25-cv-00842.
• Dkt. 9 (Jan. 27, 2026) — "Financial Interest Disclosure Statement (Local Rule 7.1) by u-blox America, Inc. (Pandya, Brian)."
• Dkt. 8 (Jan. 27, 2026) — Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask granted the extension, setting u-blox's answer/response deadline to March 16, 2026.

What I could not confirm (do not treat as established)

• No separate notice of appearance text was retrieved. Pandya's name appears only as the ECF filing attorney on Dkts. 7 and 9. I did not retrieve a Dkt. 6-style "NOTICE of Appearance" for him, nor any pro hac vice motion for him — which is at least consistent with him being a member of the E.D. Va. bar (he is a Virginia State Bar member). Whether he is formally designated lead counsel in this case is not something I can verify from the records retrieved.
• No local counsel identified for the defense. In E.D. Va., out-of-district counsel typically appear via a pro hac vice motion certified by resident local counsel (L.R. 83.1). On the plaintiff's side, exactly that structure is visible — William Rueger Poynter (Kaleo Legal) as local counsel certifying the Feb. 24–25, 2026 pro hac vice motion (Dkts. 10–11) for James Francis McDonough, III. No analogous defense-side local-counsel structure appears in the retrieved docket text. It may exist but not have surfaced in the aggregation, or Pandya may be acting as the court-bar member of record himself.
• No in-house counsel for u-blox appears anywhere in the retrieved records.
• Later docket activity is unverified. One docket aggregator shows the Norfolk case as terminated May 12, 2026 (case flags CLOSED/JURY/PATENT). I could not retrieve the terminating filing (e.g., a voluntary dismissal, settlement, or transfer) before exhausting my search steps. If additional defense appearances (co-counsel, substitution) occurred between Feb. 25 and May 12, 2026, I did not capture them. This list should therefore be treated as counsel of record as of the Feb. 25, 2026 docket snapshot, not as a verified final roster.

Sources

• Justia docket, CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. u-blox America, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00842 (E.D. Va.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/2:2025cv00842/587846
• Justia docket, Alexandria Division, No. 1:2025cv02504 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2025cv02504/587836
• Law360 attorney case list, Brian H. Pandya (Duane Morris LLP) — https://www.law360.com/firms/duane-morris-llp/attorneys/brian-h-pandya/cases
• Duane Morris attorney profile, Brian H. Pandya — https://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/brianpandya.html
• PatSnap litigation summary (editorial; the sole source using the "U-blox Holding AG" caption) — https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/commworks-solutions-v-u-blox-holding-ag-wi-fi-patent-dispute-patsnap/