CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Ubee Interactive Holding Corp.

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

I have good leads. Let me verify the patent specifics, the plaintiff's identity, the defendant, and the docket outcome.

Now let me verify the patent's provenance, the docket, and any IPR history.

Case Overview — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Ubee Interactive Holding Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a patent-assertion entity with no operating business: it is a Georgia LLC with a registered office in Alpharetta, Georgia, and in its own complaints it pleads only that it "is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the Patents-in-Suit" (see its complaint against Texas Instruments, E.D. Tex. No. 2:25-cv-00439, ¶¶ 3, 8–10, via RPX Insight). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a patent asserter relying on acquired patents, and IPWatchdog's filing roundups tag it as "[IP Investments Group]," indicating the monetization operation behind it. Its litigation counsel in this matter is Kheyfits Belenky LLP (docket entries signed by Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, and Stafford Davis) — a firm closely associated with patent-buying and assertion campaigns. The named defendant, Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. (sued d/b/a Ubee Interactive Corp.), is a Cayman-incorporated holding company whose Taiwan branch is a genuine operating manufacturer: Ubee designs and builds DOCSIS cable modems, voice/IPTV and Wi-Fi gateways for tier-1 cable and telecom operators in the Americas and Europe, and reports having shipped 75 million devices since 2007, including 12 million DOCSIS 3.1 units (ubeeinteractive.com/about). Public company profiles describe it as previously known as Ambit Microsystems until a March 2009 renaming (DBpedia). Taiwanese corporate-registry-derived profiles state that Ubee Interactive Technology Co. merged into its Cayman parent Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. effective July 1, 2022, which explains the "Holding Corp." caption; one business-data aggregator lists Far EasTone Telecommunications as ultimate parent, but I could not confirm that from court filings or a primary source.

Accused technology. The accused instrumentality in this docket is Ubee's Wi-Fi-enabled cable gateways/routers (the complaint analysis identifies the UBC1301-AA00 gateway as exemplary and a broader class of Ubee Wi-Fi gateways, routers, and access points). Critically, the theory does not target a Ubee-specific design; it maps the asserted claims onto mandatory or near-universal IEEE 802.11 features: Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) Push-Button Configuration, where a gateway provisions a new client if the client's button/probe request lands inside the 120-second "Walk Time" window, and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/EDCA, where the gateway reads the QoS Control field to detect priority frames and transmit high-priority traffic in a reserved TXOP. In parallel CommWorks pleadings, the same claim charts are used against ADTRAN, D-Link, TRENDnet, u-blox, and (against chip-level products) Texas Instruments' CC3xxx/WL18xx Wi-Fi SoCs — i.e., the campaign reads on standard-compliant silicon and firmware, which is why it reaches both device vendors and chipset suppliers.

Patents asserted. The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" (App. No. 10/341,847, filed Jan. 13, 2003; issued May 10, 2005), asserted at least at claim 17: an access point with (a) logic for tracking operation of a wireless device and (b) logic for provisioning that device if the tracked operation occurs within an "activatable time interval" — the specification's own example being the device's power-on monitored after a provisioning button press. I should flag a discrepancy: the case metadata lists one patent, but third-party databases report additional patents in suit in this docket. Stanford's database lists the '807, '596, and '979 patents for this case, and a complaint-level analysis identifies U.S. Patent No. 7,911,979 ("Time Based Access Provisioning System and Process") and RE44,904 ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection") as also asserted. I could not independently download the actual complaint PDF to confirm the final asserted set, so treat the single-patent metadata as potentially incomplete. It is undisputed across CommWorks's pleadings that the time-based-provisioning family ('807, '979, '285, '596, plus the RE44,904 reissue's '465 parent) originated at America Online, Inc. — Google Patents' family/citation data lists US6891807B2, filed Jan. 13, 2003, as assigned to America Online, Incorporated — making this an AOL-era Wi-Fi provisioning portfolio now being enforced by an NPE.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed February 1, 2023 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, with pretrial matters referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland under Albright's patent standing order. Service on the Cayman/Taiwan defendant was attempted via FedEx through the Clerk's office (Doc. 7, Feb. 8, 2023). Ubee never answered: CommWorks filed an agreed extension (Doc. 9) and an unopposed motion for extension of time (Doc. 11), which Gilliland granted, extending the response deadline to April 20, 2023. Albright then issued his updated Standing Order Governing Proceedings–Patent Cases (docket note, Apr. 4, 2023), and on April 21, 2023 Gilliland granted CommWorks's own unopposed motion to stay all deadlines (Doc. 15). Seventeen days later, on May 8, 2023, CommWorks filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 16), with the required report sent to the USPTO on May 9, 2023 (Doc. 17). The case therefore terminated roughly three months after filing, with no answer, no claim construction, and no merits ruling; the Patexia docket extract does not show the dismissal's prejudice language, and I could not confirm from a primary source whether it was with or without prejudice (a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice filed before answer is without prejudice as of right, which is the usual practice). Waco/Albright was the most plaintiff-friendly patent venue in the country during this period, and the venue choice — plus the fact that Ubee's products are made abroad but sold into Texas through the MSO channel — is the classic reason this case landed there. Notably, the case also illustrates a late-cycle filing dynamic: the '807 application's January 2003 filing date means its 20-year term from filing runs to approximately January 2023, subject to any patent term adjustment and terminal disclaimers I have not verified, so the February 2023 complaint looks like a lookback-damages assertion (six-year § 286 window) rather than a bid for forward-looking relief.

Why the case is notable. Ubee was the first-filed case in CommWorks's 2023 wave of Wi-Fi/802.11 standard-essential-adjacent assertions, and it sits at the head of a coordinated campaign that runs from 2020 (Mediacom and RCN in S.D.N.Y.; Consolidated Communications in E.D. Tex.) through 2022 filings against Technicolor and D-Link (6:22-cv-00806), the ADTRAN suit (N.D. Ala. 5:23-cv-01327, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in about 204 days), the TRENDnet suit (dismissed with prejudice June 11, 2024), and later actions against u-blox, EarthLink (2:25-cv-00716), and Texas Instruments (2:25-cv-00439). Because the patents read on WPS and WMM — Wi-Fi Alliance–mandated features baked into Broadcom/MediaTek/Qualcomm/TI reference designs — the practical exposure runs to any vendor shipping 802.11ac/ax gateways, not just the named defendants, and the TI case shows CommWorks pushing upstream to the chipset layer. The Ubee docket itself is a short, unremarkable lifecycle case (filed, extended, stayed, dismissed), which is itself the notable datapoint: it suggests a licensing resolution or business decision rather than litigation risk, and it left no judicial rulings construing the '807 claims. IPR linkage: I found no evidence of any IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '807 patent, and no PTAB proceeding tied to this docket; I cannot affirmatively state that none exists, only that none surfaced in searches of PTAB/Unified Patents/RPX materials. Similarly, I could not verify Ubee's litigation counsel, the specific patents in the original complaint, or the prejudice terms of the dismissal from primary documents — those items should be confirmed against the PACER docket and the complaint PDF before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the core docket and party/patent details.

The docket shows this case was short-lived (dismissed ~3 months after filing). Let me dig into the substance: the complaint's scope, the stay, and any parallel PTAB activity.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Ubee Interactive Holding Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Tex.) — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Bottom line up front: This was a very short-lived, early-stage case. It was filed 2023-02-01 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright (referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland), the defendant never answered, the deadlines were stayed, and CommWorks voluntarily dismissed the action roughly three months later (docket notice filed 2023-05-08). There was no answer, no counterclaims, no motion to dismiss or transfer, no claim construction, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and no IPR/PGR on the asserted patent. The final disposition is a plaintiff-side voluntary dismissal before the answer deadline.

A note on scope: the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 (the "'807 patent," Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning). I note below some tension between that metadata and third-party databases reporting a broader asserted-patent set; I flag it rather than resolve it.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2023-02-01 to 2023-02-27)

The complaint alleged direct and indirect (inducing and contributing) infringement and willfulness, seeking no less than a reasonable royalty plus interest and costs. The complaint's substantive theory, as summarized in third-party complaint analysis, targeted Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality (mapping to the '807 patent's "time based" provisioning, e.g., the ~120-second PBC window) and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/QoS functionality (mapping to related contention-free-traffic patents). The exemplary accused product was the Ubee UBC1301-AA00 gateway.

Scope discrepancy to flag: The RPX Insight case page for this docket reports 6 patents-in-suit and ~30 accused products, and the complaint-analysis summary identifies the '807, '979 (7,911,979), and RE44,904 patents, while the Stanford NPE database links the '807, '465 (7,027,465), '979, and '596 (7,463,596) patents to this case. The provided case metadata lists only the '807 patent. Because the case closed before any answer or scheduling order, the asserted-patent set for this docket was never narrowed on the record, and I cannot fully reconcile these sources. (RPX; Stanford NPE DB – '807; complaint analysis)

---

2. Pre-trial motions and stay (April 2023)

• 2023-04-04: The parties were directed to comply with Judge Albright's updated Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases (the court's standard patent-case scheduling order).
• 2023-04-19 (Dkt. 14): Unopposed Motion to Stay All Deadlines, filed by CommWorks itself (not the defendant), referred to Judge Gilliland.
• 2023-04-21 (Dkt. 15): Order granting the motion to stay, signed by Judge Gilliland.

This is the only substantive motion practice in the case. There were no motions to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion. Notably, the stay was requested by the plaintiff and was unopposed, which is consistent with the parties being in resolution/licensing discussions rather than contested litigation — though the docket does not disclose any settlement terms, and I found no public confirmation of a license or payment.

---

3. Claim construction, discovery, trial, and post-trial motions

• Claim construction (Markman): None. The case was stayed on 2023-04-21 and dismissed on 2023-05-08, well before any scheduling order, joint claim construction statement, or Markman hearing. No construction of "activatable time interval," "operation of the wireless device," or any other term issued in this case.
• Discovery: None of record. No discovery milestones, no case-management/scheduling conference, no protective-order or ESI disputes.
• Trial/verdict: None.
• Post-trial motions (JMOL/new trial/fees): None. No judgment, no fee motion, no costs award.

---

4. Final disposition (May 2023)

• 2023-05-08 (Dkt. 16): Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by CommWorks (via attorney Dmitry Kheyfits).
• 2023-05-09 (Dkt. 17): Report on Patent/Trademark (AO 120) sent to the USPTO; the case is reflected as closed.

Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed by Ubee, a unilateral notice of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) would be effective without a court order and as of right — which is consistent with the docket showing a plaintiff's notice rather than a signed dismissal judgment. I did not locate the text of the notice or an express "with or without prejudice" designation in the public docket records I retrieved, so I cannot state the prejudice status with certainty for this docket (by contrast, CommWorks's later case against Vyve Broadband, No. 6:23-cv-00147, was terminated "dismissed with prejudice"). There was no appeal, and the case is not active. (Patexia docket)

Practical read: The voluntary dismissal after an unopposed plaintiff-requested stay and before the answer deadline is the classic signature of an early, confidential resolution (e.g., a license or covenant-not-to-sue) or a re-prioritization of the campaign. The commercial terms, if any, are not in the public record — I found no reporting on a settlement amount or license.

---

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings

• No IPR or PGR was filed on U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 (or, as far as the public record I retrieved shows, on the other patents CommWorks asserted in this campaign) arising from or in parallel with this case. There is therefore no PTAB proceeding that stayed, narrowed, or otherwise affected this litigation.
• For context on the broader campaign: Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, IPR2021-01297 challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,923,846 (a different CommWorks patent, not asserted here), and the record in that IPR references an ex parte reexamination of related CommWorks patent 7,769,374 and prior CommWorks v. Comcast claim-construction proceedings (No. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA). These proceedings involved CommWorks patents, but not the '807 patent asserted against Ubee. (IPR2021-01297 papers)

---

6. Campaign context (for completeness)

CommWorks Solutions, LLC (Alpharetta, GA; corporate parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC) is a low-volume patent monetization entity that acquired the portfolio (the "1 Acquired patents" tag in the Stanford NPE database). The Ubee case was one of a series of near-contemporaneous suits against broadband/ISP/router defendants, including RCN Telecom (S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-07534), Comcast (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366-ADA), Vyve Broadband (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00147, filed 2023-02-23), and CommScope/Arris (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00510, filed 2023-11-03), with later suits against AVM (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00026), EarthLink (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716), and others. Several of those cases (including the Altice/CSC Holdings declaratory-judgment action in D. Del., 1:21-cv-01323, dismissed 2022-06-21) also ended early by voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff-side counsel in this campaign included Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Andrey Belenky, Dmitry Kheyfits) and the Stafford Davis Firm PC (Stafford Davis). (Stanford NPE DB – CommWorks party page; Justia – Vyve docket)

---

Chronology at a glance

Caveats on sourcing: The docket-event dates above are drawn from third-party aggregators of the PACER docket (Patexia, RPX, CourtListener/ai-lab) rather than from PACER itself, so minor date-entry differences are possible. I could not retrieve the full text of the voluntary-dismissal notice, so the precise prejudice status for this docket is unconfirmed; and I found no public reporting on settlement/license terms. Where the case metadata (single patent, '807) diverges from aggregator-reported asserted-patent counts, I have flagged the discrepancy rather than choosing a side.

I'll research the counsel of record for CommWorks Solutions, LLC in this matter. Let me start with several searches.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Ubee Interactive Holding Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00064-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented by a two-firm team that CommWorks used across its 2020–2023 W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. campaign: Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Austin, TX / New York, NY) as the substantive patent team, and The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler, TX) functioning as Texas/local counsel. This case was short-lived — the docket ends with a voluntary dismissal on May 8, 2023 (Dkt. 16) — so the record is thin: I found no separate "Notice of Attorney Appearance" entries for plaintiff, and no in-house counsel appears of record.

Attorneys

In-house counsel: none identified. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is an Alpharetta, Georgia-based monetization entity (later Rule 7.1 disclosures in its other suits identify parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC); no in-house attorney appears on the 6:23-cv-00064 docket.

Sourcing / verification notes

• Verified from the docket: ECF filer attributions in the Patexia docket sheet for 6:23-cv-00064 — Kheyfits (Dkt. 16), Belenky (Dkt. 9, 11, 14), Davis (Dkt. 5, 8). See the case documents list at Patexia (case id 186358) and the docket summary at the Ex Parte/AI-lab case page for 6:23-cv-00064.
• Inferred but well-grounded: the full complaint signature block in this case was not retrievable in full-text form. The attorney roster above (Kheyfits, Belenky, Moore, Cohen + Davis, Bartles) is taken from the identical signature blocks CommWorks used in the same-period W.D. Tex. complaints, including CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00366 (W.D. Tex.) (agreed dismissal, Dkt. 14, June 17, 2021), and from the CommWorks v. Vyve Broadband (6:23-cv-00147) attorney list on UniCourt. I have flagged Moore and Cohen as "supporting" because I could not confirm an individual filing by them on this docket.
• No sealing issue for counsel, but thin record: Because the case was stayed (Dkt. 14–15, April 21, 2023) and then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice three weeks later (Dkt. 16, May 8, 2023), plaintiff's counsel never entered a fuller litigation posture; there are no claim-construction, expert, or trial counsel of record, and no pro hac vice motions for plaintiff on this docket.
• Firm notes: Kheyfits Belenky LLP lists an Austin office (12600 Hill Country Blvd., Suite R-275, Austin, TX 78738 in contemporaneous filings, earlier 108 Wild Basin Rd., Suite 250) and a New York office (80 Broad Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004). The Stafford Davis firm appears in later dockets as "Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis," still based in Tyler.

If you need the exact complaint caption block (attorney names, bar numbers, and signatures as filed on Feb. 1, 2023), the reliable source would be PACER for W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00064, Dkt. 1 — I was not able to pull that PDF directly, so the roster above should be treated as verified for Kheyfits, Belenky, and Davis, and as highly probable (not confirmed) for Moore and Bartles/Cohen.

I'll research the docket and counsel for Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. in this case.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet and check for appearances by defense counsel.

The docket suggests minimal activity. Let me verify via CourtListener/RECAP and check whether any defense-side appearance exists.

Bottom line

There is no attorney of record for Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. in this case. The public docket for W.D. Tex. No. 6:23-cv-00064 shows no notice of appearance, no answer, no motion, and no pro hac vice application filed on behalf of the defendant at any point. The case was voluntarily dismissed by CommWorks roughly three months after filing, before Ubee ever responded to the complaint, and the docket contains no defendant-side signature block. I therefore cannot identify lead, local, of counsel, or in-house counsel for Ubee — not because filings are sealed, but because no defense appearance was ever made of record.

What the docket actually shows (all entries, chronological)

Source: Patexia docket for No. 6:23-cv-00064 (mirrors the PACER docket sheet); case also indexed at RPX Insight (txwdce-1204770) and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Note the two extension filings were made by plaintiff's counsel, not defendant's — the court's Feb. 27, 2023 text order recites the defendant as "Ubee Interactive Holding Holdings Corp. d/b/a Ubee Interactive Corp."

Practical read for the analyst

1. No defense firm is discoverable. Because Ubee never appeared, no firm's public docket, bio, or press page will list this case as a defense engagement. Any claim that "X firm represented Ubee here" would be fabrication.
2. Ubee appears to be a foreign defendant. Doc. 7 (foreign-service packet sent FedEx by the Clerk) indicates service was effected abroad — consistent with Ubee Interactive's corporate presence in Taiwan. You can find confirmation of the related-entity/ticker nature of the Ubee enterprise, but be cautious: the similarly-named affiliates complicate any corporate tree.
3. Case terminated early. Filing 02/01/2023 → stay 04/21/2023 → dismissal 05/08/2023 = the matter was disposed of during the answer-extension period, so no responsive pleading, IPR petition, or claim-construction activity exists.
4. For counter-party context (plaintiff side, for completeness): CommWorks was represented in this matter by the same recurring group used across its campaign — Andrey Belenky and Dmitry Kheyfits (Kheyfits Belenky LLP), Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis (Stafford Davis Firm, PC), and in earlier CommWorks suits Catherine Bartles; and separately by Steven W. Ritcheson (Insight, PLLC) and Travis E. Lynch (Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC) in the parallel CommWorks complaints asserting the '807/'465/'904/'979 family. Plaintiff counsel is not the subject of your question, but this is useful to know which firm you'd contact for records.

Caveats

• I could not query PACER directly; my verification rests on the aggregated docket reproductions (Patexia, RPX, Stanford NPE database) and the AI analysis of the complaint, and none of them list any defendant attorney. If PACER's docket-sheet "Attorneys" block (which sometimes lists counsel who appeared silently in a sealed/administrative entry) shows a name, it would supersede this. I found no evidence of any such entry.
• There is no indication of sealed filings in this docket; the absence of defense counsel is a genuine non-appearance, not a redaction issue.

If you need the identity of the lawyer who actually negotiated Ubee's dismissal (settlement/standstill counsel), that would have to come from the underlying settlement communications or from Ubee's corporate/IP department directly — it is not in the public record of this case.