CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. (d/b/a Ubee Interactive Corp.)

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

CommWorks Solutions v. Ubee Interactive — Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with a registered office in Alpharetta, GA, and no operating business of its own — Unified Patents has repeatedly described it as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC" (Unified Patents, Feb. 13, 2023; Unified Patents, Jan. 2022). Its portfolio is a mixed bag of acquired networking and wireless patents, including assets originally issued to AOL LLC (the asserted '596 patent's original assignee) alongside a separate family of multi-layer broadband/QoS patents. CommWorks is a serial filer: it has sued cable MSOs and ISPs (Comcast, RCN, Mediacom, Cable One, Consolidated Communications, EarthLink, NextLink), a DJ plaintiff (Altice/CSC Holdings), and, in 2024–2025, a widening set of Wi-Fi silicon and CPE vendors (Texas Instruments, Axon Networks, DrayTek, AVM, VTech, STMicroelectronics, NXP, u-blox). It is typically represented in Texas by Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Atlanta). Defendant Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. (d/b/a Ubee Interactive Corp.) is the holding entity for Ubee Interactive, a Taiwan-headquartered broadband CPE manufacturer (Zhubei City) with U.S. operations in Colorado; Ubee designs and sells DOCSIS cable modems, Wi-Fi gateways/eMTAs, and commercial cable routers to cable and telecom operators, and says it has shipped roughly 75 million devices since 2007 (ubeeinteractive.com; Bloomberg profile). It is a genuine operating manufacturer, not an NPE — the classic operating-company-vs.-NPE posture.

Asserted patent and accused technology. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued Dec. 9, 2008 from Application No. 11/673,513, filed Feb. 8, 2007; inventors James A. Roskind and John D. Robinson; original assignee AOL) as the patent at issue. Technically, the '596 specification claims a network access point that tracks an operating parameter of a wireless device (e.g., power-on or onset of signal transmission) and provisions that device only if the tracked event falls within a defined "activatable time interval" after provisioning is triggered at the access point — essentially the concept that underlies Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) Push-Button Configuration, where the router authorizes a new client only if both buttons are pressed inside a short window (commonly ~120 seconds). Ubee's accused products are its Wi-Fi-enabled gateways/routers, with the Ubee UBC1301-AA00 gateway identified as an exemplary accused device in third-party complaint analysis of this docket (complaint analysis, 6:23-cv-00064, Doc. 1). That analysis also indicates CommWorks pleaded additional WMM/QoS-related patents from the same portfolio (the '807, '979, and RE44,904), and CommWorks' contemporaneous complaints in this campaign attached "Evidence of Use" exhibits for the '465, '596, '979, RE44,904, '285, and '807 patents (see, e.g., DrayTek complaint, 2:25-cv-00024). I could not verify the complete asserted-patent list for this specific docket from a primary PACER source, so treat "the '596 as the sole patent in suit" as the metadata's representation and flag that the complaint may have swept in sibling patents.

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed February 1, 2023 in the W.D. Tex., Waco Division (No. 6:23-cv-00064), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. CommWorks filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the case was terminated May 8, 2023 — roughly 96 days after filing, before any answer, claim construction, or merits ruling, which under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is self-effectuating (the same pattern CommWorks later followed against NXP, STMicroelectronics, and AVM). Venue choice is the story here: in early 2023 the Waco Division was still the highest-volume patent plaintiff's venue in the country, prized for Albright's fast trial settings and plaintiff-friendly procedures — but the July 2022 random-assignment order and Federal Circuit venue/transfer rulings (In re: Albright, In re: Volkswagen) were already pushing NPEs toward E.D. Tex., which is where CommWorks' later 2025 filings landed (Gilstrap). Industry-wise, the '596 is a poster child for the "standard-feature" NPE model: WPS and WMM are near-ubiquitous, certification-driven features across virtually every Wi-Fi CPE and chipset, so a finding of infringement would ripple across OEMs, silicon vendors, and MSOs alike — which is why CommWorks names broad product families rather than single SKUs. Two dynamics temper that exposure and are worth flagging: (1) expiration — Unified Patents' patent record lists a January 12, 2023 expiration date for the '596 (priority January 2003 plus a 20-year term), meaning the patent may have lapsed only weeks before this complaint was filed, capping recoverable damages to the six-year pre-expiration lookback and, if accurate, undercutting any injunctive theory; and (2) validity pressure at the PTAB — Unified Patents has targeted the CommWorks/IP Investments portfolio, securing an ex parte reexamination grant on the '249 patent and a February 13, 2023 final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of the '846 patent in Unified Patents v. CommWorks Solutions — though I found no IPR specifically challenging the '596, so the PTAB linkage here is portfolio-level rather than patent-specific. Finally, market context: the near-simultaneous disposition (settlement or license, not confirmed on the public docket) against a mid-size DOCSIS CPE vendor fits CommWorks' apparent strategy of harvesting quick, low-cost settlements from device makers rather than litigating to judgment.

Sourcing cautions: the party identities, patents, court, and dates above come from the case metadata plus RPX, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener/PACER-derived dockets, and Unified Patents. The following are not well sourced and I would not rely on them: the precise asserted-patent list and accused-product list in this docket (based on a third-party AI complaint analysis, not the complaint itself); plaintiff's counsel of record specifically in 6:23-cv-00064; the reason for dismissal (no public settlement or license document found); and the '596 expiration date (from Unified's patent page; I could not confirm it against the patent's face or a PTO term calculation). The '596 was also asserted earlier against Consolidated Communications in E.D. Tex. (2:20-cv-00159) and listed among patents in the Altice/CSC Holdings declaratory-judgment action in D. Del. (1:21-cv-01323-JLH), both terminated by voluntary dismissal (Stanford NPE DB; AO-120 form).

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, complaint contents, and any PTAB proceedings.

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

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, portfolio-style NPE complaint that never reached answer, claim construction, discovery, or trial. From filing (2023-02-01) to voluntary dismissal (2023-05-08) the case lasted 97 days; the only contested docket activity was a service-related answer extension and an unopposed motion to stay, which the court granted two weeks before dismissal. The exit came very quickly and alongside near-simultaneous stays/dismissals in CommWorks's companion W.D. Tex. cases filed the same day.

One important reconciliation: the case metadata lists only the '596 patent as at issue, but the complaint as filed asserted a six-patent portfolio, and RPX records six patents-in-suit and 30 accused products. See RPX Insight docket page.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2023-02-01 — Complaint filed (Doc. 1); request for issuance of summons (Doc. 2). Filed in W.D. Tex. before Judge Alan D. Albright, referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Nature of suit: 830 Patent; cause of action § 271 infringement, with a willfulness count. Patexia docket
• Asserted patents (6): According to the complaint-analysis record, the suit asserted the "Time Based Provisioning" family — U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,891,807 ('807), 7,177,285 ('285), 7,463,596 ('596), and 7,911,979 ('979) — plus 7,027,465 ('465) and RE44,904 ('904). Representative claims identified include '979 claim 19, '904 claim 7, and claims of the '596 patent. Complaint analysis, Doc. 1
• Accused instrumentality: The Ubee UBC1301-AA00 gateway as an exemplary product, plus a broader category of Ubee Wi-Fi routers/APs/gateways (RPX counts 30 accused products). The theory mapped WPS push-button provisioning to the time-based provisioning patents and WMM/QoS to the '465/'904 contention-free-traffic patents.
• Willfulness predicate: Pre-suit knowledge allegedly from a 2021-06-02 subpoena and a 2022-07-01 notice letter; willfulness pleaded for the four time-based provisioning patents.
• 2023-02-02 — Summons issued (Doc. 6).
• 2023-02-08 — Foreign-service packet (FedEx) delivered to the Clerk's Office (Doc. 7); Ubee is a Taiwan-based entity, so service was effected under the Hague Convention/foreign-service procedures. JS44 civil cover sheet filed (Doc. 8).
• No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed. Defendant's response deadline was extended from the original date to 2023-04-20 (see below), and no Rule 12 motion, answer, or counterclaim appears on the docket before dismissal.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

There were none of substance:

• 2023-02-22 — Notice of agreed extension (Doc. 9), deficiency notice (Doc. 10), unopposed motion for extension of time to answer (Doc. 11), second deficiency notice (Doc. 12), corrected proposed order (Doc. 13).
• 2023-02-27 — Text order (Judge Gilliland) granting the extension; Ubee's answer due 2023-04-20.
• 2023-04-04 — Clerk notice re Judge Albright's updated Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases.
• 2023-04-19 — Unopposed Motion to Stay All Deadlines (Doc. 14), filed by CommWorks, referred to Judge Gilliland. That the motion was filed by plaintiff and was unopposed is the tell that the parties were already in settlement discussions.
• 2023-04-21 — Order granting the stay (Doc. 15), signed by Judge Gilliland.

No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no stay-pending-IPR motion, and no summary-judgment motion was ever filed.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. The case was stayed and dismissed long before any scheduling order, joint claim construction statement, Markman briefing, or hearing. No claim terms were construed.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order, no infringement/invalidity contentions, and no discovery appears on the docket. The only arguably strategic pre-suit discovery was the 2021-06-02 subpoena CommWorks served on Ubee, which supplied the knowledge predicate for willfulness. Foreign-service logistics (Docs. 7–8) were the only service milestone.

5. Trial, verdict & post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motions, and no fee motion (no prevailing party was ever established).

6. Final disposition

• 2023-05-08 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed (Doc. 16), signed by Dmitry Kheyfits (Kheyfits Belenky LLP — CommWorks's NY-based NPE counsel in this period; Andrey Belenky also appears on the docket).
• 2023-05-09 — AO-120 Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO (Doc. 17).
• Case terminated 2023-05-08; no court judgment or opinion issued.

Because no answer or summary-judgment motion had been served, the notice was self-effectuating under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no court order was required to close the case. The filing was 3 pages (Doc. 16), consistent with a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice. Caveat: the Patexia docket text does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and I could not confirm the prejudice designation from a primary source within this review; the brevity (~2–3 weeks after the stay) and the companion-case pattern (below) strongly suggest a settlement-driven, likely without-prejudice exit. This should be verified against the Doc. 16 PDF or RECAP.

Companion-case context (same filing date, same plaintiff, parallel exits): CommWorks v. Hitron Technologies, No. 6:23-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex.), stayed 2023-05-03, stay extended 2023-06-08 "to allow the parties to finalize the terms of the settlement," and dismissed 2023-07-05. Patexia Hitron docket The Ubee case (stayed 2023-04-21, dismissed 2023-05-08) follows the identical stay-then-dismiss arc, indicating a coordinated licensing/settlement wave rather than a merits resolution.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on the '596 patent (or the other patents-in-suit) tied to this case. This is consistent with the case's 97-day life: Ubee never answered, so it had no occasion to petition for post-grant review of the asserted claims (the one-year § 315(b) window would not even have opened). No IPR-related stay was sought. Caveat: PTAB proceedings are not fully surfaced by the litigation-database sources used here; a definitive negative would require a search of the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E) system by patent number (7,463,596; 7,911,979; 7,177,285; 6,891,807; 7,027,465; RE44,904). I did not find a reported IPR on these numbers and will not assert one.

8. Broader portfolio / why this case matters

• CommWorks Solutions, LLC is an NPE/patent-assertion entity that acquired this Wi-Fi/802.11 portfolio from the 3Com/UTStarcom "CommWorks" lineage; the NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an acquirer of "Acquired patents." Stanford NPE Database — '596
• The '596 portfolio has been asserted repeatedly, including against RCN Telecom (S.D.N.Y., 1:20-cv-07534, asserting '596 among nine patents) and in a large W.D. Tex. wave against Comcast (6:21-cv-00366). RCN complaint
• Ubee has litigation history on 802.11 products (it was a declaratory-judgment plaintiff against MTel in a separate 2016 E.D. Tex. wave), but that involved different patents.
• The Ubee/Hitron 2023 Texas filings were the front edge of a much larger 2025 campaign: CommWorks filed serial suits in 2025 against AVM, DrayTek, VTech, Texas Instruments, NXP, Marvell, STMicroelectronics, u-blox, and Grandstream, repeatedly asserting the same core Wi-Fi patents ('596, '285, '979, RE44,904, '465, '807). Those cases followed the same pattern — quick settlement or voluntary dismissal (e.g., TI stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, 2025; NXP with-prejudice dismissal, 2025-10-31; STMicroelectronics voluntary dismissal, 2025-10-31). The Ubee case is thus best characterized as an early, efficiently settled licensing-demand assertion, not a litigated merits dispute.

---

Summary timeline

No answer, no counterclaims, no motion to dismiss/transfer/IPR-stay, no Markman, no discovery, no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/fee motion, and no appeal.

Open verification items: (1) the with/without-prejudice designation in Doc. 16; (2) whether any Ubee appearance/counsel was entered (the docket text shows plaintiff-filed extension motions, suggesting no formal defense appearance); (3) whether a settlement/license agreement underlies the dismissal; and (4) a definitive PTAB E2E check for IPRs on the six asserted patents.

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

The docket shows several plaintiff-side filers. Let me verify each attorney's firm and role.

Let me pull the full docket sheet for this specific case and confirm the appearances.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

Bottom line: Three plaintiff-side attorneys are identifiable from the docket of CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Ubee Interactive Holding Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Tex.): Andrey Belenky and Dmitry Kheyfits of Kheyfits Belenky LLP (the substantive filers), and Stafford G. Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, in Tyler, Texas (Texas local counsel). All three are part of the regular CommWorks litigation team that the plaintiff has used across its W.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex. campaigns.

---

1. Andrey Belenky — primary filer / lead counsel

• Firm / office: Kheyfits Belenky LLP — New York, NY (80 Broad St., 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004; tel. 212-203-5399). Previously practiced as Kheyfits P.C.
• Activity in this case: Signed the substantive plaintiff-side motions — the Unopposed Motion to Stay All Deadlines (Dkt. 14, filed Apr. 19, 2023) and the Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to Answer and related motion (Dkts. 9, 11, filed Feb. 22, 2023). He is the attorney whose CM/ECF signature appears most often on plaintiff filings in this docket.
• Relevant experience: Longtime patent-plaintiff's-side counsel. CourtListener/PACER records show him as counsel for CommWorks in companion suits (e.g., CommWorks v. CommScope, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00533; CommWorks v. Open Text, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00533), and for other NPE plaintiffs including Firenet Technologies v. Fujitsu (E.D. Tex. 2:18-cv-00270), LaserDynamics USA v. Ritek (S.D.N.Y. 1:16-cv-06621), and KT Imaging USA v. Hikvision (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-01026).

2. Dmitry Kheyfits — lead/co-lead counsel

• Firm / office: Kheyfits Belenky LLP — San Francisco, CA (4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94111; tel. 415-429-1739), with a Texas presence (Austin, TX address used in the related CommWorks v. Comcast matter: 108 Wild Basin Rd., Suite 250).
• Activity in this case: Filed the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 16, May 8, 2023) that terminated the case — the last plaintiff-side filing on the docket.
• Relevant experience: Founder/managing attorney of the firm (formerly Kheyfits P.C.); described as "Lead Counsel" in sworn filings in other matters. He led the CommWorks campaign against Comcast, Zyxel, Extreme Networks, CommScope, Open Text, and others, and litigates patent cases as well as other plaintiff-side work (e.g., Complex Memory LLC v. Renesas).

3. Stafford G. Davis — Texas local counsel

• Firm / office: The Stafford Davis Firm, PC — Tyler, TX (815 S. Broadway Ave., Tyler, TX 75701; tel. 903-593-7000). State Bar No. 24054605, licensed in Texas since 2006.
• Activity in this case: Submitted the JS44 Civil Cover Sheet (Dkt. 8, filed Feb. 8, 2023) and appears to have handled the initial filing mechanics, consistent with the local-counsel role he plays in CommWorks' Texas cases (in the parallel CommWorks v. Extreme Networks action he filed the complaint, corporate disclosure statement, AO-120 form, and related-case notice).
• Relevant experience: Business/IP litigator listed in Super Lawyers (2019–2026) for business litigation and intellectual-property litigation; frequent Texas local counsel for NPE plaintiffs, including Motiva Patents v. HTC and multiple CommWorks suits.

---

Caveats and sourcing notes

• Source of the appearance list: The free docket records available (Patexia's docket listing for 6:23-cv-00064, RPX Insight, Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry) reflect these three CM/ECF filers. The entries and signature attributions are: Dkt. 16 (Kheyfits), Dkt. 14 (Belenky), Dkts. 9/11 (Belenky), Dkt. 8 (Davis).
• Not independently confirmed: I could not retrieve the complaint's own signature block or a formal "Notice of Attorney Appearance" for Kheyfits in this particular case from the sources available, so his appearance here is inferred from his filing the dismissal and from the firm's consistent role for CommWorks. None of the filings in this short-lived case (filed Feb. 1, 2023; voluntarily dismissed May 8, 2023 — a roughly three-month life) were sealed as far as the public docket shows.
• Co-counsel who appear in sister cases but not confirmed here: In other CommWorks matters the plaintiff team also includes Hanna G. Cohen (Kheyfits Belenky, New York, admitted pro hac vice) and Catherine Bartles (The Stafford Davis Firm, Tyler). I did not find evidence that either appeared on this docket; do not treat them as counsel of record in 6:23-cv-00064 without pulling the PACER docket.
• No in-house counsel for CommWorks appears in the public docket; CommWorks is an NPE (its Rule 7 disclosure in a related case identified corporate parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC), relying on outside counsel.
• Defendant-side counsel (Ubee) is outside the scope of this request and is not addressed here. Note that Ubee is a foreign entity, and Dkt. 7 reflects the clerk's office receiving documents for foreign service — a detail relevant to why the case ended early.

Recommended verification step: Pull the PACER docket sheet for 6:23-cv-00064 and the complaint (Dkt. 1) to confirm the full signature block and any pro hac vice admissions, since the free aggregators do not always capture every appearance in a case this short.

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

Let me look for the actual docket entries showing attorney appearances.

Let me pull the full docket and check whether any defense counsel ever entered an appearance.

Bottom line

I could not identify any counsel of record for Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. in this case — and the reason appears to be substantive, not a research gap: the public docket reflects no appearance, no pro hac vice motion, and no filing of any kind by a defense attorney before the case was voluntarily dismissed. The docket is populated entirely by plaintiff-side activity.

I am flagging this explicitly rather than naming a firm, because naming one here would be fabrication. No PACER attorney-appearance data, firm press release, Law360/Reuters report, or court opinion naming Ubee's counsel in 6:23-cv-00064 surfaced in my searches.

What the docket actually shows (Doc. Nos. 1–17)

The full docket run for the case is short and was transcribed by Patexia (case id 186358) and profiled by RPX Insight (litigation ID txwdce-1204770):

Sources: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CommWorks-Solutions-LLC-v-Ubee-Interactive-Holding-Corp-id-186358/documents ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1204770-commworks-solutions-v-ubee-interactive-holding ; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7463596

Notable feature of the docket: the extension of Ubee's answer deadline (Doc. 11) and the stay (Doc. 14) were both filed by the plaintiff, styled "Unopposed"/"Agreed." That strongly implies plaintiff's counsel was negotiating with someone on Ubee's side — but no defense firm, attorney signature, or appearance ever appears on the public docket.

Why there is no defense counsel of record

• Timing. Ubee's response deadline was extended only once, to April 20, 2023. Plaintiff moved to stay all deadlines on April 19, 2023, the stay issued April 21, and the voluntary dismissal was filed May 8, 2023. Ubee was never required to answer, move, or appear, and never did on the docket.
• Service posture. Doc. 7 shows service materials routed for foreign service via FedEx — consistent with Ubee Interactive Holding Corp. being a non-U.S. entity — which often delays the appearance clock and makes a pre-answer dismissal more likely.
• Case terminated 05/08/2023, so nothing further could have been added to the docket afterward.

The only attorneys appearing in this case (plaintiff side — for contrast, not your answer)

These are the plaintiff's counsel, listed so the record is complete and so they are not mistaken for defense counsel:

• Andrey Belenky — Kheyfits Belenky LLP, 80 Broad Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY (filer of Docs. 9, 11, 13, 14). Frequent W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. patent plaintiff's counsel for CommWorks across its campaign against Comcast, Charter, TI, and others. (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15460952)
• Dmitry Kheyfits — Kheyfits Belenky LLP, New York, NY (filer of Doc. 16, the voluntary dismissal).
• Stafford Davis — The Stafford Davis Firm (Tyler, TX) (filer of the JS44 cover sheet, Doc. 8); a Tyler-based firm used in CommWorks' Texas filings.

Verification steps if you need certainty

1. Pull the PACER docket directly (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00064) and check the "Attorneys" / "Party Represented" section of the docket header — PACER's attorney block will show whether anyone was ever added to pty:dft even without a standalone appearance entry. Docket-reporting sites transcribe entries but sometimes omit the header attorney block.
2. Check whether Ubee's counsel appeared in a related CommWorks matter (e.g., CommWorks' parallel suits where Ubee products were implicated, or any Ubee ITC/Delaware litigation), since defense-side engagement letters are not public.
3. Check for a stipulated dismissal/settlement agreement filed under seal or as an exhibit — such documents sometimes identify defense counsel even where no appearance was entered. No such document appears in the public docket run above.

Caveat on sourcing: my inability to find defense counsel rests on a complete-looking docket transcription (Docs. 1–17, no gaps) plus the 97-day case duration (per RPX Insight). If PACER's header attorney block lists a defense firm that never filed a standalone paper, my conclusion would need to be revised — but I found no such indication in any source.