CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications Corporation

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the patents' provenance, and any PTAB linkage.

Let me verify the patent provenance, PTAB challenges to these specific patents, and the related case wave.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company (registered office in Alpharetta/Fulton County, GA) and a non-practicing entity — a subsidiary/affiliate of the Georgia monetization firm IP Investments Group LLC. It does not make or sell products; it acquires and asserts patents. The CommWorks portfolio traces to a large November–December 2019 divestiture of several thousand assets by Intellectual Ventures LLC to IPInvestments-affiliated shell entities, and CommWorks launched its networking assertion campaign in mid-2020 (RPX/Mondaq coverage: mondaq.com; the '596 patent's original assignee was AOL Inc., inventors James A. Roskind and John D. Robinson, per the Unified Patents portal). Defendant ZyXEL Communications Corporation is an operating company — a Taiwanese manufacturer of broadband CPE and networking gear (routers, xDSL/GPON gateways, Wi-Fi access points, switches, firewalls), headquartered in Hsinchu, Taiwan, and the principal brand subsidiary of Zyxel Group Corporation (formerly Unizyx Holding Corp., TWSE: 3704, renamed June 2023). ZyXEL sells both direct and as an OEM/ODM supplier to ISPs (e.g., EarthLink-branded DSL modems) (Zyxel Group profile; DBpedia/Wikipedia abstract). Public information about ZyXEL's litigation counsel in this docket is not well sourced in what I could retrieve.

Accused technology and asserted patents. The complaint targets ZyXEL's Wi-Fi-enabled routers, access points and gateways — exemplary product the ZyXEL EX3510-B Series Gateway, with a non-exhaustive list in Attachment A — accused because they implement Wi-Fi Alliance–certified Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/802.11-2007+ functionality. Per the complaint analysis (Ex Parte complaint intelligence, 6:23-cv-00065), the theory is that standardized WPS "Push-Button Configuration" practices the claimed time-based provisioning (tracking a device's power-on/probe-request within the 120-second WPS "Walk Time"), and that WMM practices the claimed contention-free traffic detection (extracting a bit pattern from the frame's QoS Control field and comparing it to a search pattern to assign an Access Category). The complaint asserted six patents, and I note a metadata discrepancy worth flagging: your case record indexes only U.S. 7,463,596, but RPX's case page reports 6 Patents-in-Suit and the complaint analysis identifies all six — 7,463,596, 6,891,807, 7,177,285 and 7,911,979 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning" family — track an operating parameter such as power-on or onset of signal transmission and provision/associate the device if it occurs inside a time interval), plus 7,027,465 and its reissue RE44,904 ("Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection" — bit-pattern/QoS-field priority detection in an access point). The '596 claims 1 and 16 (association of devices within a time interval) are the canonical example; the '596, '807, '285 and '979 share a January 2003 priority date, and RE44,904 is the reissue of the '465 family (RPX Insight; NPE Litigation Database).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. CommWorks filed on February 1, 2023 in the W.D. Tex., Waco Division (the "6:" prefix), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, with pretrial/motion work referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. ZyXEL waived service (waiver sent Mar. 15, 2023, returned executed Mar. 27, 2023; the clerk's earlier FedEx service packet to Taiwan was returned in February 2023 — see Patexia docket). Answer deadlines were extended twice, to July 28, 2023; on July 18–19, 2023 the parties jointly moved to stay all deadlines and Judge Gilliland stayed the case 30 days; on July 31, 2023 the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice; Judge Albright granted it and the case closed August 2, 2023 (Dkts. 12–15), with the USPTO notified under 35 U.S.C. § 290. ZyXEL never answered and there was no merits ruling on infringement or validity. Venue matters here in two ways: as a foreign corporation, ZyXEL was treated as suable essentially anywhere under § 1400(b) (the complaint's express basis for venue), and W.D. Tex./Waco was the highest-volume, plaintiff-favored patent docket of the period — the same day CommWorks filed a companion case against Ubee Interactive Holding Corp., 6:23-cv-00064. The dismissal-with-prejudice-by-joint-motion pattern (rather than a merits win) is consistent with a settlement or license, and the PatSnap analysis notes each side bore its own costs and no fee award issued (PatSnap summary).

Why the case is notable. Three things stand out. First, timing tied to patent expiry: the asserted family patents expired on or about January 12–13, 2023 (Unified Patents lists a 2023-01-12 expiration for the '596), and the AVM and Broadcom complaints in this campaign likewise plead infringement only "until its expiry" — so the February 1, 2023 filings were damages-only, past-infringement suits squeezed into the six-year § 286 lookback (roughly February 2017 forward), an unusual end-of-life monetization posture. Second, the assertions rest on standardized, ubiquitous Wi-Fi Alliance features (WPS and WMM), which makes every maker of Wi-Fi CPE or Wi-Fi chipsets a nominal target — CommWorks has sued ISPs (Comcast, Charter, RCN), equipment brands (D-Link, ZyXEL, Ubee, Extreme, DrayTek, AVM, Technicolor, Axon) and, more recently, chipset vendors (Broadcom, Texas Instruments, STMicroelectronics) in W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., C.D. Cal. and N.D. Ga. (Lexology, Technicolor suit; Broadcom complaint analysis; STMicroelectronics docket). Third, IPR/reexam linkage: third-party challenger Unified Patents runs an active campaign against the CommWorks portfolio — IPR2021-01297 against U.S. 8,923,846 (FWD Feb. 13, 2023, all challenged claims held unpatentable) and ex parte reexamination 90/014,909 against U.S. 6,832,249 (granted Dec. 23, 2021) (Unified Patents). Caveat: those challenges concerned different CommWorks patents (mobile-network information recovery and broadband multi-layer QoS), not the six asserted against ZyXEL, and I could not verify any IPR or reexam petition directed at the '596, '807, '285, '979, '465 or RE44,904 — so the "IPR linkage" here is at the portfolio/campaign level, not a direct challenge to the ZyXEL patents-in-suit. Likewise, the identity of ZyXEL's counsel, the settlement terms, and the exact reason for the stay-then-dismiss sequence are not publicly sourced and should not be assumed.

Sourcing notes: docket events are from the Patexia/RPX dockets; the six-patent scope, claim identifications and accused-product detail come from the complaint as analyzed by Ex Parte and from RPX's case page; party/corporate facts are from ZyXEL Group's public filings and third-party company profiles. Facts I could not independently verify from PACER or a primary court document are flagged above.

I'll research this case through multiple targeted searches.

Let me pull the actual docket and check for parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me check CourtListener for the actual docket and search PTAB for any IPR on the '596 patent.

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00065 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a 183-day, pleadings-only case. ZyXEL never answered, no counterclaim was ever filed, no motion to dismiss/transfer/stay-for-IPR was decided on the merits, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding on the asserted patents tied to this action. The case ended by joint motion to dismiss with prejudice on 2023-07-31/2023-08-02.

Important sourcing caveat on the patents: the case metadata flags only U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 ("Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued 2008-12-09). The contemporaneous docket aggregators and the complaint itself indicate the suit was a six-patent assertion — RPX reports "6 Patents-in-Suit," and the complaint analysis for 6:23-cv-00065 analyzes the '807, '465, '596 and RE44,904 patents, with the same WPS/WMM theory used across CommWorks' campaign ('807, '465, '285, '596, '979, RE44,904). Sources: RPX Insight; ExParte complaint analysis, Dkt. 1; PatSnap case note. Treat the single-patent metadata as incomplete rather than as a fact.

---

Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2023)

Sources: Patexia docket, 6:23-cv-00065; Justia docket listing.

Pleading substance (from the complaint, Doc. 1): CommWorks, a Georgia LLC holding the former AOL/Tarquin/Callahan/Intellectual Ventures "Roskind" wireless-provisioning family, accused ZyXEL's Wi-Fi-enabled routers, gateways and access points (exemplary product: ZyXEL EX3510-B Series Gateway) of infringing through two industry-standard features — Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)/802.11e QoS. Independent claims alleged: '807 cl. 17, '465 cl. 1, '285 cl. 1, '596 cl. 1, '979 cl. 1, and RE44,904 cl. 7. The theory was that the standardized 120-second WPS "walk time" is the claimed "activatible time interval," and that WMM's extraction of QoS Control bits and mapping to Access Categories is the claimed "extract a bit pattern … compare … search pattern." Direct, induced, contributory and willful infringement were pleaded (¶¶38, 60 of the Doc. 1 analysis). The complaint was drafted with § 101 in mind, including pre-emptive Alice ¶¶ 25–27/45–48 reciting "not directed to an abstract idea."

• Answer: never filed. ZyXEL's deadline was extended twice to 2023-07-28; the joint dismissal motion followed three days later.
• Counterclaims: none. No Rule 12(b) motion, no § 101 motion, no venue/transfer motion, no invalidity contentions (the case never reached the Albright GPO contentions deadline).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None were litigated to decision. The only motions docketed were (i) CommWorks's two unopposed extensions of ZyXEL's answer deadline, and (ii) the joint motion to stay and joint motion to dismiss. There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1404/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion. (Contrast the parallel Atlas Global Techs. v. ZyXEL Networks/Communications, No. 6:22-cv-00355-ADA, also in Albright's court, which did produce a claim construction order and an IPR — that is a different patent owner and patent, not this case.)

3. Claim construction / Markman

Never reached. No Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Markman order, no § 282 disclosures. If any construction issue mattered, it was the campaign-wide "tracking an operating parameter" / "occurs within a time interval" dispute (whether WPS's button-triggered acceptance window reads on a claim requiring the AP to monitor a device's power-on/first-transmission event) — but no court ever construed it here. The only term-focused discussion is the plaintiff-side/complaint-analysis commentary (scope of "tracking," "activatible time interval").

4. Discovery milestones

None. No scheduling order issued, no Rule 26(f) conference, no infringement/invalidity contentions, no fact or expert discovery, no damages analysis. The case was resolved within the answer-deadline period. The notably short "183 days in litigation" figure (RPX) reflects that.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under § 285 or otherwise. PatSnap's analysis expressly notes "No fee award was made against Zyxel" and "each party bears its own legal costs." PatSnap

6. Stay, settlement, dismissal — final disposition

A joint motion to dismiss with prejudice three days before the answer deadline, following a joint stay "to file dismissal papers," is the classic signature of a confidential settlement/license. The settlement terms were never filed publicly — PatSnap: "The specific terms of any underlying resolution are not disclosed." The dismissal is with prejudice, so CommWorks is barred by res judicata from re-asserting the asserted patents against ZyXEL on the same accused products; it carries no invalidity or non-infringement finding and no estoppel effect on third parties. No notice of appeal was filed; no appeal exists.

7. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR or CBM petition against U.S. Pat. No. 7,463,596 — or against any CommWorks patent — that is attributable to this litigation or to ZyXEL as petitioner. ZyXEL does appear as an IPR petitioner in the PTAB, but on an unrelated matter: ZyXEL Communications Corp. and ZyXEL Networks Corp. v. Atlas Global Technologies LLC, IPR2023-00877 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,917,679), which settled (§ 317(b) joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential, filed 2023-10-16). Sources: Docket Alarm, IPR2023-00877; [claim construction order cited in that IPR as Ex. 2006, Atlas Global Dkt. 53, 6:22-cv-00355-ADA]. Because neither the district case nor any IPR advanced past threshold filings, no IPR had any effect on this litigation. (I could not confirm from accessible public sources whether any third party has ever petitioned on the '596 patent; that should be verified directly in PTAB P-TACTS.)

---

Related proceedings and campaign context (for the "effect on the litigation" picture)

CommWorks (assignee since 2019-11-15 via Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC → CommWorks Solutions, LLC; the '596 patent's chain is America Online → AOL LLC → Tarquin Consulting → Callahan Cellular → IV Assets 130 → CommWorks) has run a serial WPS/WMM assertion campaign in which near-identical complaints resolve quickly, overwhelmingly by with-prejudice dismissal or voluntary dismissal, rather than adjudication. Examples:

• CommWorks v. Cable One, 2:20-cv-00158 (E.D. Tex.) — terminated 2021-02-12 (dismissed).
• CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications, 2:20-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex.) — terminated 2021-02-09 (dismissed).
• CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21-cv-00366 (W.D. Tex.) — order granting motion to dismiss, 2022-07-01.
• Altice USA/CSC Holdings v. CommWorks, 1:21-cv-01323-JLH (D. Del.) — declaratory judgment action against CommWorks on the same family ('249, '807, '285, '596, '979); ended by Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, D.I. 27 (reported 2022-06-21).
• CommWorks v. TRENDnet, 2:23-cv-08048 (C.D. Cal.) — same six-patent/Same WPS+WMM theory.
• CommWorks v. Adtran, 5:23-cv-01327-LCB (N.D. Ala., filed 2023-10-03) — same six patents.
• Post-2025 activity: AVM (2:25-cv-00026, E.D. Tex., dismissed 2025-06-19 without prejudice), DrayTek (2:25-cv-00024), VTech (2:25-cv-00433), Texas Instruments (2:25-cv-00439, E.D. Tex., stipulated dismissal with prejudice), STMicroelectronics (7:25-cv-00363, W.D. Tex., dismissed 2025-11-03/04), NXP USA (7:25-cv-00395, W.D. Tex., Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed 2025-10-31), EarthLink (2:25-cv-00716, E.D. Tex.), Broadcom (2:25-cv-02998, C.D. Cal.), u-blox (1:25-cv-02504, E.D. Va.), Grandstream (2:26-cv-00794, E.D. Tex., 2026-09-04).

Sources: Patexia, CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications; Patexia, CommWorks v. Cable One; CourtListener, CommWorks v. STMicroelectronics; Unified Patents portal, CommWorks v. AVM; PatSnap, CommWorks v. NXP; PatSnap, CommWorks v. TI.

Counsel

Plaintiff's counsel per the docket aggregator: Andrey Belenky, Dmitry Kheyfits, Hanna G. Cohen (Kheyfits Belenky LLP) and Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis (Stafford Davis Firm PC), with Brandon Moore and Catherine Bartles also listed. ZyXEL's litigation counsel in 6:23-cv-00065 is not identified in the sources I could access — the aggregator's party/counsel table lists only plaintiff-side counsel. Do not infer defense counsel from the Atlas Global IPR; that is a separate representation.

Analytical note (inference, flagged as such)

The asserted family claims priority to 2003-01-13 (parent App. 10/341,847 → '807 patent), so a 20-year term adjusted under § 154 would put expiration for the '596 patent in the 2023–2024 window. If the '596 patent expired on or about 2023-01-13 (i.e., weeks before this 2023-02-01 complaint), the practical damages window (35 U.S.C. § 286, six years back from filing plus post-notice conduct from the April 2020 notice letters) would have been closing or closed — which is a plausible economic driver of both the multiple answer extensions and the swift joint with-prejudice dismissal. I have not verified the '596 patent's actual expiration date (PTA/terminal-disclaimer-adjusted) from an authoritative source, so treat this as a hypothesis to confirm on USPTO Patent Center, not a finding.

Sourcing transparency

I did not have direct PACER access; the docket chronology above rests on the Patexia docket mirror and the PatSnap/RPX case analyses, which agree with one another and with Justia's listing. Item-level document text (Doc. 1 complaint) is drawn from the published complaint-analysis summaries and the campaign-wide complaint templates, which are materially identical across CommWorks's cases. Where I could not source something (ZyXEL's defense counsel, settlement terms, PTAB activity on the '596 patent, patent expiration date), I have said so rather than fill the gap.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record through the docket aggregators and firm sources.

Let me verify the docket's counsel-of-record entries and pull individual attorney bios.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CommWorks Solutions, LLC

CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00065-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented by a two-firm team — Kheyfits Belenky LLP (the firm that has run CommWorks' entire WPS/WMM assertion campaign out of New York, San Francisco and Austin) and The Stafford Davis Firm, PC of Tyler, Texas, which appears to have filled the Texas presence/local-counsel role. Six attorneys are attributed to the plaintiff side by the case aggregators. No in-house counsel for CommWorks appears on the docket — consistent with CommWorks being an IP Investments Group monetization vehicle with no litigation in-house function. I found no entry of appearance for ZyXEL-side counsel in this docket, so the defense bar is not addressed here.

Sourcing caveat up front: I do not have direct PACER access. The attorney roster below rests on (i) the PatSnap case record's party/counsel table for this docket, and (ii) the signature blocks on the two substantive filings in this case (Dkts. 12 and 13) as captured in the Patexia docket mirror. Aggregator "counsel" tables are auto-generated and occasionally over-inclusive (they can pull in attorneys who appeared only in a related case). Where I have a signature-block or docket-entry confirmation for this case, I say so; where I only have the aggregator's list, I flag it.

---

1. Confirmed by signature block / docket entry in this case

Note on the two signatures: Kheyfits signing the stay motion and Belenky signing the dismissal motion three days before the extended answer deadline is consistent with the settlement-posture reading in the earlier sections of this analysis — no division of labor visible that would suggest a different lead.

2. Listed on the docket's counsel roster (aggregator-attributed; no signature block retrieved for this docket)

3. Attributed by the aggregator but unverified — treat with caution

• Catherine Bartles — PatSnap's table for this docket lists her as plaintiff counsel for CommWorks, alongside Moore. I could not independently confirm her firm, office, or role from a signature block, court filing, or firm website. She does not appear in the Kheyfits Belenky signature blocks I retrieved or in the CommWorks campaign filings I located. Do not attribute her to a firm without verification.
• Hanna G. Cohen's current affiliation: a Martindale listing surfaced for "Hanna Glomska Cohen" showing an association with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (New York). That may be a different attorney with a similar name, or a later move after this 2023 case. Her Kheyfits Belenky affiliation is well documented for the 2023 timeframe via multiple pro hac vice signature blocks (hgcohen@kblit.com). Flagging the discrepancy rather than resolving it.

4. Observations relevant to the counsel question

1. No formal "lead counsel" designation appears on this docket. The case never reached the point (Albright's GPO scheduling order, contentions, Markman) where lead-counsel designations are typically made. Mr./Ms. roles above are inferred from signing patterns and firm structure.
2. No pro hac vice motions appear in the docket entries I retrieved (Docs. 9–15 plus text orders). That is explainable by the case's 183-day, pleadings-only life — but it also means the out-of-state/non-Texas bar admissions of Kheyfits, Belenky, Cohen and Moore were never formally tested on this docket. I could not retrieve the Doc. 1 complaint signature block for this case (the published complaint analysis is available, but not the signature page), which would normally list the full filing roster and any local-counsel designation up front.
3. Same-counsel pattern across the campaign. The Kheyfits Belenky / Stafford Davis pairing is the template for CommWorks' WPS+WMM suits (compare CommWorks v. Comcast, 6:21-cv-00366-ADA; CommWorks v. Adtran, 5:23-cv-01327-LCB; CommWorks v. TRENDnet, 2:23-cv-08048; CommWorks v. CommScope, E.D. Tex., filed 2023-11-03). Kheyfits Belenky also represents other IP Investments–affiliated NPEs (Personalized Media Communications, KT Imaging, Complex Memory, Mel NavIP, FireNet), which is the best evidence of the firm's relevant patent-litigation depth.
4. No defense counsel identified. Consistent with the prior sections of this analysis, ZyXEL's litigation counsel in 6:23-cv-00065 remains unsourced; the Atlas Global IPR representation is a different matter and must not be imported here.

Not found / not claimed: any in-house counsel for CommWorks Solutions, LLC or IP Investments Group appearing in this docket; any sealed or withdrawn appearances; any local-counsel rule compliance order naming specific attorneys. If you need certainty on the complete roster (particularly Catherine Bartles), the definitive source is the Doc. 1 complaint signature block and the ECF "Attorneys" tab for 6:23-cv-00065 in PACER — which I could not access.

I'll research defense counsel for ZyXEL in this docket through multiple targeted searches.

Let me check CourtListener and the Ex Parte case page, plus look for ZyXEL's counsel in related CommWorks matters.

Let me try to pull the actual docket sheet and find ZyXEL's district-court counsel in the parallel W.D. Tex. case.

Defense counsel of record — CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00065-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: there is no defense counsel of record to report. Based on every source I could retrieve, no attorney ever entered an appearance for ZyXEL in this docket. This is not a gap in my search so much as a documented absence: the docket contains no Rule 83 "Notice of Attorney Appearance," no answer, no counterclaim, no Rule 12 motion — every substantive and administrative entry in the case was filed under plaintiff-side ECF credentials. This confirms (rather than contradicts) the open item flagged in the earlier sections, and I'll flag it as a confirmed absence rather than an unsourced gap.

What the record shows

Why the docket looks this way. ZyXEL waived service (Doc. 9, waiver sent 2023-03-15), never answered, and the parties jointly moved to stay (Doc. 12, 2023-07-18) and then jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. 13, 2023-07-31) — three days before the twice-extended 2023-07-28 answer deadline. In W.D. Tex. practice, a foreign defendant that waives service and settles before answering frequently never files an appearance at all; the case disposes on stipulated papers filed under plaintiff's ECF login. The "joint" styling of Docs. 12–13 means defense counsel was almost certainly working the case off-docket (negotiating the stay and the dismissal, consenting to the relief), but that participation is not reflected in any publicly retrievable appearance, signature block, or counsel table I located.

Candidates for who was actually representing ZyXEL — flagged as inference, NOT of record

I want to be explicit: none of the following is established for this case. I list them only because they are ZyXEL's documented, contemporaneous patent-litigation representatives in the same court and time frame, and they are the natural starting points for a PACER/signature-page verification.

• Victoria Hao (Reg. No. 47,630) and Martha Hopkins (Reg. No. 46,277) — Law Offices of S.J. Christine Yang, Fountain Valley, CA. Identified of record as counsel for ZyXEL Communications Corp. and ZyXEL Networks Corp. as petitioners in the PTAB proceedings ZyXEL v. Atlas Global Technologies, IPR2023-00863 and IPR2023-00877, both filed April 2023 — i.e., the same window as this case. Source: joint § 317(b) request dated 2023-10-16 in IPR2023-00877 (see Docket Alarm copy) and the IPR2023-00877 caption documents (PTAB artifact). Firm is a boutique whose principal, S.J. Christine Yang, is a frequent PTAB practitioner for Asian electronics clients.
• Benn Wilson (Reg. No. 78,224) — Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL. Co-counsel for ZyXEL in the same two Atlas Global IPRs. Alabama/Texas-capable litigation firm; note the Alabama office address on the PTAB signature block.
• Local counsel (W.D. Tex.) — a pro hac vice appearance by out-of-state counsel would have required a Texas-bar local sponsor if ZyXEL had formally appeared. I found no such filing in this docket. (In the separate Atlas Global v. ZyXEL, No. 6:22-cv-00355-ADA, a "ORDER GRANTING 28 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Christine Yang" appears at Doc. 30, 2022-09-22 — see the Patexia docket. That is consistent with Yang's firm staffing ZyXEL, but it is a different case, different plaintiff, and different patents; it does not establish appearance here, and I have not confirmed which party that motion served.)
• In-house / ZyXEL legal department — Zyxel Group's North American operations (ZyXEL Networks, Inc., Anaheim, CA) maintain in-house IP/legal staff, but I found no public source naming an in-house attorney on this matter. Do not assume one.

Recommendation for verification (since this cannot be closed with public web sources)

1. PACER docket sheet "Attorney/Participant" tab for 6:23-cv-00065 — this is the authoritative counsel-of-record list, and my web-accessible mirrors (Patexia, CourtListener RECAP, Justia) do not expose the attorney panel. If the panel is empty, there is genuinely no counsel of record.
2. Docs. 12 and 13 signature blocks — the joint stay and joint dismissal motions are the likeliest place where ZyXEL's counsel signed. Request the full PDFs (the mirrors show only the filing attorney's ECF login: Kheyfits for Doc. 12, Belenky for Doc. 13).
3. The Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure / waiver-of-service return (Doc. 9) — a waiver is typically executed by defense counsel; the returned waiver form often carries the signing attorney's name and firm, even where no appearance follows.
4. PTAB P-TACTS counsel-of-record filings for IPR2023-00863/-00877 to confirm whether the Yang/Bradley Arant team also handled district-court defense work for ZyXEL in 2023.

Sourcing transparency

If a fact isn't well sourced I say so. Here: the absence of defense counsel of record is sourced from four independent aggregators that agree (Patexia docket entries, PatSnap counsel table, Ex Parte case page, RPX/Stanford NPE records). The identities of ZyXEL's likely counsel are sourced only to PTAB filings in unrelated Atlas Global IPRs and are presented as verification targets, not findings. I did not have PACER access, could not view the signature pages of Docs. 12–13, and found no sealing order, protective order, or pro hac vice filing in this docket that would explain a hidden appearance. No attorney should be listed as counsel of record in this case on the basis of this report.