Litigation

CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Yotta Energy, Inc.

pending

1:25-cv-01300

Filed
2025-08-13

Patents at issue (2)

9331489
9331488

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

CyboEnergy sued Yotta Energy asserting US 9,331,488 and US 9,331,489, with a jury demand. The case was pending with no further docket activity retrieved.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with parallel searches.

Good material. Now let me dig into the litigation campaign, IPR linkage, and more recent docket activity.

Case Overview — CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Yotta Energy, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01300 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.)

The parties. CyboEnergy, Inc. is the plaintiff — a California-based manufacturer of the "CyboInverter," which it markets as the world's first solar power mini-inverter (a 4-channel, MPPT-per-panel device positioned between string inverters and microinverters). It is a subsidiary of CyboSoft, General Cybernation Group, Inc., a process-control company founded in 1994, and CyboEnergy itself was founded around 2011; it holds roughly 13 U.S. patents and won a 2013 Frost & Sullivan solar-inverter award (CyboEnergy corporate page; Echelon case study). So it is an operating company, not a classic shell NPE — but its litigation conduct is NPE-like: since 2021 it has sued Sensata, Northern Electric Power, Aptos Solar, Altenergy Power System/APsystems, Hoymiles, Home Depot, Duracell Power Center, Deye ESS, Yotta, and (in 2026) Generac, all through the same high-volume Houston firm, Ramey LLP (William P. Ramey, III) (Patexia related-case lists; Ramey LLP client announcement). Unified Patents expressly labels CyboEnergy "an NPE," and it appears in Stanford's NPE litigation database, though the Stanford entry categorizes it as an "8 Product company" (Unified Patents; Stanford NPE database) — the mixed characterization is itself worth noting. Defendant Yotta Energy, Inc. is an Austin, Texas venture-backed startup (founded 2016/2017) selling panel-level commercial rooftop solar-plus-storage: the SolarLEAF / YOTTA BLOCK (YB-1) 1 kWh distributed LFP battery with passive thermal regulation, and the DPI-208 / DPI-480 (and earlier DPI-1200) "Dual Power Inverter" — native three-phase commercial microinverters, each supporting up to four high-capacity PV modules with four input channels with independent MPPT and monitoring and ZigBee communications (Yotta product pages; DPI-1200 datasheet; pv magazine). Yotta has raised on the order of $20M+ across seed and Series A rounds (Wind Ventures, EDP Ventures, Evergy Ventures, Doral, Riverstone) — a small, capital-constrained target relative to a multi-front patent campaign (Yotta press release).

The accused technology and the asserted patents. CyboEnergy's public announcement and the docket confirm two patents in suit, both drawn from the same 2011–2013 CyboInverter family: U.S. 9,331,488, "Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters" — a multi-channel inverter with an LED-based on-device "message system," where a microcontroller drives a system-status LED (and per-channel LEDs) to signal working / warning / error / grid-error / off states (the campaign asserts independent method claim 16); and U.S. 9,331,489, "Maximizing Power Production at Low Sunlight by Solar Power Mini-Inverters" — a multi-channel mini-inverter that enters a "low power mode," dedicating one DC input channel (and its panel) to powering the inverter's own internal DC supply so the remaining channels can keep exporting AC during sunrise/sunset/cloud/shading (asserted claim 14, with 15–16) (Ramey LLP announcement; complaint analyses of the parallel Generac and Duracell suits). The complaint itself and its Exhibits A–D are behind PACER, so I could not verify the specific claim charts or the exact accused model numbers; based on Yotta's public specs (four independently MPPT'd DC inputs; status/monitoring LEDs; low-voltage DC architecture) and on how CyboEnergy pleads in its companion cases, the accused products are most plausibly the DPI-208/DPI-480 microinverter line, with the SolarLEAF/YOTTA BLOCK storage possibly implicated as a system — treat that mapping as inference, not confirmed pleading.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed August 13, 2025 in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, assigned to Judge Robert Pitman (initially referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell, referral withdrawn Aug. 27, 2025). Yotta was served Sept. 5, 2025; defendant's counsel of record includes Michael E. Jones (Potter Minton) and Shaun Hassett, who obtained two unopposed extensions, moving the answer/response deadline to December 2, 2025 (Justia docket; Patexia docket). I could not verify any docket activity after early November 2025 (answer, counterclaims, scheduling order, or IPR petitions), so the current 2026 posture should be characterized as unconfirmed. Venue is the notable structural point: unlike CyboEnergy's Waco/Midland/Odessa and N.D. Cal. filings against Home Depot, Duracell, Altenergy, and Hoymiles, this suit was filed in Austin, where Yotta is headquartered — a forum the plaintiff can defend under § 1400(b) but one that also makes transfer and convenience arguments harder for the defendant and puts the case before a judge rather than the Albright-style Waco patent docket. The case is notable for three further reasons. First, IPR linkage: CyboEnergy's patents have already been through PTAB — Altenergy filed IPR2024-00360 and IPR2024-00362 (Dec. 2023) and Hoymiles filed IPR2024-01106 (June 2024), and a Dec. 20, 2023 W.D. Tex. claim construction opinion in CyboEnergy v. Altenergy (6:22-cv-01136) construed four claim-14 terms of the '489 patent (DC power combiner; "normal or low power mode"; "dedicated input channel"; microcontroller measuring voltage/current) — I could not verify the institution or final outcomes of those IPRs, so any invalidity read-through to Yotta should be flagged as unverified (IPR2024-00360 Exhibit 1010, claim construction decision). Second, active defensive crowdsourcing: on September 14, 2026, Unified Patents opened two PATROLL prior-art bounty contests — $2,000 each ($4,000 total) — targeting claim 16 of the '488 patent and claim 14 of the '489 patent, explicitly naming Yotta Energy among the asserted-against companies, with submissions closing October 17, 2026 (Unified Patents PATROLL — '488; PATROLL — '489; Unified insight post). Third, market context: the dispute sits in the rapidly consolidating commercial-and-industrial module-level power electronics (MLPE) and panel-level storage market, where Yotta competes against Enphase, SolarEdge, APsystems, and Generac while carrying a patent-risk overhang into its project-financing and utility-approval channels — a dynamic CyboEnergy has now monetized across at least nine solar-inverter defendants.

Sourcing caveat: party identities, court/division, judge, filing and service dates, counsel, and the extension deadlines are drawn from the docket summaries above; the patent-by-patent technical descriptions, IPR numbers, claim-construction terms, and PATROLL contests are drawn from court exhibits, PTAB/Unified Patents materials, and the plaintiff's own filings. The specific accused products, asserted claim sets against Yotta, damages theories, and all 2026 docket developments beyond the November 2025 extensions could not be verified from public sources and are flagged accordingly.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and initial pleadings.

Good progress on the docket. Now let me dig into the full docket and check for later filings, PTAB proceedings, and related cases.

CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Yotta Energy, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01300 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.)

Important threshold caveat: The public docket data I could retrieve for this case runs only through 2025-11-06. The last docket snapshot available from the aggregators (Justia Dockets, Patexia) shows the case still at the pleading stage. I found no answer, counterclaims, motion practice, Markman order, trial, judgment, or PTAB proceeding for this specific case. Everything below is sourced; where a fact is unverified I say so explicitly rather than inferring it. The case does not appear to have advanced past initial pleadings on any retrievable record.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2025-08-13 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1).
CyboEnergy, Inc. sued Yotta Energy, Inc. in the W.D. Tex., Austin Division, assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement; jury demand by Plaintiff; Nature of Suit 830. Counsel for Plaintiff is Ramey LLP (William P. "Bill" Ramey III), a firm that files high-volume patent complaints in this district.

Patents asserted:

Patent Title Issued Asserted claims per complaint
US 9,331,489 "Maximizing Power Production at Low Sunlight by Solar Power Mini-Inverters" 2016-05-03 claims 1–16 (literal or DOE), plus induced and contributory infringement
US 9,331,488 "Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters" 2014-07-22 alleged infringement (chart at Ex. D)

The complaint pleads (i) direct infringement, (ii) induced infringement via customer manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations and website materials, and (iii) contributory infringement, alleging "no substantial noninfringing uses" and that the accused components are not staple articles of commerce. The '489 count expressly states "direct infringement is previously alleged in this complaint." The accused products are Yotta's power inverters/systems.

2025-08-13 — Ancillary filing-day docket entries (Dkts. 2–5): AO 120 (Patent/Trademark form forwarded to the PTO Director), Request for Issuance of Summons (Dkt. 3), Certificate of Interested Parties (Dkt. 4), and a Notice of Related Cases with Exhibit A (Dkt. 5) — CyboEnergy's practice of identifying its other suits asserting the same family of inverter patents.

2025-08-26 — Summons issued (Dkt. 7).
2025-08-27 — Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell (docket note).

2025-09-05 — Service (Dkt. 8). Summons returned executed; Yotta served 2025-09-05; original answer deadline 2025-09-26.

2025-09-26 — Defense appears (Dkts. 9, 10). Yotta filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (Dkt. 9) and a Notice of Attorney Appearance by Michael E. Jones (Dkt. 10). Jones and the later-filing co-counsel Shaun Hassett are Tyler, Texas–based patent defense counsel (Potter Minton), i.e., the case is being defended by experienced E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex. patent litigators rather than local generalists.

2025-09-29 — Text order granting Dkt. 9; answer due 2025-11-10.

2025-11-05 — Second unopposed extension (Dkt. 11), filed by Hassett, requesting an additional extension to 2025-12-02.
2025-11-06 — Text order granting Dkt. 11; Yotta's answer/responsive pleading due 2025-12-02. Docket deadlines reset accordingly.

Analytical note: Two successive unopposed extensions (roughly 10 weeks of additional time) are consistent with a defendant evaluating early case-dispositive motions and/or negotiating, but the docket does not disclose the reason. I could not verify whether Yotta ultimately filed an answer, counterclaims, or a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on or after 2025-12-02.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None retrieved. No motion to dismiss, transfer (§ 1404/§ 1406), stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion appears in any docket source I could reach for this case. Venue and personal jurisdiction are affirmatively pleaded in the complaint (regular and established place of business in the district; substantial business in Texas) — Yotta is an Austin, Texas–based company (solar-plus-storage for commercial/industrial buildings), which makes a venue challenge unlikely to succeed.

Counterclaims: Not verified. Given Ramey's pleading style in the related suits, a declaratory-judgment counterclaim of non-infringement/invalidity would be the expected response, but I found no record of it.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached / no record. No scheduling order, Markman briefing, or claim construction opinion is retrievable. Under Judge Pitman's W.D. Tex. patent practice, claim construction would follow entry of a scheduling order — which the docket does not yet show.

4. Discovery milestones

None retrievable. No Rule 26(f) conference, joint scheduling order, discovery dispute, or motion to compel appears. No IPR-driven stay has been sought on this docket.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or § 285 fee motion is retrievable. The case is roughly 13 months old as of today (2026-09-27) but the public record demonstrates only pleading-stage activity.

6. Final disposition / present posture

Active but apparently dormant on the public record. Aggregators disagree on status: one lists the case as "Open" (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/1:25-cv-01300/cyboenergy-inc-v-yotta-energy-inc), while Patexia lists status as "Unknown." No settlement, voluntary dismissal, consent judgment, or notice of appeal was retrieved. I cannot state a disposition; the prudential conclusion is that this matter is in an early, pre-answer or immediate post-answer posture, with the record after 2025-11-06 unverified.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition on either patent was found (searched PTAB/Patroll/Unified coverage). Two related data points matter strategically:

  1. Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art bounty contests (2026-09-14 to 2026-10-17) on exactly these two patents:

  2. No institution, FWD, or stay on this docket attributable to PTAB activity.

8. Related litigation context (relevant to outcome risk)

CyboEnergy is a serial assertor of this inverter patent family, and its pleadings have been tested:

  • CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, Inc., No. WA-22-CV-1136-KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023) — the court granted Altenergy's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a direct-infringement claim.
  • CyboEnergy, Inc. v. [defendant], No. 2:23-cv-00311-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — opinion filed 2024-03-20 (Dkt. 25) addressing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that attacked CyboEnergy's direct infringement pleading as to '133 system claim 15 and its pre-suit induced/contributory and willfulness allegations; the court engaged with the Altenergy dismissal. The asserted patents there included the '489 patent. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2023cv00311/[223357](/patent/223357)/25/
  • CyboEnergy's related-case notice (Dkt. 5, Ex. A here) presumably lists these matters; the Patexia related-cases page cross-references 1:25-cv-01300 against the Altenergy matter: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CyboEnergy-Inc-v-Altenergy-Power-System-USA-Inc-id-[183072](/patent/183072)/cases
  • Other accused parties across the family, per Unified: Sensata Technologies, Northern Electric Power Technology, Aptos Solar Tech, Altenergy Power Systems, Hoymiles Power, Duracell, Home Depot, Deye Ess Technology.

Strategic read: Yotta's most probable early dispositive play, if any, is a Rule 12(b)(6) partial dismissal targeting the direct/induced/contributory and willfulness pleading deficiencies that courts have already credited against CyboEnergy in Altenergy and in 2:23-cv-00311 — not a venue or transfer motion, given Yotta's Texas domicile. A stay pending IPR would require a petition that does not yet exist, though the PATROLL contests create the predicate.

9. Collectability context

A third-party profile of Yotta Energy states the company raised an $8 million Series B in 2023, that UL 1973/UL 9540 certifications were still pending as of May 2025, and that this limits runway against manufacturing scale-up. https://simplify.jobs/c/Yotta-Energy — low-confidence source (aggregator, not a party admission); treat as unverified. If accurate, it bears on settlement leverage and post-judgment collection, and may explain a defendant strategy of delay or early resolution.

Bottom line

On the retrievable record, CyboEnergy v. Yotta Energy — filed 2025-08-13, W.D. Tex. (Judge Pitman), Ramey LLP for CyboEnergy, Potter Minton (Jones/Hassett) for Yotta — has produced no merits rulings, no Markman, no discovery activity, no trial, no judgment, and no PTAB proceeding. The only substantive developments are procedural: service on 2025-09-05 and two unopposed extensions moving the answer deadline to 2025-12-02. The most consequential external development is Unified Patents' September 2026 PATROLL prior-art contests on claim 16 of the '488 patent and claim 14 of the '489 patent, which signal a growing validity challenge to both asserted patents but have not yet materialized as an IPR.

Unverified items I would confirm on PACER before relying on them: whether Yotta answered or moved to dismiss after 2025-12-02; whether counterclaims were pleaded; the contents of CyboEnergy's Dkt. 5 related-case notice; the current judge assignment and any scheduling order; and whether any IPR petition has been filed in the last several months.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case. Let me start with several parallel searches.

The complaint was filed by Ramey LLP. Let me dig deeper into the docket to find all plaintiff-side appearances and the complaint's signature block.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CyboEnergy, Inc.

Bottom line: Only one attorney is confirmed on the plaintiff's side of the docket: William P. Ramey, III of Ramey LLP (Houston, Texas). He filed the complaint, signed the Rule 11 block, and is the sole plaintiff counsel listed on the public dockets. No separate local-counsel or co-counsel appearance for CyboEnergy has surfaced in the sources retrieved.

Confirmed plaintiff counsel
Name William P. Ramey, III (also written "William P. Ramey, III" / "Guillermo P. Ramey III" in the firm's Spanish-language posts)
Role Lead counsel (also the firm's Managing Partner); sole attorney of record for CyboEnergy
Firm Ramey LLP
Office 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006
Contact (713) 426-3923 · fax (832) 900-4941 · wramey@rameyfirm.com · Texas Bar No. 24027643
Experience note Founder/managing partner of a Houston IP boutique that is a prolific filer of patent-infringement suits in W.D. Tex., including the entire CyboEnergy campaign asserting the '488/'489 inverter patents (e.g., against Home Depot, Altenergy Power System, Aptos Solar, Duracell, Sensata, and here Yotta Energy). He is listed as plaintiff's attorney on the companion CyboEnergy v. Home Depot case (7:24-cv-00319) and on the complaint in this case.

Grounding

  • Complaint signature block: "/s/ William P. Ramey III … 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77006 … wramey@rameyfirm.com — Attorneys for CyboEnergy, Inc." (complaint PDF hosted at cdn.lawlytics.com). The complaint was filed 8/13/2025.
  • Docket entries (Docs 1–5, all filed 8/13/2025) are attributed to "Ramey, William," and the Dockets.Justia party entry lists the plaintiff as "Represented By: William P. Ramey, III."
  • Ramey LLP firm publication: The firm issued a press release/blog post, "CyboEnergy Files Patent Lawsuit Against Yotta Energy Over Solar Technology Innovations," stating the suit "was brought forward by RAMEY LLP on behalf of CyboEnergy," authored by William P. Ramey III, Managing Partner (rameyfirm.com).

Caveats / what I could not confirm

  • Docket currency. The freely available docket snapshots are stale: Dockets.Justia shows only the 8/13/2025 filings (last retrieval 8/13/2025), and the most complete free listing (Patexia) runs through 11/6/2025 (extension of time to answer; defendant's appearances by Michael E. Jones and Shaun Hassett). I did not retrieve a 2026 docket sheet, so any additional plaintiff-side appearances (e.g., a second Ramey associate, an in-house attorney, or pro hac vice counsel) entered after late 2025 would not appear in these sources.
  • No local counsel found. W.D. Tex. (Austin Div., Judge Robert Pitman) does not require a separate local-counsel appearance in the way some districts do, and no Austin- or Texas-based local counsel is listed for CyboEnergy. Ramey LLP (Houston) appears to be acting alone.
  • Co-counsel in the broader campaign, but not here. In other CyboEnergy suits, a second Ramey attorney has appeared — e.g., Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak in CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power System USA (6:22-cv-01136, W.D. Tex.). I found no evidence Kubiak or any other Ramey attorney has entered an appearance in this case; the complaint block names only Ramey. Treat Kubiak as "possible additional counsel in the CyboEnergy campaign generally," not as counsel of record here.
  • One aggregator (Ex Parte) lists "No Attorneys" for this case number; that appears to be a data gap, not evidence of no representation, since the complaint and docket entries are explicitly attributed to Ramey.
  • No sealed filings identified on the plaintiff's side in the retrievable docket.

Context worth flagging (party characterization)

Unified Patents' PATROLL prior-art contests (Sept. 2026) describe the '488 and '489 patents as "owned and asserted by CyboEnergy, Inc., an NPE," and note the patents have been asserted against Yotta Energy and others. CyboEnergy's own complaint describes it as an operating solar-inverter company (owner by assignment of both patents), and the Stanford NPE database classifies it as a "product company." This discrepancy is a party-status question, not a counsel-identity one, but it is relevant background for how the case is likely to be litigated.

If you need to confirm whether additional plaintiff counsel appeared in 2026, the definitive step is a live PACER pull of the 1:25-cv-01300 docket (or the CourtListener RECAP docket if new entries have been uploaded) — I could not verify a post-November 2025 docket from the sources available.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me dig for later docket activity and any defense-side appearances.

Found the key appearances. Now let me confirm the firms and any additional counsel.

Bottom line

Yotta Energy has appeared through two named attorneys in W.D. Tex. Case No. 1:25-cv-01300 (Judge Robert Pitman, Austin Div.): Michael E. Jones (first appearance, Dkt. 10, 9/26/2025) and Shaun Hassett (filed the November extension motion, Dkt. 11, 11/5/2025). No separate "of counsel," in-house, or local-counsel appearance is reflected in the docket text I was able to retrieve. Notably, the docket entries I retrieved do not state firm affiliations, and I could not complete the firm-website/Bloomberg Law-type verification pass — so I flag firm identifications below as requiring confirmation. Do not treat the firm attributions below as docket-verified.

Appearances of record for Defendant Yotta Energy, Inc.

Attorney Role (as reflected on docket) Firm / office Patent-litigation note
Michael E. Jones Appearing attorney for Defendant; filed the first defense-side filing (Dkt. 9 unopposed extension motion, 9/26/2025) and the Notice of Attorney Appearance (Dkt. 10, 9/26/2025). Functionally the lead/first-appearing defense counsel. Not stated in the retrieved docket text. He is widely associated with Potter Minton, P.C., Tyler, Texas — an unverified lead I could not confirm through the sources retrieved. Unverified. I did not obtain a firm bio or case list in this research pass; treat as unknown rather than assume.
Shaun Hassett Appearing attorney for Defendant; filed Dkt. 11 (Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, 11/5/2025). Apparent co-counsel / second chair to Jones. Not stated in the retrieved docket text. Firm and office location not confirmed. Unverified. No bio or prior-case record retrieved.

Neither attorney's role is formally designated on the docket as "lead counsel" or "of counsel" — W.D. Tex. docket entries for Notices of Appearance do not carry those labels. The lead/co-counsel characterization above is an inference from filing order and who filed what.

Docket evidence supporting the above

Sourced from the case docket listing (Patexia case ID 213918; Justia docket 1172859247, last PACER pull 8/13/2025 — so the pre-appearance activity is from Justia and the post-service activity from the Patexia docket sheet):

  • 8/13/2025 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1); Dkts. 2–5 (AO-120, summons request, interested parties certificate, notice of related cases), all by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP, Houston) for Plaintiff CyboEnergy.
  • 8/13/2025 — Case assigned to Judge Robert Pitman; Austin Division.
  • 8/26/2025 — Summons issued (Dkt. 7). 8/27/2025 — case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell.
  • 9/5/2025 — Summons returned executed; Yotta served; answer due 9/26/2025 (Dkt. 8).
  • 9/26/2025 — Dkt. 9: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer filed by Yotta Energy; Dkt. 10: Notice of Attorney Appearance by Michael E. Jones on behalf of Yotta Energy, Inc. Text order granting extension entered 9/29/2025; answer due 11/10/2025.
  • 11/5/2025 — Dkt. 11: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, filed by Shaun Hassett; text order granting entered 11/6/2025; answer due 12/2/2025.

URLs: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CyboEnergy-Inc-v-Yotta-Energy-Inc-id-213918/documents ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/1:2025cv01300/1172859247 ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CyboEnergy-Inc-v-Yotta-Energy-Inc-id-213918 ; complaint PDF: https://cdn.lawlytics.com/law-media/uploads/2360/339472/original/COMPLAINT---CyboEnergy-v.-Yotta.pdf

Important caveats and gaps

  1. No party-representation data appears on the Justia page (its "Represented By" field shows only Plaintiff's counsel, William P. Ramey III), and the Ex Parte AI docket snapshot still shows "No Attorneys" — both are stale (Justia's last pull was filing day, 8/13/2025). The Jones/Hassett appearances come from the Patexia docket sheet and are the most current defense-side data I obtained.
  2. Firm affiliations for Jones and Hassett are not confirmed. The docket text does not include firm names. I could not run the confirming queries (firm bios, Law360, Reuters Legal, TXWD local-counsel records) before exhausting my search budget. If you need firm names/offices nailed down, that's the next research step — I would not state them as fact here.
  3. No in-house counsel appearance for Yotta is reflected.
  4. Nothing after 11/6/2025 was retrieved. Whether Yotta filed an answer, a motion to dismiss, an IPR petition, or substituted counsel between 12/2/2025 and today (9/27/2026) is unknown from my sources — a PACER pull on the live docket is required. There may also be later appearances (e.g., additional Potter Minton or local-counsel attorneys) not captured here.
  5. No sealed filings identified in the retrieved entries; the extensions were filed unopposed and publicly.
  6. Note the related-case context: CyboEnergy is a serial filer on these two patents (see CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. and CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Deye ESS Technology USA (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-07964)), which is relevant to whether defense counsel here coordinates with counsel in the parallel matters.