Greenthread LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al.

Greenthread LLC, a Texas-based patent assertion entity (PAE), engaged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2023-00507) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. Greenthread LLC is backed by Empyrean's Patent Capital Funding and asserts a portfolio of patents related to semiconductor device architectures, with G.R. Mohan Rao, the sole named inventor, serving as one of its directors. Dell Technologies Inc. and its subsidiary Dell Inc. are multinational technology companies that develop and sell personal computers, servers, storage devices, and related IT services.

The IPR challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481, which broadly covers optoelectronic devices with controlled graded dopant concentrations. This patent is part of a family of semiconductor fabrication patents generally related to CMOS semiconductor devices with "graded dopant regions" designed to create electric fields that aid or limit carrier movement, thereby improving the speed, efficiency, and reliability of processors, logic devices, and image sensors, and enabling smaller device feature sizes. While the IPR specifically targets the validity of the '481 patent, it likely stemmed from an underlying district court patent infringement lawsuit, such as the one filed by Greenthread against Dell and Intel (6:22-cv-00105 in the Western District of Texas). In that related case, the accused products were Intel's 10th, 11th, and 12th generation semiconductors (Comet Lake, Tiger Lake, and Alder Lake-series devices) allegedly incorporated into various Dell laptops, including Inspiron, XPS, G15, and Alienware-series products.

This IPR proceeding, filed at the PTAB, concluded in a settlement. The PTAB serves as a crucial venue for challenging patent validity, offering an alternative to costly district court litigation, particularly for large manufacturers facing assertions from PAEs. The case is notable as it reflects a prevalent pattern where patent assertion entities like Greenthread target established semiconductor manufacturers with foundational intellectual property. Such assertions often compel defendants to either incur significant litigation expenses or initiate PTAB challenges, with settlements frequently resolving both the IPR and the associated district court actions.

IPR2023-00507: Greenthread LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. Concludes in Settlement

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2023-00507, was filed by Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. against patent owner Greenthread LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481. The case concluded in a settlement.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing of IPR Petition (2023-01-27): Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review challenging the patentability of claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481. The IPR petition was filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on January 27, 2023.
• Settlement and Termination: The proceeding ultimately concluded in a settlement. While the exact date of the settlement agreement or the PTAB's order terminating the IPR due to settlement is not publicly available through general web searches, the case status indicates a settlement was reached. In IPR proceedings, parties often reach a settlement to resolve disputes either before an institution decision or during the trial phase, leading to the termination of the IPR. The PTAB encourages parties considering settlement to explore alternative dispute resolution methods to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.
• Absence of Institution Decision or Final Written Decision: Given the settlement, the PTAB likely did not issue an institution decision on the merits of the petition, nor did it proceed to a Final Written Decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.

Parallel Proceedings and Context:

Greenthread LLC has been involved in multiple patent disputes, including other IPRs and district court litigations, often involving technology companies like Dell and Intel. For instance, Dell Technologies Inc. was also involved in IPR2023-00509 against Greenthread, LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222, which was filed on the same day (January 27, 2023) and also terminated (on May 17, 2023). Additionally, Greenthread, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Intel Corporation, Dell Inc., and Dell Technologies Inc. (Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00105-ADA) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on January 27, 2022, which was dismissed on May 3, 2023. However, these parallel proceedings involved different patent numbers (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222 or U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307 B1), highlighting a broader pattern of litigation and IPR filings between Greenthread and various technology companies.

The specific docket entries, institution decision, and precise settlement/dismissal dates for IPR2023-00507, beyond the initial filing date and the overall settlement status, are not readily accessible via public web search results at this time. Access to detailed PTAB docket information typically requires direct access to the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS).

Greenthread LLC, the patent owner in this Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, was represented by counsel from McKool Smith, P.C.

Here are the identified attorneys representing Greenthread LLC:

• Alan Whitehurst
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • One-line note on relevant patent litigation experience: Mr. Whitehurst is a highly experienced trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property and unfair competition, with a track record of winning cases at various stages of litigation, including numerous inter partes reviews (IPRs) and Federal Circuit appeals, particularly in telecom, semiconductor, and software technologies. He has recovered over $85 million for Greenthread and other companies since joining McKool Smith in 2021.

The following attorneys from McKool Smith, P.C. are also listed as back-up counsel for Greenthread LLC in related IPR proceedings, suggesting their likely involvement in IPR2023-00507:

• Nicholas T. Matich

  • Role: Back-up Counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • One-line note on relevant patent litigation experience: Formerly the Acting General Counsel of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), he possesses significant expertise in patent office procedures.

• Arvind Jairam

  • Role: Back-up Counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • One-line note on relevant patent litigation experience: (Specific experience for this attorney in the context of Greenthread LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. was not identified in the search results).

• Stuart McCommas

  • Role: Back-up Counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • One-line note on relevant patent litigation experience: (Specific experience for this attorney in the context of Greenthread LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. was not identified in the search results).

• Archis “Neil” Ozarkar

  • Role: Back-up Counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Houston, TX.
  • One-line note on relevant patent litigation experience: (Specific experience for this attorney in the context of Greenthread LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. was not identified in the search results).

McKool Smith, P.C. consistently represents Greenthread LLC in numerous IPR proceedings, including those involving Dell Technologies, Inc..

I'll research counsel for the petitioner/defendant side (Dell) in this proceeding and any related district court case.

Let me verify the petitioner's (Dell's) counsel of record in the IPR itself and in the parallel district court case.

I have the core petitioner-side counsel. Now let me verify the individuals, firms, and offices, plus check for any later counsel changes.

Counsel of Record — Defendant/Petitioner Side (Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc.)

Threshold framing note: IPR2023-00507 has no "defendant" in the procedural sense — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. are the Petitioners, and Greenthread LLC is the Patent Owner (Greenthread's own counsel were covered in the prior section). The "defendant" role you're asking about belongs to the parallel infringement action, Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corp., Dell Inc. & Dell Technologies Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00105-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright). I therefore give you both rosters, since Dell's IPR and district-court teams were drawn from the same firm.

---

A. Counsel of record in this IPR (PTAB) — Alston & Bird LLP

The Board's termination decision in the consolidated Dell IPRs lists exactly two attorneys for Petitioner:

Sources:

• Dell Technologies Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC, IPR2023-00506/-00507/-00509/-00510, Paper 11, Decision — Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial, 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 (P.T.A.B. May 17, 2023) ("FOR PETITIONER: Christopher TL Douglas; Lauren N. Griffin; ALSTON & BIRD LLP; christopher.douglas@alston.com; lauren.griffin@alston.com") — the caption footnote states the order addresses the same issues in all four proceedings, including IPR2023-00507. Case page | PTACTS copy
• Dell's power of attorney for IPRs of the '481 patent (executed by Krishnendu Gupta, SVP IP & Litigation, Dell), dated August 4, 2022, naming Christopher Douglas and Lauren N. Griffin (Reg. No. 77,865), Alston & Bird LLP, 101 S. Tryon St., Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC 28280 — PTACTS
• Alston & Bird bios: alston.com (Griffin); alston.com PDF (Douglas)

Caveat: I could not retrieve the face of the IPR2023-00507 Petition or its § 42.8 mandatory notices directly; the two-name Petitioner listing above is drawn from the Board's own decision caption/cover in the joined proceedings and from Dell's POA, which is strong but not the petition itself. If you need the petition's own service list, pull IPR2023-00507 Paper 2 from PTACTS.

---

B. Counsel of record for the Dell defendants in the parallel district court case (6:22-cv-00105-ADA)

Firm team — Alston & Bird LLP (same firm as the IPR team):

• Michael J. Newton — partner, Alston & Bird (Dallas); entered appearance for Dell Inc./Dell Technologies Inc. (Doc. 63, filed 6/30/2022).
• Brady Randall Cox — Alston & Bird (Dallas); appearance Doc. 62 (6/30/2022).
• Lauren N. Griffin — Alston & Bird (Charlotte); appearance Doc. 64 (6/30/2022); also authored declarations in support of Dell's intra-district transfer motion (Doc. 65, 7/1/2022).
• Firm confirmed via Alston & Bird's own release naming "partners Ross Barton, Brady Cox, Mike Newton, Scott Stevens… senior associates Lauren Griffin…" on the ASUS ITC matter — alston.com

Local counsel — Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (Austin, TX):

• J. Stephen Ravel — first attorney to appear for all three defendants (Doc. 8, filed 2/10/2022); filed essentially all Dell/Intel motions, pro hac vice applications, and the March 2023 notices. (Firm attribution based on my knowledge of Mr. Ravel's Austin practice; the docket entries retrieved here list only his name and bar number, not the firm — treat the firm name as high-confidence but not docket-verified in this session.)
• Paige Arnette Amstutz — appearance for Dell Inc./Dell Technologies Inc. (Doc. 58, 6/27/2022); signed Dell's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Doc. 59). (Same firm caveat; she also later appeared for the Sony defendants.)

Later-added Dell trial counsel (pro hac vice, March 2023):

• Jared Bobrow, Diana M. Rutowski, and Jeremy Jason Lang — motions filed 3/8/2023 by Michael Newton "on behalf of Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc." (Docs. 151–153), granted by Judge Albright 3/9/2023 (Docs. 154–156). (I was unable to complete verification of their firm in this session; Mr. Bobrow is widely identified as a Weil, Gotshal & Manges partner — please confirm the firm on the pro hac vice papers before publishing.)

Withdrawn: Emily M. Scott — pro hac vice granted 9/2/2022 (Doc. 77); unopposed motion to withdraw filed by Mr. Ravel on behalf of Dell and Intel 1/26/2023 (Doc. 132).

Joint Dell/Intel appearance group (Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, April 2022): Gregory S. Arovas, Todd M. Friedman, Leslie M. Schmidt, Jon R. Carter, Robert A. Appleby, Nyika O. Strickland, Abigail Lauer Litow, John R. Rhine, Bao Nguyen, and Christopher DeCoro were admitted pro hac vice in April 2022 on motions filed by Mr. Ravel that named Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc. and Intel Corporation jointly (Docs. 10–20, 25–34). Because WDTX appearances in this case were filed jointly for all three defendants, the docket does not cleanly separate Dell's counsel from Intel's; this group is most plausibly Intel-side (Kirkland & Ellis), and I would not represent them as Dell's counsel of record without checking the underlying motions.

Dismissal: The Dell entities were dismissed from the W.D. Tex. action by order granting the joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 162, 5/3/2023), signed by Judge Albright.

---

C. Cross-checks and corrections to the earlier sections

1. Termination date now confirmed: the Board terminated IPR2023-00507 on May 17, 2023, in a per curiam settlement decision under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, following a May 2, 2023 joint motion to terminate and a April 24, 2023 joint motion to dismiss the district court lawsuit. The earlier section's statement that the settlement/termination date was "not publicly available" is superseded. Panel: APJs Christopher L. Crumbley, Christopher M. Kaiser, and Kristi L. R. Sawert; Tech Center 2800, Art Unit 2892; no institution decision and no Final Written Decision issued (proceeding terminated in the preliminary phase, petition dismissed). Case page
2. Counsel asymmetry worth noting: the Petitioner (Dell) side was lean — two Alston & Bird attorneys on the PTAB filings — while the Patent Owner (Greenthread) side fielded a five-attorney McKool Smith team, plus Smith Baluch LLP (Matthew A. Smith, Andrew S. Baluch) on other Greenthread matters. The prior section's Smith Baluch listing should not be attributed to Dell.
3. Do not confuse parallel Dell IPRs' counsel: IPR2023-00510 (the '014 patent) appears in some Greenthread filings with Baker Botts LLP (Roger Fulghum; Mark Speegle; Daniel Anderson; Ellyar Barazesh) as petitioner counsel, and IPR2023-00509 with Covington & Burling (Scott Weidenfeller; Anupam Sharma) — those reflect other petitioners' teams in the same family fight; the Dell team on this '481 IPR is Alston & Bird.

Bottom line: For IPR2023-00507 specifically, the attorneys of record for the Dell petitioners are Christopher TL Douglas (lead) and Lauren N. Griffin (back-up), Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC. In the underlying infringement suit, Dell was defended by Alston & Bird (Newton, Cox, Griffin — Dallas/Charlotte work, with Douglas on the PTAB side), Kelly Hart & Hallman (Ravel, Amstutz — Austin local counsel), and, from March 2023, Bobrow, Rutowski, and Lang pro hac vice.