Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc.

I'll research this case across the sources you listed, starting with the docket and party background.

Key finding already: the docket shows a voluntary dismissal in June 2022 and an amended complaint adding Spectrum entities. Let me verify those and dig into the patents and parallel proceedings.

Good progress. Now let me verify the full patent family, the venue motion, and whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Hanger Solutions, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company whose Rule 7.1 disclosure names Brainbox Innovations, LLC as corporate parent (Dkt. 2). It is not an operating company: reporting by Mondaq and IPWatchdog places Hanger among a cluster of Georgia entities associated with Atlanta monetization firm IPInvestments Group LLC, which collectively acquired thousands of patent assets from Intellectual Ventures in late 2019 and has since run serial assertion campaigns — IPWatchdog's filing roundup tags Hanger as "[Intellectual Ventures, Foothills IP]." Hanger is represented by Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (James F. McDonough III, Jonathan R. Miller, Travis E. Lynch, Jonathan L. Hardt). Charter Communications, Inc. is the Stamford, Connecticut-based cable/broadband operator (second-largest U.S. cable ISP) that markets residential and business service under the Spectrum brand; it was represented by Deron R. Dacus. Hanger later amended to add three Charter affiliates — Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC, Spectrum Mobile Equipment, LLC, and Spectrum Mobile, LLC (Dkt. 13, Dkt. 21).

The patents and accused technology. The complaint attached three patents as Exhibits A–C: US 6,430,623 ("Domain Name Routing"), US 6,609,159, and US 6,772,227 ("Communicating Between Address Spaces"). The '623 — the only patent reflected in the case metadata — is a continuation of US 6,119,171, issued Aug. 6, 2002 on a Jan. 27, 2000 priority date, and claims, in one line, a method of reaching an entity inside a private network from outside it by using a unique identifier below the application layer (e.g., a URL) for a host that has no globally unique address. The '227 (issued Aug. 3, 2004; certificate of correction June 5, 2007) covers routing a message across address spaces using a destination network address plus a separate identification of the ultimate target. The '159 (issued Aug. 19, 2003, from a 1998 application) claims a dynamically loaded "interposed" library that intercepts OS calls in a virtualized environment. The '171/'623/'227 family lists Hasan S. Alkhatib as sole inventor, was developed at his company IP Dynamics, and was assigned to IV in 2008; the '159 came from Boston's Fast Engines (Semyon Dukach). As pleaded, Hanger accused Charter's "Spectrum Web Services" and website infrastructure (www.charter.com, spectrum.net, spectrum.com) of infringing the '623 and '227 through hostname-based routing of packets to private-subnet/DMZ destinations, and accused Charter's VMware-virtualized network operations and IT infrastructure ("Spectrum Virtualized Environments") of infringing claim 6 of the '159.

Procedural posture and why venue mattered. Filed January 18, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright — then the single busiest patent courtroom in the country. Charter was served January 27, 2022; after an agreed extension (Dkt. 7) its response was due March 21, 2022, and it moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) (Dkt. 8) — the standard defense for an out-of-state defendant contesting that it had a "regular and established place of business" in the district. Hanger opposed (Dkt. 14) and simultaneously filed an amended complaint as of right on April 4, 2022 (Dkt. 13) adding the three Spectrum entities, which prompted Judge Albright to moot the venue motion by text order on June 16, 2022. Before any scheduling order or claim construction issued, Hanger filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 10, 2022 (Dkt. 23), with the corresponding PTAS form sent to the USPTO (Dkt. 24). The case thus terminated roughly five months after filing with no merits ruling. (The notice's face does not state whether dismissal was with or without prejudice, and I could not verify that detail; I also found no evidence Charter was re-sued.)

Why it is notable. Three things. First, it is a window into the IV divestiture-to-NPE pipeline: patents on 1998–2002-era networking concepts, harvested by IV, warehoused in Georgia holding entities, and asserted against ubiquitous modern implementations — TLS/SNI virtual hosting for the routing patents and VMware virtualization for the '159 — the classic setting for § 101 eligibility and claim-construction fights over whether 1990s claim language reaches standardized internet plumbing. Second, it shows the forum-shifting arc of this campaign: Hanger filed against Extreme Networks and Squarespace in D. Delaware in 2021, moved to Judge Albright's W.D. Tex. in 2022 (Charter here; also Cequel Communications/Suddenlink, No. 6:22-cv-00330, filed March 29, 2022, asserting five patents including the '171, '623, '159, '227 and '160), then to M.D. Ga. by fall 2022 (Mediacom, No. 4:22-cv-00152) — tracking the collapse of W.D. Tex.'s venue advantage after the Federal Circuit's venue rulings and the district's July 2022 move to random judge assignment. Third, it underscores how short-lived these suits often are: a venue motion plus an amended complaint was enough to end the Charter case, meaning the useful precedent here is procedural (venue practice in Albright's court in early 2022) rather than substantive.

Sourcing caveats. Party, counsel, and docket facts are drawn from the UniCourt and Patexia docket mirrors and Justia (Dkt. entries 1–24 as cited); patent genealogy and corporate background from the Mondaq analysis of Hanger's IV-derived campaign and IPWatchdog's June 2021 filing roundup; infringement theories from the amended complaint as reproduced in RPX Insight. I did not locate any PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) challenging the '623 patent, nor any Law360/Reuters coverage of this specific case — absence of evidence, not confirmed absence. The case metadata's single-patent listing ('623) is narrower than the complaint, which asserted three.

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press.

Let me dig into the docket specifics, the venue motion, the dismissal, and any PTAB activity.

The docket results are noisy. Let me pull the Justia/RECAP docket directly and search for refiling and PTAB challenges.

Key Legal Developments — Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00070 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright)

Bottom line up front: This case never reached claim construction, discovery of substance, or trial. It was a short-lived 2022 filing that ended in voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff roughly five months after filing, following a defense motion to dismiss for improper venue and a plaintiff's amended complaint that added three Charter-affiliated Spectrum entities. No answer, counterclaim, Markman order, summary-judgment ruling, verdict, or appeal appears in the record. I found no PTAB IPR/PGR on the '623 patent in the sources searched — see the caveat in the last section.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Important correction to the case metadata: the docket shows the complaint attached three patents ('623, '159 and '227), and the amended complaint pleaded three separate counts (Count I – '623; Count II – '159; Count III – '227). The case summary's statement that Exhibit A/'623 was "the patent at issue" is accurate but incomplete — the '159 and '227 were pleaded as well. Note also that the '623, '159 and '227 are a three-patent Alkhatib/IP Dynamics family assigned to Intellectual Ventures in 2008 and later divested to Hanger (Mondaq/IAM coverage of the campaign, 2021-02-12, https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1036078](/patent/1036078)/).

No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed by Charter in this docket — Charter's response was a pre-answer Rule 12 motion, and the case was dismissed before any responsive pleading on the amended complaint.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to dismiss for improper venue (Dkt. 8). Charter moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue. The motion was filed on or about 2022-03-21 (the reset answer deadline; the exact filing date is not visible in the docket extracts I could retrieve — the April 4 opposition is Dkt. 14, so Dkt. 8 falls between March 21 and April 4, 2022).

• 2022-04-04 — Dkt. 14, Hanger's response in opposition to the venue motion (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Hanger-Solutions-LLC-v-CHARTER-COMMUNICATIONS-INC-id-[161507](/patent/161507)/documents).
• No ruling on the merits issued. On 2022-06-16, Judge Albright entered a text order mooting Dkt. 8 on the ground that "Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, thereby mooting this Motion."

No motion to transfer (§ 1404(a)), no stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion appears in this docket. That is significant: in this campaign Hanger itself, not the defendant, repeatedly asked for stays (see the companion case discussion in §6).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

None. The case was dismissed before the venue motion was resolved and long before any Markman briefing, hearing or order. Judge Albright's patent standing orders were entered (Dkt. 19, 2022-04-14), but no scheduling order with claim-construction deadlines appears in the record. Any claim-construction ruling on the '623/'159/'227 family would have to be sought in the other Hanger matters (D. Del. and the W.D. Tex. campaign cases), not here.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. The case never reached the point of a scheduling order, infringement contentions, or discovery. Hanger's own April 25, 2022 "Notice of Agreed Extension of Deadlines" (Dkt. 22) is the only case-management activity, and it precedes dismissal. There is no protective-order dispute, no discovery motion, and no expert activity in this docket.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. There was no prevailing party in the Rule 54 sense, so an exceptional-case fee award was never in play.

6. Final disposition

Disposition: voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff on 2022-06-10, without any adjudication of infringement, validity, or venue. Two caveats I could not resolve from available sources and which should be verified on PACER: (a) the text of Dkt. 23 (whether dismissal was with or without prejudice, and whether it dismissed all claims against all four defendants); and (b) why the docket continued to show activity (including the September 2022 standing-order entry) after the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice — which can happen where the notice dismissed fewer than all parties/claims or where the clerk did not immediately close the case. The metadata "status: unconfirmed" is therefore apt: no closing judgment or order of dismissal has been located in the public extract.

No refiling against Charter has been located. The docket extracts contain no transfer order and no later Hanger v. Charter case.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

None located. I searched for IPR/PGR petitions against US 6,430,623 in connection with Hanger and found no PTAB proceeding in the retrieved sources. I also found no Federal Circuit appeal. Because the '623 family generated a multi-defendant campaign (Extreme Networks, Squarespace and others), a PTAB challenge by a different defendant could exist without showing up in a Hanger/Charter-specific search — treat this as an open item, not a confirmed negative (verify via the PTAB Patent Center / PTAB docket search on patent 6,430,623 and via the family's '159/'227).

8. Strategic reading of the record

1. Venue, not merits, killed this case. Charter's 12(b)(3) motion drew an opposition, then an amended complaint adding three in-district Spectrum entities, then a voluntary dismissal ~two months later — the signature of a plaintiff that concluded the W.D. Tex. venue theory would not survive In re Google / In re Monolithic Power–era venue scrutiny after the Federal Circuit's 2022 venue decisions.
2. This was a coordinated retreat, not an isolated dismissal. In the companion case Hanger Solutions LLC v. Cequel Communications, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00330 (W.D. Tex., filed 2022-03-29, also before Judge Albright), Hanger itself moved to stay (Dkt. 9, 2022-04-22); the court stayed the case 30 days "at which time the Court expects Hanger to have filed a dismissal," extended the stay to 2022-06-20 (text orders of 2022-04-26 and 2022-05-23) (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv00330/[1167358](/patent/1167358)). The Charter dismissal on 2022-06-10 fits the same June 2022 walk-away timeline.
3. The campaign's center of gravity was Delaware, not Waco. Hanger's earlier suits over the same three patents were filed in D. Del. (e.g., Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Extreme Networks, 1:21-cv-00040; Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Squarespace, Inc., 1:21-cv-00774, filed 2021-05-27, asserting the '623, '159 and '227 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2021cv00774/75608). Any merits rulings on this patent family are more likely to be found there than in the Charter docket.
4. Counsel of record (from docket extracts): for Hanger — James F. McDonough, Jonathan R. Miller, Jonathan L. Hardt, Travis E. Lynch; for Charter/Spectrum — Deron R. Dacus. (Note the Delaware Extreme Networks case lists Stamoulis and Weinblatt LLC for Hanger; the Texas filings used different counsel.)

---

Sourcing and gaps

Grounded in: W.D. Tex. docket extracts via UniCourt (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-hanger-solutions-llc-v-charter-communications-inc-[1119472](/patent/1119472)) and Patexia (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Hanger-Solutions-LLC-v-CHARTER-COMMUNICATIONS-INC-id-161507/documents), plus the RPX litigation document for the amended complaint (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14688671). Not verified / not found: the text and prejudice terms of Dkt. 23; the exact filing date of Dkt. 8; whether the case was formally closed by order or clerk's entry; any IPR/PGR on the '623; any refiling against Charter; and any damages or license figure. I did not fabricate any ruling, attorney, or date above; the items marked "on or about" are inferred from adjacent docket entries. To close the record, pull PACER images of Dkts. 8, 13, 14, 23 and the docket sheet's closing entry for 6:22-cv-00070, and run a PTAB Patent Center search on 6,430,623.

I'll search several angles for press coverage of this case.

Initial hits are docket aggregators, not press. Let me dig into the plaintiff's broader campaign and specific outlets.

Press coverage: essentially none found

I ran searches on the caption, the case number, the plaintiff/defendant pairing, and the asserted patents across the outlets you named (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, JD Supra, Mondaq/RPX, Lexology). I found no published article — trade, legal-trade, or mainstream — that reports on Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., 6:22-cv-00070 (W.D. Tex.). There is no verdict, settlement, damages figure, or market-impact story to summarize, because nothing of that kind has been reported. The only hits for the caption and case number were docket-aggregation and litigation-analytics pages, not journalism: UniCourt, Patexia, and an RPX Insight copy of the complaint. I am flagging this as a genuine absence of coverage rather than a search failure on my part, but I cannot rule out that a Law360 or Bloomberg Law docket note exists behind a paywall and outside my search results.

The aggregator record does, however, close the open question in the existing case summary about disposition — and it does so in a way that likely explains the silence. According to the Patexia docket listing, Hanger filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 2022-06-10 (Doc. 23), and on 2022-06-16 Judge Albright entered a text order mooting Charter's motion to dismiss for improper venue (Doc. 8) because Hanger had filed an amended complaint (Doc. 13, filed 2022-04-04, which added Spectrum Gulf Coast, Spectrum Mobile, and Spectrum Mobile Equipment as defendants). A roughly five-month life with a voluntary dismissal and no substantive ruling is precisely the profile that generates no press. Note that the complaint asserted three patents — US 6,430,623, 6,609,159, and 6,772,227 — not the single '623 patent in the case metadata, per both the UniCourt docket and the RPX complaint copy.

The closest thing to commentary is contextual rather than case-specific, and I want to be explicit that it does not discuss Charter. An RPX article on Mondaq (2021-10-11) describes Hanger Solutions as a subsidiary of Georgia monetization firm IP Investments Group (d/b/a IPinvestments Group) and as one of several entities that acquired patent assets from Intellectual Ventures in December 2019, describing it as an active assertion vehicle — relevant background for why a campaign suit against a cable MSO drew no coverage. Separately, the Georgia IP Litigation Blog index on Lexology lists a later, related Hanger suit against Mediacom Communications (M.D. Ga., No. 4:22-cv-00152-CDL), confirming the campaign continued after Charter was dismissed — but that post is about Mediacom, not this case, and I did not retrieve the underlying post. I found no analyst takes, executive statements, or industry reaction addressed to this litigation.

Sources

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Hanger Solutions LLC v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC - This case was last updated from U
• Dated: September 11, 2023
• 6:22-cv-00070-RAW-KEW Document 14 Filed in ED/OK on 02/15/23 Page 1 of 6
• requirement that the sidewalls are parallel, because of a file wrapper estoppel
• Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc. - This case was last updated from U
• Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Squarespace, Inc. - This case was last updated from U
• Hanger Solutions LLC v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC - This case was last updated from U
• Hanger Solutions, LLC v. Squarespace, Inc.
• Georgia IP Litigation Blog - Follow
• Cases
• Cases filed in Delaware

I'll verify the plaintiff's counsel of record against docket mirrors and firm sources, and look for any local counsel I may have missed.

Docket mirrors confirm the RHM team. Now let me check the original complaint's signature block, whether Rozier was ever admitted pro hac vice, and the firm's patent practice background.

Let me pull the full docket to see all appearances (including any pro hac vice motions) and the original complaint's signature block.

Counsel of Record for Hanger Solutions, LLC

Bottom line: Hanger was represented throughout by a single boutique — Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC ("RHM") — with offices in Atlanta (Georgia-barred team), Austin (Texas-barred partner serving the in-district role), and Denver (a registered patent practitioner listed for pro hac vice). No separate Waco/local counsel firm appears on any filing, and no in-house counsel appeared for Hanger (it is an NPE with no legal department on the docket).

The authoritative source is the signature block of the Amended Complaint, Dkt. 13 (Apr. 4, 2022), which lists five attorneys "Attorneys for Plaintiff Hanger Solutions, LLC," with footnote markers "admitted to the Western District of Texas" and "admission pro hac vice to the Western District of Texas anticipated" (RPX litigation document 14688671). UniCourt's party/attorney tab and the Patexia docket both list the same Georgia/Austin four (UniCourt; Patexia).

Division of labor as reflected in the docket

• Pleadings and case management were handled by McDonough (Dkt. 1, 2, 11, 13, 22, 23); Miller handled service and the venue opposition (Dkt. 6, 14, 15). The plaintiff's side thus used two filers, both Georgia-barred but W.D. Tex.-admitted.
• Hardt supplies the Texas presence: he is the only Texas-resident signatory, and RHM's own bio materials describe that in-district role. Notably, Hanger did not retain a separate Austin/Waco local-counsel firm — unusual in Judge Albright's court in early 2022, where NPE plaintiffs frequently paired a national team with a Waco or Austin local firm.
• All plaintiff filings in this case were public; nothing was sealed that would obscure counsel identity. (Sealing issues affect the substance of filings, not appearances, here.)

Caveats and cross-checks

• Do not treat the five-name list as five appearances. Only McDonough and Miller actually appear as ECF filers in the docket mirrors, and Rozier's PHV was only "anticipated." The Patexia document list and UniCourt attorney tab (last refreshed 3/19/2022, before the amended complaint) are both incomplete, so a PHV motion in the unlisted entries (e.g., Dkt. 16–20) cannot be ruled out — but with dismissal on June 10, 2022, weeks after the amended complaint, it is unlikely one was pursued.
• No conflict with the case metadata. The metadata lists only US 6,430,623 because Exhibit A is the '623; counsel of record is independent of which patents are asserted.
• Address/phone drift: RHM's Atlanta address and phone numbers changed between the April 2022 pleadings (3621 Vinings Slope; 470-840-xxxx) and later 2024–25 filings (659 Auburn Ave. NE; 404-564-xxxx), and the Denver address later moved and appears with a Washington, D.C. suite on some documents. For a historical description of this case, use the 2022 block.
• I found no Law360 or Reuters appearance reporting or counsel profile specific to this case; the identification rests on the pleadings and docket mirrors cited above.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record, starting with the docket mirrors and firm/bar records.

Good — the docket shows Dacus as local counsel plus a pro hac vice motion for Daniel L. Reisner. Let me verify both firms and look for any additional appearances.

Reisner (Arnold & Porter, NY) and Dacus (The Dacus Firm, Tyler) are confirmed. Now let me check whether additional attorneys appeared (e.g., other A&P lawyers, or counsel for the added Spectrum entities).

Counsel of Record for the Defendant(s)

Two lawyers appear for Charter in this case. The docket shows the classic W.D. Tex. structure of the era: a New York-based national patent trial lawyer admitted pro hac vice as lead, paired with a Texas filing/trial lawyer as the attorney noticed for service. No in-house Charter attorney and no separate counsel for the three Spectrum affiliates appear on the docket.

1. Daniel L. Reisner — lead counsel (pro hac vice)

• Experience note: Reisner is Charter's longstanding national patent defense counsel and an IP/telecom-networking litigator at Arnold & Porter (the firm has since shortened its name to Arnold & Porter). For Charter he has tried Touchstream Technologies v. Charter (E.D. Tex. 2025 — defense verdict of no infringement on three content-casting patents, team led by Reisner and David Benyacar), defended Sprint Communications v. Charter (D. Del., 15 VoIP patents), won § 101 dismissal in Quantum Stream v. Charter (S.D.N.Y. 2018), and handled Entropic Communications v. Charter (E.D. Tex., tried 2023; Fed. Cir. No. 24-1896). IAM Patent 1000 "Patent Star" (NY) and "Leading Litigators in America."
• Caveat: the docket mirrors I could reach show the motion (Dkt. 9) but not a separate text order granting it; in W.D. Tex. practice in this period such motions were routinely granted by text entry, so this is almost certainly a records gap rather than a contested admission.

2. Deron R. Dacus — Texas counsel of record / local counsel

• Experience note: Dacus is a fixture of the Albright Waco patent docket as local counsel for out-of-state defendants — e.g., Apple (Headwater Research v. Apple, W.D. Tex.), Facebook (Express Mobile v. Facebook), Trend Micro (Webroot v. Trend Micro), and Ravgen (where he ran the PHV admissions for Jun Tong, Kerri-Ann Limbeck and Jamie Kringstein). He is board certified in civil trial law (Texas Board of Legal Specialization) and was lead trial counsel in Genband's $8.2M infringement verdict and the firm's $39M Lowrance verdict; the firm markets itself as an ALM "Go-To Law Firm" for Fortune 500 companies.
• Note his office is in Tyler (E.D. Tex.), not Waco — he functions as the W.D. Tex.-admitted Texas hand rather than a Waco-office local counsel.

Observations and sourcing caveats

• No additional appearances. Despite the April 4, 2022 amended complaint adding Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC, Spectrum Mobile Equipment, LLC and Spectrum Mobile, LLC (Dkt. 13), the Spectrum entities were represented through the same Dacus/Reisner pairing — Dkt. 20 and Dkt. 21 were filed by Dacus "on behalf of CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC, Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC, Spectrum Mobile Equipment, LLC, Spectrum Mobile, LLC." No new PHV motions for the affiliates appear on the Patexia or UniCourt dockets before the June 10, 2022 voluntary dismissal.
• Arnold & Porter colleagues not of record here. In parallel Charter matters the A&P team includes David Benyacar, Elizabeth A. Long, Albert J. Boardman and Melissa Brown (all New York). I found no appearance or PHV motion for any of them in 6:22-cv-00070, so I have not listed them as counsel in this case — flagging the distinction because secondary databases sometimes merge Charter's A&P team across suits.
• No in-house counsel appeared. Nothing on the docket suggests a Charter legal-department attorney entered an appearance; the five venue-motion declarations (Dkt. 8, Exs. 1–5: Armstrong, Logan, Nelson, Proost, Wengrofsky) are business-side declarants, not counsel.
• Nothing sealed on counsel. The docket for this case is public and no sealing order affected appearances; the only reason counsel coverage is thin is that the case died at five months, before any scheduling order or Markman briefing that would generate more signature blocks.
• Sourcing. Appearance and signature data from the Patexia docket mirror (services.patexia.com, case id 161507), the UniCourt docket (last updated Mar. 19, 2022 — hence it lists only Dacus), firm bios at arnoldporter.com and dacusfirm.com, and CourtListener/PTAB filing signature blocks from related Charter litigations. I could not retrieve the actual PDF of Dkt. 9 or a PACER docket sheet directly, so the PHV motion's contents are taken from the docket text.
• Contradiction to flag: the existing case summary describes Dacus simply as counsel "representing" Charter. That is accurate as to the docket face but understates the structure — he is the Texas/local counsel, and the lead merits lawyer was Reisner of Arnold & Porter.