Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the case outcome, the PTAB proceedings, and counsel.

Now let me confirm what happened in the district court in 2017 and the appeal.

Case Overview: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:13-cv-03777 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.)

The parties. Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II LLC ("IV II") is a Delaware LLC headquartered at 3150 139th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington — a holding/assertion subsidiary within the Intellectual Ventures family founded in 2000 by Nathan Myhrvold and colleagues. IV II does not make or sell products; it acquires and licenses patents, and the defendants in this case repeatedly characterized it as an assertion entity, a framing reflected in contemporaneous trade coverage (e.g., IP Law Daily's July 22, 2016 headline referring to IV as an "assertion entity," and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database listing IV II's asserted patents under "Acquired patents"). In its amended complaint IV alleged that its parent had acquired more than 70,000 assets, paid inventors hundreds of millions of dollars, and earned over $3 billion in licensing revenue — allegations the defendants denied for lack of knowledge, so those figures should be treated as IV's own characterization, not established fact (IV II Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10–13; Defendants' Answer, Dkt. 92). Defendants are JPMorgan Chase & Co. (HQ, 270 Park Avenue, Manhattan), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Chase Bank USA, N.A., joined in the amended pleading by Chase Paymentech Solutions LLC and Paymentech LLC (collectively "JPMC" or "Chase") — operating commercial banks and payment-processing affiliates. Defendants admitted general personal jurisdiction and proper venue in the district (Answer ¶¶ 2–9).

Accused technology and patents. The case began on June 4, 2013 as a five-patent complaint, part of an IV banking campaign that also hit First National Bank of Omaha, BBVA Compass, Commerce Bancshares, SunTrust, U.S. Bancorp, Huntington, PNC, and Citigroup (cited in the Federal Circuit's opinion, 781 F.3d 1372, 1373 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Two distinct accused technologies were at issue. First, Chase's online banking services and PCI-DSS-compliant encryption were accused under the '574 and '694 patents (Am. Compl. ¶ 21). Second — and ultimately the whole case — Chase's IBM cryptographic coprocessor cards used in its cybersecurity infrastructure: the IBM 4765 PCIe Cryptographic Coprocessor (Y4; "Crypto Cards 3 and 4") and the IBM 4767 PCIe Cryptographic Coprocessor (Sentry; "Crypto Card 5") (July 21, 2016 Op., ECF 570, at 2 n.1). The patents, with the technical sketch the court and parties themselves used (see Joint Claim Construction Chart, Dkt. 64 and the Mar. 14, 2014 joint letter describing the patents to Judge Hellerstein):

• '694 (6,826,694), "High Resolution Access Control" — filtering a network packet by selecting an access rule based on the payload contents of that packet plus at least one other packet (catching malware fragmented across packets).
• '574 (5,745,574), "Security Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions" — public-key certificate infrastructure: issuance, validation, revocation, and chained trust through certification authorities.
• '084 (6,715,084), "Firewall System and Method Via Feedback from Broad-Scope Monitoring for Intrusion Detection" — detecting network anomalies by correlating data across many hosts/sites and feeding alerts back to firewalls.
• '409 (6,314,409), "System for Controlling Access and Distribution of Digital Property" — encrypting data, distributing it openly, and enforcing rules governing each subsequent access (a DRM-style access-control concept).
• '666 (7,634,666), "Crypto-Engine for Cryptographic Processing of Data" — a hardware co-processor whose modular arithmetic unit can execute both RSA and ECC, including multiplication, addition, and "sign inversion" units, with the RSA/ECC mode selected by an op-code signal (claim 4 was the asserted claim).

Procedural posture and why the venue mattered. The case was assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan; 500 Pearl Street), a venue IV selected because JPMC's headquarters and substantial banking operations are there, giving unquestioned general jurisdiction — a point that mattered less after TC Heartland because JPMC did not contest venue. The court's handling was aggressive and fast: a March 5, 2014 Markman hearing and March 18, 2014 claim construction order (ECF 82); denial of JPMC's motion to stay pending CBM review (ECF 154, Aug. 11, 2014), which produced the *precedential Federal Circuit decision in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015)* holding that the court of appeals lacks § 18(b)(2) jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a CBM-related stay denial until the PTAB actually institutes; an early post-Alice § 101 win for JPMC on April 28, 2015 ("[t]he '694 Patent ... amounts to a mental process" and similar holdings on the '084 and '409 patents), 2015 WL 1941331 (ECF 381); withdrawal of the '574 patent on consent (ECF 519, Sept. 17, 2015); two denied JPMC summary-judgment motions on the '666 patent (June 30, 2015, ECF 449; July 21, 2016, ECF 570, holding capability-based infringement insufficient where the claim doesn't reference capability and denying IV's bid to relax the "sign inversion unit" construction — "Regret is not a legal excuse," ECF 568, July 20, 2016); and extensive discovery warfare, including a denied motion to strike IV's infringement contentions (ECF 296).

Why the case is notable — and how it ended. Three features make this a landmark in the financial-services NPE wave. (1) IPR/CBM linkage: JPMC's stay motion rested on its own CBM petitions — CBM2014-00157 ('409), instituted Jan. 14, 2015, and CBM2014-00160 ('574), denied Jan. 29, 2015 — plus roughly a dozen third-party IPRs on the same patents (including IBM's IPR2014-00660 on the '574 patent and the IPRs on the '409 and '084 patents, e.g., IPR2014-00682 and IPR2015-01323), making the case a testbed for the then-new AIA post-grant regime against bank-targeted patents (Fed. Cir. 781 F.3d at 1373–74 & nn.2–4; Affiliates' Notice of Related Matters). (2) Preclusive spillover: Judge Hellerstein's April 28, 2015 § 101 order was held to be sufficiently "final" to collaterally estop IV in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One (D. Md., Sept. 4, 2015) — creating circuit tension with Vardon Golf that the Federal Circuit resolved in affirming estoppel. (3) Final outcome: the case ended in JPMC's favor. Per a law-firm case note, Judge Hellerstein's April 28, 2017 order had denied JPMC's non-infringement motion on capability grounds, but on July 12, 2017 he granted IV's own motion for reconsideration and, applying the capability holding, entered summary judgment of non-infringement and dismissed the complaint (JD Supra case note). IV appealed on Aug. 15, 2017 (No. 17-2429), consolidated with its Citigroup appeal (No. 2018-1024), and the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion under Rule 36 on December 17, 2018 (Fed. Cir. judgment; CourtListener). Appellate counsel: Matthew D. Powers, Alex H. Chan, Samantha A. Jameson, and Stefani Smith of Tensegrity Law Group for IV; Brent P. Ray, Ryan M. Hubbard, and Brian Verbus of Kirkland & Ellis, with Kenneth R. Adamo (New York) and John C. O'Quinn (Washington, D.C.), for JPMC. Trial-level IV counsel appearing in the 2016 briefing included Clayton W. Thompson II (Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson), David Taylor Rudolph (Lieff Cabraser), Laura Jean Scileppi (Dunnegan & Scileppi), and Sal Lim (IP Law Daily, July 22, 2016); a March 14, 2014 joint submission to the court was signed by Clement S. Roberts of Durie Tangri (counsel alignment on that filing not independently confirmed).

Sourcing caveats. The district court docket in this case is not fully visible without PACER, and I could not independently verify the April 28, 2017 order, the July 12, 2017 reconsideration ruling, or the precise phrasing of the final judgment; those dates rest on the law-firm commentary cited above and should be confirmed against the docket (ECF numbers in the 570s–590s range). I also did not confirm whether any of the asserted patents were separately invalidated at the PTAB, and the "$3 billion" / "70,000 assets" figures are IV's pleaded allegations rather than adjudicated facts. Everything else above is grounded in the cited opinions, ECF filings, or Federal Circuit judgment.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with broad searches on the litigation and then drill into specific developments.

I have extensive material on the early and mid-stage. Now let me find the endgame — trial/verdict, final judgment, settlement, and the PTAB proceedings.

Now let me pin down the April 2017 summary judgment, the CBM final written decisions, and the third-party IPRs.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:13-cv-03777 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.)

Bottom line: This case was filed in June 2013 and never reached trial. It was progressively narrowed — three patents knocked out on § 101 in April 2015, a fourth voluntarily withdrawn in September 2015 — leaving only the '666 patent. That last patent was finally resolved by summary judgment of non-infringement for JPMC on July 12, 2017 (on IV's own motion for reconsideration), and the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion (Fed. Cir. R. 36) on 2018-12-17. The "final disposition unconfirmed" flag in the case metadata can now be updated: defense judgment; JPMC prevailed; case closed on appeal.

Sourcing note: I was cut off before completing every verification query, so a few specifics below are flagged as unconfirmed. The core chronology is well-sourced to the court's own opinions, the Federal Circuit's 2015 opinion, PACER-derived aggregators (Justia, CourtListener, Docket Alarm), and contemporaneous JD Supra/Law-firm updates.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2013-06-04 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Intellectual Ventures II LLC sued JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions LLC, and Paymentech LLC (collectively "JPMC") in S.D.N.Y., alleging infringement of five patents:
  • 6,826,694 ('694 — "High resolution access control")
  • 5,745,574 ('574 — "Security infrastructure for electronic transactions")
  • 6,715,084 ('084 — firewall/IDS)
  • 6,314,409 ('409 — "System for controlling access and distribution of digital property")
  • 7,634,666 ('666 — "Cryptoengine for cryptographic processing of data")
• Accused products: IBM cryptographic coprocessor cards used in JPMC's cyber-security systems — the IBM 4765 PCIe / Y4 Cryptographic Coprocessor (Crypto Cards 3 & 4) and the 4767 PCIe / Sentry Cryptographic Coprocessor (Crypto Card 5).
• 2013-10-29 — Technology tutorial before the court (transcript cited in later claim-construction briefing).
• 2014-03-24 — Amended Complaint (Dkt. 84), adding/amending the '574 and other counts.
• Answer & Counterclaims: Defendants answered and filed declaratory-judgment counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement as to each asserted patent, plus affirmative defenses (license/exhaustion, marking/§287, laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, §286 damages limitation). (The counterclaims/affirmative defenses are reproduced in the Dkt. 92 Answer, later filed as an exhibit in IPR2015-01323.)
• Counsel: For IV — Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson (Clayton W. Thompson II), Lieff Cabraser (David T. Rudolph), Dunnegan & Scileppi (Laura J. Scileppi); on appeal, Tensegrity Law Group (Matthew D. Powers). For JPMC — Kirkland & Ellis (Brent P. Ray, Benjamin A. Lasky, Ryan Hubbard, Brian Verbus), Kenneth R. Adamo, Durie Tangri (Mark A. Lemley, Clement S. Roberts), and John C. O'Quinn.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Motion to stay pending CBM review → denial → landmark interlocutory appeal

• 2014-06-27 — JPMC moved to stay the case pending anticipated covered-business-method (CBM) review of four of the patents (ECF No. 128). JPMC then filed two CBM petitions (the '409 on 2014-07-11 and the '574 on 2014-07-18) and never filed the other two.
• 2014-08-11 — Stay denied (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2014 WL 10919562 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2014) (ECF No. 154)). Judge Hellerstein applied the AIA § 18(b)(1) four-factor test, finding it inappropriate to stay the entire multi-patent case while only two patents might be reviewed, and weighing IV's right to a speedy trial.
• Fed. Cir. No. 2014-1724 (filed 2014-08-18). Argued 2015-01-07; decided 2015-04-01. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (O'Malley, J., joined by Bryson; Hughes, J., dissenting). Holding: under AIA § 18(b)(2), the Federal Circuit has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a stay ruling until the PTAB actually institutes a CBM proceeding — a pending (or merely contemplated) CBM petition is not a "proceeding." (JPMC's appeal also unsuccessfully pressed that § 18(a)(2)'s "relating to" language captured anticipated petitions.)
• Practical effect: the stay denial stood, the litigation stayed on its fast track, and parallel PTAB work continued.

§ 101 summary judgment (three patents out)

• 2015-04-28 — On JPMC's motion, the court granted partial summary judgment of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as to the '694, '084, and '409 patents, dismissing Counts 2, 3, and 4. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2015 WL 1941331 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2015). The court applied Mayo/Alice step one (abstract idea/mental process, preemption breadth, machine-or-transformation) and step two (no inventive concept), rejecting IV's DDR Holdings argument. The '694 analysis construed "packet" as a "[d]iscrete unit of information being routed through a computer network…" and found the claims drawn to filtering information using mathematical correlations (citing Digitech).

First non-infringement summary judgment (denied)

• 2015-05-12 — JPMC moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of the '666 patent (Dkt. 388), before depositions were complete.
• 2015-06-30 — Denied (Dkt. 449). The court found triable issues of fact on whether the IBM Crypto Card was capable of executing both ECC and RSA algorithms as required by claim 4, and rejected JPMC's "no direct op-code signal to Otello" theory. The court expressly invited a renewed motion after discovery.

Motion to strike IV's infringement contentions

• JPMC repeatedly moved to compel and ultimately to strike IV's infringement contentions as a discovery sanction. The court denied the strike but observed that "IV's initial infringement contentions were inadequate." (Order at ECF No. 296 — cited by the court as Nov. 5, 2015; contemporaneous firm reporting described a Nov. 5 order resolving the same motions, possibly the 2014 date — I could not fully reconcile the year.)

Second non-infringement summary judgment (2016)

• 2016-07-21 — Denied (ECF No. 570; published at 13-cv-3777 (AKH)). The issue was the "sign inversion unit" limitation of claim 4. JPMC argued the accused IBM cards only accept positive inputs and so cannot "change positive numbers to negative numbers and negative numbers to positive numbers." The court held that mere capability is not infringement where the claim/construction doesn't speak to capability (Fujitsu, Typhoon Touch), and that IV's "two's complement"/modular-arithmetic theory "appear[ed] not to be persuasive" and might be an unsupported expert conclusion (Dynacore) — but the court could not resolve the fact question on that record, so it denied the motion and severed the pending motion to strike.

Third round — summary judgment GRANTED (the dispositive ruling)

• 2017-04-28 — The court issued an order denying JPMC's non-infringement motion on the ground that, although the accused devices did not actually infringe, a material fact issue remained on "whether the Crypto Cards are capable of infringing."
• IV moved for reconsideration. 2017-07-12 — Judge Hellerstein granted reconsideration but ruled against IV: the court maintained there was no actual infringement and reversed itself on capability, holding the accused Crypto Cards were not capable of infringing. The court reasoned that a patent claim must reference "capability" for a "capable" article to infringe. Result: full summary judgment of non-infringement for JPMC; IV's complaint dismissed. (Widely covered as a "be careful what you wish for" cautionary tale — IV's own reconsideration motion produced the adverse final judgment.)

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• 2014-03-05 — Markman hearing (transcript ECF No. 78).
• 2014-03-18 — Claim construction order (ECF No. 82, "Order Regarding Claim Construction and Patent Summaries"). Key constructions:
  • "sign inversion unit" = "a unit that changes positive numbers to negative numbers and changes negative numbers to positive numbers" — adopted from the parties' on-the-record agreement at the hearing (IV's counsel Lim: "We are okay with that"; JPMC's Adamo: "That's acceptable to JP Morgan Chase").
  • "addition unit" = "a unit that performs addition"; "multiplication unit" = a unit capable of performing multiplication.
  • "op-code signal" = a "[s]ignal capable of indicating an RSA operation when it has one characteristic and an ECC operation when it has a different characteristic" (the word "capable" later proved pivotal to the 2015 and 2016 summary-judgment rulings).
• 2016-06-29 — IV moved to rehear/reconsider the "sign inversion unit" construction (ECF Nos. 556, 557), seeking to flip the conjunctive "and" to "and/or." JPMC opposed (2016-07-14; ECF Nos. 560–562).
• 2016-07-20 — Denied (ECF No. 568). The court held IV had advocated the same conjunctive construction in other cases (e.g., against Citigroup and SunTrust) and "IV's sole reason to change the Markman order is its regret… Regret is not a legal excuse." This construction then doomed IV on the 2017 capability ruling.

---

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Patent-valuation / damages documents: The court initially held IV's patent-valuation documents "have little or no relevance" and refused to compel them, then reversed on reconsideration (August 19; apparently 2014), ordering production. IV was also required to identify and produce transcripts of testimony given by any witness (including experts) it identified.
• Privilege dispute: After in-camera review, the court held that documents generated to evaluate a patent's validity in connection with the decision to acquire the patent were predominantly business, not privileged, because IV's business is acquiring and litigating patents; the parties had to exchange an amended privilege log.
• Damages discovery deferred: The court denied IV's motion to compel JPMC's damages/royalty materials (highly sensitive, insufficient showing) and deferred all damages discovery.
• Infringement-contentions fight: Repeated motions to compel and a strike motion (see §2) — the court permitted JPMC to take broad discovery aimed at IV's contentions, and the "inadequate contentions" theme recurred throughout.
• Depositions/expert discovery: Document discovery closed 2015-04-10; the June 30, 2015 order lifted a discovery stay (imposed at the 2015-05-21 status conference) and set fact discovery to close 2015-09-15.
• Spoliation motion: IV argued in the alternative that JPMC's failure to impose a litigation hold meant the card might actually perform ECC; this was a separate motion pending in mid-2015 (scheduled to be fully briefed by 2015-07-07). (Outcome not confirmed in my sources.)

---

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• There was no trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion. The case was fully resolved on the papers — dismissal of three patents under § 101, voluntary withdrawal of a fourth, and final summary judgment of non-infringement on the '666 patent. I found no record of a fee/shifting motion or an award of costs, and I would treat that as unconfirmed rather than as a finding that none was filed.

---

6. Final Disposition & Appeal

• 2015-09-17 — The '574 patent was withdrawn on consent (ECF No. 519), leaving only the '666 patent.
• 2017-07-12 — Final judgment for JPMC: summary judgment of non-infringement; IV's complaint dismissed.
• Appeal — Fed. Cir. No. 2017-2429 (consolidated with No. 2018-1024, the parallel IV II v. Citigroup appeal, S.D.N.Y. 1:14-cv-04638, also before Judge Hellerstein). IV's appellant counsel: Matthew D. Powers / Tensegrity Law Group; JPMC's appellee counsel: Brent P. Ray / Kirkland & Ellis (with Adamo and O'Quinn). Oral argument 2018-12-07 (audio posted); decided 2018-12-17 — AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (non-precedential; per curiam: Newman, Plager, Moore). See Justia, No. 17-2429 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit saw no reversible error but issued no substantive opinion.

Present posture: closed. JPMC prevailed in the district court and on appeal; the judgment of non-infringement is final. (Contrast the parallel IV v. Citigroup case, which traveled on the same '666 claim 4 issues and was likewise affirmed in the same 2018-12-17 judgment.)

---

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings

JPMC filed two CBM petitions in July 2014 (out of four it had promised), and the district court's refusal to stay generated the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction decision described above:

Effect on the litigation: The stay was denied, so the PTAB work proceeded in parallel rather than displacing the litigation. The '574 CBM never got off the ground (institution denied) and the patent was then dropped from the case by consent. The '409 CBM was instituted, but the '409 patent was independently invalidated under § 101 at the district court in April 2015 — so the CBM and the court reached the same practical endpoint (no enforceable '409 claim against JPMC) by different routes. The '666 patent — the only one to survive to the end — was defeated in court on non-infringement, not at the PTAB, and its claim 4 was left intact (the board's treatment of the '666 patent is not confirmed by my sources).

---

8. Strategic Takeaways

1. An aggressive docket-control strategy beat a stay. Judge Hellerstein's refusal to stay — later insulated from interlocutory review by the Federal Circuit's 2015 jurisdictional ruling — meant JPMC had to win in court, which it ultimately did.
2. Early § 101 rulings gutted the campaign. Three of five patents fell in one April 2015 order, and the fourth was withdrawn, collapsing a five-patent case to a single hardware claim.
3. Claim construction was outcome-determinative. The parties' ad hoc agreement at the March 2014 hearing that "sign inversion unit" required both directions of sign change, locked in against IV in 2016, became the lever for the 2017 capability holding.
4. Capability vs. actual performance decided it. The court's July 2017 ruling — that a product is "capable" of infringing only if the claim itself requires capability — converted a fact dispute about IBM's crypto cards into a legal win for JPMC, a point the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion.
5. IV's own reconsideration motion sealed its loss. Rather than improving its position, IV's request that the court revisit "actual infringement" produced full summary judgment for JPMC — a frequently cited cautionary example about the risks of reconsideration motions.

I'll research the docket and related sources for counsel of record.

Let me dig into docket-level attorney listings and verify which firms represented the plaintiff.

Good — I now have the on-the-record appearances. Let me verify the appellate-stage counsel, PTAB counsel, and whether there was a counsel change mid-case.

Bottom line

The plaintiff, Intellectual Ventures II LLC ("IV"), was represented in the S.D.N.Y. district court phase primarily by the Menlo Park patent boutique Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP, with Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC (New York) acting as local counsel. By the time of the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2017‑2429), IV's appellate team was from Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood City, CA). No firm on the plaintiff's side is sealed out of the record; appearances are documented in open-court transcripts.

Caveat on sourcing: I was not able to pull the raw PACER docket sheet (CM/ECF) itself. The identifications below are grounded in primary court documents (hearing transcripts and joint filings filed in 13 Civ. 3777, which were later lodged as exhibits in the parallel PTAB proceedings) plus the Federal Circuit judgment and secondary litigation reporters. Where a fact is not well sourced, I say so.

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record — district court (2013–2016)

Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP — lead/trial counsel (Menlo Park, CA)

Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC — local counsel (350 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY)

(The Dunnegan service block also shows an "ls@dunnegan.com" address; the typed signature block lists only Dunnegan and Liebowitz, so I am not naming the "ls@" holder.)

Client representatives (not counsel of record, but appeared for IV)

At the October 2013 tutorial, IV's in-house representatives were identified on the record as Chris Leper/Leffler (ph) and Patrick Fletcher; at the March 2014 Markman hearing, Melissa Finocchio and Cris Leffler were introduced as IV clients. Melissa Finocchio is widely reported as IV's long-time chief litigation counsel/VP, but she is not an attorney of record on this docket.

---

Plaintiff's counsel — Federal Circuit (appeal No. 2017‑2429, decided Dec. 17, 2018)

Tensegrity Law Group LLP (Redwood City, CA) appeared for plaintiff-appellant IV:

The appeal was affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (per curiam: Newman, Plager, Moore, JJ.) on December 17, 2018, from Judge Hellerstein's S.D.N.Y. judgment.

---

Stage-by-stage appearances (documented)

• Oct. 29, 2013 — patent tutorial (13 Civ. 3777 (AKH)): Appearances list "FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI & THOMPSON, LLP — Attorneys for Plaintiff" (Clayton Thompson, Sal Lim, Elizabeth Day, Ian Feinberg) and "DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI, LLC — Attorneys for Plaintiff" (William Dunnegan). Defendants were Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig (Tibor Nagy), Durie Tangri (Clement Roberts) and Kirkland & Ellis (Kenneth R. Adamo). (This transcript was later filed as Exhibit 1006 in CBM2014‑00160.)
• Mar. 5, 2014 — Markman hearing: Feinberg Day (David Alberti, Sal Lim, Jake Zolotorev) + Dunnegan & Scileppi (William Dunnegan) for IV. (Exhibit 1011 in CBM2014‑00160.)
• Feb./Mar. 2014 — joint claim-construction letters (Dkt. 74, 76 in 13‑cv‑3777): IV's signature blocks = Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson (Feinberg, Day; service copies to slim@, mbelloli@, mrutledge@, llandry@feinday.com) and Dunnegan & Scileppi (Dunnegan, Liebowitz). Note that the defense signature blocks in the same letters are Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig, Durie Tangri, and Kirkland & Ellis — the OCR ordering of these blocks is easily misread, but the transcript appearances resolve the sides unambiguously, and VitalLaw's report of the July 2015 and July 2016 rulings confirms Feinberg Day for IV and Dontzin/Durie Tangri/Kirkland for JPMC.
• Aug. 15, 2017 – Dec. 17, 2018 — Fed. Cir. No. 2017‑2429: Tensegrity Law Group (Powers, Chan, Jameson, Smith) for IV.

---

Not verified / open items

• Whether Tensegrity formally substituted for Feinberg Day on the district-court docket, and when. Tensegrity was unquestionably IV's counsel for the 2017 appeal; I could not confirm a Rule 5.2/ECF substitution filing in the district court. Third-party aggregator pages conflate Tensegrity and Kirkland attorney lists under both parties for this appeal, so I would not rely on them for district-court appearances.
• Counsel on the earlier interlocutory appeal (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015), arising from the denial of JPMC's stay motion) — I did not confirm the appellate counsel of record for IV on that 2014 appeal.
• Counsel for IV before the PTAB in the parallel CBM/IPR proceedings (e.g., CBM2014‑00157/00160, IPR2014‑00672/00673). Feinberg Day attorneys were involved with IV in these matters generally, but I did not verify the specific counsel of record on the patent-owner side, so I am not naming anyone.
• Post-2016 district-court submissions: if additional counsel appeared in the 2017 judgment phase, they are not captured here.

Primary sources used: S.D.N.Y. transcripts and filings in 13 Civ. 3777 (AKH) (Dkt. 74, 76; Oct. 29, 2013 tutorial transcript; Mar. 5, 2014 Markman transcript); Fed. Cir. No. 2017‑2429 judgment (Dec. 17, 2018), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-2429/17-2429-2018-12-17.html; Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13 Civ. 3777 (AKH) opinions (e.g., 2015 WL 1941331; July 21, 2016 Order & Opinion, Dkt. 570); VitalLaw/Thomson Reuters IP Law Daily case reports (July 2, 2015; July 22, 2016); Law.com/AmLaw reporting on Feinberg Day's founding and IV engagements.

I'll research the counsel of record for the JPMorgan Chase defendants in this case.

Let me dig into the docket entries and additional counsel.

I have strong leads. Let me verify the docket-level appearances and resolve which side the local firm represented.

Counsel of Record for the Defendants — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:13-cv-03777-AKH (S.D.N.Y.)

Sourcing note up front: I could not pull the live PACER docket sheet for this case (PACER is paywalled and the free RECAP/CourtListener docket for 1:13-cv-03777 was not retrievable in a form that lists every ECF appearance). The roster below is reconstructed from (a) the verbatim APPEARANCES block of the March 5, 2014 Markman hearing transcript, which is itself an exhibit in the parallel PTAB proceeding (JPMC Ex. 1011 in CBM2014-00157), (b) the Federal Circuit opinions/judgments in the related appeals (2014-1724 and 2017-2429), (c) the parties' joint claim-construction filings docketed in this case (Dkt. 74, 76), and (d) docket-derived counsel listings in Bloomberg Law/VitalLaw reports of the 2015 and 2016 Hellerstein rulings. Where I could not verify an appearance, I say so. No attorney below is inferred or invented.

---

The defense team was three firms

The controlling appearance record is the Markman transcript, which reads:

FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI & THOMPSON LLP — Attorneys for Plaintiff — BY: DAVID ALBERTI, SAL LIM, JAKE ZOLOTOREV
DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC — Attorneys for Plaintiff — BY: WILLIAM DUNNEGAN
DONTZIN NAGY & FLEISSIG LLP — Attorneys for Defendant — BY: TIBOR NAGY
DURIE TANGRI LLP — Attorneys for Defendant — BY: CLEM ROBERTS
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP — Attorneys for Defendant — BY: KENNETH ADAMO, BRENT RAY

(Ex. 1011, CBM2014-00157, docketalarm.com mirror)

---

Individual attorneys

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig LLP (New York local counsel)

Durie Tangri LLP (San Francisco)

---

Important qualifications

• All five JPMC-related defendants are represented by the same team. The complaint named JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC and Paymentech LLC were later added as defendants. Every filing and appearance I located treats them collectively as "JPMC" with the same three-firm defense team. The Federal Circuit's certificate-of-interest and briefing entries in 2014-1724 list all five entities as appellants with the Kirkland team plus Durie Tangri.
• Not the same as PTAB counsel. For its own covered-business-method petitions against the '409 and '574 patents (CBM2014-00157 and CBM2014-00160, filed July 11 and 18, 2014), JPMorgan was represented by Goodwin Procter LLP — Stephen T. Schreiner and Eleanor M. Yost, Washington, D.C. Those are PTAB counsel, not counsel of record in 1:13-cv-03777.
• In-house counsel were not identified. A JPMC client representative ("Michael Pearce") is named in the Markman transcript, but I found no in-house attorney of record and will not speculate.
• Later appeals. On the 2017-2429 appeal (final judgment for JPMC, Fed. Cir. R. 36, Dec. 17, 2018), the Kirkland team had thinned to Ray, Hubbard, Verbus, Adamo (then practicing solo in New York), and O'Quinn (D.C.); Dontzin Nagy and Durie Tangri do not appear on the appellate entry.
• No sealed or missing-appearance issue for the defense side that I could detect: the defense firms appeared on the record as early as the October 2013 technology tutorial, and their appearances are corroborated by three independent sources. If you need the exact ECF docket-entry numbers for the notices of appearance (typically ECF Nos. 4–20), those require a direct PACER pull, which I could not complete here.