Key Patent Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Netrality Properties, LP

I'll research this case across the sources you mentioned.

Let me dig deeper on the specific patent, the MDL ruling, and Netrality.

Case Overview — Key Patent Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Netrality Properties, LP, No. 1:26-cv-03929 (N.D. Ill.), transferred into In re Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3190 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. The plaintiffs are two Dublin, Ireland–based non-practicing entities: Key Patent Innovations Limited ("KPI") and its wholly owned subsidiary Valtrus Innovations Limited. KPI is the beneficial owner of the asserted portfolio, for which Valtrus serves as trustee; Valtrus is the "successor-in-interest to a substantial patent portfolio created by Hewlett Packard Enterprise and its predecessor companies, including Compaq, Verity, and Hewlett-Packard Development Company," acquired in January 2021 (see Google's DJ complaint describing the parties, NDCA complaint; KPI's corporate-disclosure parent is listed as New PP Licensing LLC in the MDL filings, JPML docket). The KPI family is a large-scale monetization operation — its sibling entity Malikie Innovations bought roughly 32,000 non-core BlackBerry patents for ~$200 million in 2023, and IAM/Docket Navigator reported the three KPI entities had filed 87 cases (ip fray; IAM). The defendant, Netrality Properties, LP, is a genuine operating company: a U.S. data center/colocation and network-interconnection provider whose corporate parents include Netrality Holdco Trust, Netrality Parent, LLC, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners IV entities (corporate disclosure statement, MDL No. 3190 Filing 7). So this is an NPE-versus-operating-company case, not a competitor dispute.

Accused technology. Valtrus/KPI do not accuse Netrality of making or selling anything. They accuse the operation of Netrality's data centers — specifically the methods by which Netrality cools and controls the environment of its facilities using equipment sourced from third parties. The complaint alleges Netrality's data centers "implement cooling equipment from various suppliers, including Vertiv Corporation, Stulz, Trane, DataAire, and Schneider Electric," and that Netrality "uses that equipment to perform methods of cooling that…infringe the Asserted Patents" (complaint analysis, Ex Parte; the same theory is described in the parallel Lumen complaint, American Press/Legal Newsline). This "operator accused of using supplier equipment" model is why the campaign has dragged in the supply chain: Vertiv filed declaratory-judgment actions against Valtrus/KPI (E.D. Tex. Nos. 2:26-cv-00084, et al.) and intervened in MDL 3190, and multiple defendants (Lumen, Prime Data Centers, Iron Mountain) have moved to sever/stay claims tied to Vertiv-accused products (Patent Lawyer Magazine; PacerMonitor dockets).

The asserted patent(s). Per the case metadata, the patent asserted against Netrality is U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 (app. No. 10/123,403; issued April 2004). The '277 patent is directed to a system and method for controlling atmospheric conditions within a data center building — distributed environmental sensors generate an "empirical atmospheric map"/"empirical thermal map," which is compared against a "template atmospheric map" to identify "pattern differentials" and drive environmental control (see Valtrus's claim-construction briefing on '277 terms in Valtrus v. NTT Data Services, E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00361, Dkt. 148, CourtListener; Legal Newsline summary). Two caveats: (1) a third-party AI-generated complaint summary of this docket instead lists the '287 and '682 cooling patents, so the exact asserted set for Netrality should be verified against the complaint itself; and (2) the '277 patent's ~2002 filing date means its 20-year term appears to have expired, which would limit Valtrus to past damages — consistent with reporting that the campaign's older patents are expired and "the plaintiffs are seeking damages for past infringement." The '277 patent sits within a family of early-2000s HPE data center patents asserted across the campaign, including the '287 (room cooling), '682 (agent-based temperature control), '179, '870, '855 and '967.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. This case was filed April 8, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) as one of four N.D. Ill. complaints filed that day against data center operators (CoreSite, Netrality, NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Prime Data Centers), plus parallel suits in D.N.J., W.D. La., and E.D. Tex. (Justia docket). The plaintiffs themselves moved on April 28, 2026 to centralize the 12 actions (HarrisMartin); the JPML assigned MDL No. 3190 on April 30, heard argument July 30, 2026 in Asheville, and on August 7, 2026 issued the transfer order moving the cases to the Eastern District of Texas before Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap (CTO-1; MDL hearing notice). The N.D. Ill. cases were stayed pending the JPML ruling (see the parallel NTT docket, Minute Entry, June 1, 2026, before Judge Virginia M. Kendall) and then transferred — which is why this docket now reads as closed/pending in MDL 3190. Venue matters here in two ways: the N.D. Ill. filing put Netrality in a forum with a local interest in its Chicago-area data center operations, but MDL consolidation overrides that and lands the whole campaign in Judge Gilstrap's courtroom — a venue Valtrus/KPI affirmatively requested and where Valtrus already had a claim-construction track record on the '277, '287, '179 and '870 patents. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it is part of the AI/data-center infrastructure patent wave, where the physical cooling, thermal-management and environmental-control layer — not the GPUs — is being monetized; (2) patent MDLs are rare, and commentators flag MDL 3190 as a test of how courts coordinate multi-defendant PAE campaigns across many facilities sharing the same underlying technology; and (3) the supplier-indemnity dynamic (Vertiv's DJs and sever/stay motions) shows how operator-focused assertion reaches into OEM relationships. Plaintiff-side counsel is Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Patrick Colsher, Matthew Berkowitz, Connor Houghton, Sean McCarthy); Nixon Peabody LLP (Daniel J. Schwartz, Timothy P. Maloney) has appeared for Netrality and several co-defendant operators in the MDL (MDL docket, Filings 6 & 10). I did not find a Netrality-specific merits ruling, claim-construction order, or IPR of the '277 patent in the sources reviewed; the JPML filings list only a joint defense motion for extension of time, and the substantive claim construction of the '277 patent to date has occurred in the related NTT Data Services litigation. Facts above drawn from third-party dockets and reporting should be confirmed against the operative complaint before being relied on as adjudicated.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources.

I have significant material. Let me dig deeper into the MDL proceedings, PTAB IPRs, and the specific docket for the Netrality case.

Key Legal Developments — Key Patent Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Netrality Properties, LP, No. 1:26-cv-03929 (N.D. Ill.), now MDL No. 3190 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front: This is a very young case. The complaint was filed 2026-04-08, the defendant's deadline to answer was extended once to 2026-06-15, and before any answer, Rule 12 motion, or scheduling order could be litigated, the action was swept into MDL No. 3190, In re: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, and transferred to the E.D. Tex. before Judge James Rodney Gilstrap. There is no Markman ruling, no discovery order, no trial, no verdict, and no settlement specific to Netrality. The genuinely significant legal activity is happening in (a) the Vertiv declaratory-judgment actions, (b) the JPML centralization proceeding, and (c) the PTAB, where the only IPRs on the asserted patents were discretionarily denied institution.

---

1. Pre-suit posture and the parallel campaign (context, 2024–2026)

Sources: JPML MDL 3190 brief; Justia/PACER docket for 2:24-cv-00361; CourtListener docket 68526786; ip fray, April 2026.

---

2. Filing and initial pleadings (April–May 2026)

Complaint. Filed 2026-04-08 in N.D. Ill. — Case No. 1:26-cv-03929, assigned randomly to Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.; Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman designated. Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271; NOS 830 (Patent). Plaintiffs: Key Patent Innovations Ltd. and Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (Justia docket; JPML brief).

Patents asserted. The case metadata designates U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 ("Atmospheric control within a building"/atmospheric-map cooling method, issued 2004-04-06, priority 2002-04-17) as the patent at issue here. Note a sourcing wrinkle: KPI/Valtrus's own § 1407 motion describes the ten data-center-operator suits collectively as asserting the '287 and '682 patents, "with certain cases also alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277." The public docket pull for -03929 is thin on the exhibit list, and third-party AI docket summaries for this case discuss '287/'682. I therefore treat '277 as asserted but flag that the precise count/claim set per case is not verifiable from the free docket. (MDL 3190 brief; Ex Parte case page)

Venue theory pleaded. Netrality allegedly operates data centers in the district (a "regular and established place of business"), and — critically for the merits — the alleged infringement is by Netrality's operation of third-party cooling equipment (Vertiv, Stulz, Trane, DataAire, Schneider Electric), i.e., method-claim, customer-side infringement, not sales of accused hardware. The complaint concedes the specific control logic is not publicly observable "due to the secure nature of data center facilities." (Ex Parte complaint analysis)

Docket entries — initial pleadings:

Answer / counterclaims: None filed. Defendant obtained an extension instead (below). I found no answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaims from Netrality in the public record. Note the strategic significance that Netrality's counsel is Nixon Peabody — the same firm defending Vertiv, the supplier of a large share of the accused cooling equipment and the plaintiff in the parallel DJ actions.

Source: Justia docket 1:26-cv-03929.

---

3. MDL No. 3190 — the dominating development

The twelve actions originally proposed for centralization: Vertiv I (2:24-cv-00361), Vertiv II (2:26-cv-00084), EvoDC (2:26-cv-00286), STACK (2:26-cv-00287), Cologix (D.N.J. 26-cv-03884), Iron Mountain (D.N.J. 26-cv-03890), H5 Data Centers (D.N.J. 26-cv-03886), Netrality (N.D. Ill. 26-cv-03929), NTT Global Data Centers (N.D. Ill. 26-cv-03945), CoreSite (N.D. Ill. 26-cv-03926), Prime Data Centers (N.D. Ill. 26-cv-03958), and Lumen (W.D. La. 26-cv-01346). (JPML brief)

Effect on Netrality: the N.D. Ill. action is now a member of MDL 3190; the N.D. Ill. docket reflects the case as closed/transferred (third-party trackers list it "Closed"), and further proceedings occur in E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap. (JPML CTO-1 text via govinfo; MDL docket; Ex Parte case page)

---

4. Pre-trial motions of substance

In the Netrality action itself:

• 2026-04-30 — Defendant's unopposed motion to extend time to answer or otherwise plead (Dkt. 17); granted 2026-05-04 (Dkt. 18), extending the deadline to 2026-06-15. (Justia docket)
• 2026-04-30 — Plaintiffs' § 1407 centralization motion (Dkt. 19). This is the only substantive pre-trial motion Plaintiffs filed in this case; it effectively displaced individual-case motion practice.
• No motion to dismiss, no § 1404 transfer motion, no stay-pending-IPR motion, and no summary-judgment motion appear in the public record for the Netrality action. I could not verify any later filings — the free docket for this case was last refreshed 2026-05-04, and the case then moved into the MDL.

Substantive motion practice elsewhere that materially affects this case:

• PTAB discretionary-denial decisions in the Vertiv IPRs (see § 8) — functionally the ruling on whether this MDL will be stayed or simplified by the Board.
• Valtrus/KPI's joinder/standing fight in the SAP and Vertiv line of cases. In Valtrus v. SAP (2:24-cv-00021, E.D. Tex.), the court held Valtrus lacks "all substantial rights" under 35 U.S.C. § 281 (KPI holds a right of first refusal on enforcement, directs enforcement, and must approve alienation) while nevertheless finding Article III standing, permitting KPI's joinder to cure. That trust-structure/standing issue recurs portfolio-wide, including for the MDL plaintiffs. (PTAB petition excerpts quoting the SAP MTD order; PTAB IPR2025-00667/668/669 decision)
• *Federal Circuit, In re SAP America, Inc., No. 2025-118 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2025) (precedential order)* — mandamus denied; Gilstrap's denial of intra-district transfer to Sherman affirmed on limited review (while criticizing two aspects of the transfer analysis). (Fed. Circuit Blog; VitalLaw text)
• Lumen's motion to sever and stay claims relating to Vertiv accused products (W.D. La., filed Aug. 2026; mooted on MDL transfer and requiring re-urging in E.D. Tex.) — the template for the customer-side stay strategy across the MDL. (PacerMonitor docket, Valtrus v. Lumen, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00670)

---

5. Claim construction (Markman)

• In the Netrality action: not reached. The case never got a scheduling order; it was transferred pre-answer.
• In the related Vertiv I action (2:24-cv-00361): Markman hearing set for 2025-10-15 before Judge Gilstrap, with a pretrial conference 2026-03-02 and jury selection 2026-04-06. Claim construction had been completed as to the '287 patent (the JPML movants cite this completion, plus the appointment of a technical advisor, as the reason to centralize in E.D. Tex.). (PTAB IPR denial quoting the E.D. Tex. calendar; PTAB decision)
• Telling development for the '277 patent: on 2025-10-09 Vertiv filed a "JOINT NOTICE re Resolution of Claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,718,277 AND 7,031,870" in the E.D. Tex. lead case, and an amended P.R. 4-5(d) claim-construction chart the same day. The effect was to narrow Vertiv I to the '287 patent alone, leaving '277 and '870 out of that case. This matters to Netrality because the '277 patent's claim-construction record from the consolidated E.D. Tex. case is thinner than the '287 record. (CourtListener docket 68526786, entries 162–163)
• Terms that will drive the MDL (drawn from the parties' P.R. 4-3/4-5 briefing): for the '277 — "empirical atmospheric map"/"empirical thermal map," "template atmospheric/thermal map," "comparing…," "pattern differentials"; for the '287 — "a method for cooling a room configured to house a plurality of computer systems," "an air conditioning unit," and "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid … to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units." (Valtrus responsive claim construction brief, Dkt. 148)

---

6. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• None in the Netrality action. No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling/discovery order, no infringement or invalidity contentions are reflected on the public docket before transfer. Netrality's answer deadline was still running when the case was centralized.
• The strategically significant discovery is the MDL-wide fight the JPML was told about: overlapping third-party equipment evidence (Vertiv, Stulz, Trane, DataAire, Schneider Electric, Automated Logic, Nlyte) recurring across defendants, and the recurring demand for plant-level/operational data from secure data-center facilities — the core evidentiary problem for the plaintiffs' method claims. (MDL 3190 brief; Ex Parte analysis)
• The related E.D. Tex. dockets show document and written discovery already substantially complete in the more advanced cases (Dkt. 155–163 filings, motions to compel, protective-order disputes, venue discovery). (CourtListener entries 95, 101, 155–163)

---

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. There has been no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion in this action. There is no publicly reported judgment, consent judgment, or appeal involving Netrality. The only scheduled trial dates in the family of cases are in E.D. Tex.: 2026-04-06 (jury selection, Valtrus v. NTT Data / Vertiv I, 2:24-cv-00361) and 2026-06-22 (the customer-side case), plus 2026-10-05 (Home Depot), 2027-03-01 (FedEx/NetApp), on other patents. (PTAB IPR denial; E.D. Tex. calendar reproduced in PTAB briefing)

---

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

The only IPRs directed at the patents asserted here were filed by Vertiv and were denied institution:

The Board's Decision Denying Institution reasoned that (i) the projected final written decision was due October 2026, unlikely to precede the parallel district-court trials set for 2026-04-06 and 2026-06-22, creating duplication and risk of inconsistent decisions; (ii) there was no evidence the district court would stay; and (iii) each challenged patent had been in force roughly twenty years, creating strong settled expectations. Petitioners' counsel: Nixon Peabody (Maloney, Schwartz, Werber, Strong). Patent Owner's counsel: Reichman Jorgensen (Colsher, Berkowitz, Houghton, Hoang, Morris). (PTAB decision text)

Consequences for the Netrality/MDL cases:

1. No IPR-based stay is available as a practical matter — the Forum's patent owner briefs in the sibling cases argue that Judge Gilstrap "rarely grants stays" and that IPRs "cannot simplify the issues" where unchallenged patents remain live. (Patent Owner Fintiv briefing)
2. Validity will be decided in E.D. Tex., and the customer-defendants (like Lumen) are pursuing sever-and-stay as to Vertiv-accused products instead of IPR stays — a strategy Netrality is well positioned to adopt given that it shares counsel with Vertiv.
3. Other, unrelated KPI-family IPRs exist on different patents (e.g., the '832 patent asserted against FedEx/NetApp/Home Depot, where institution was also denied, and a parallel ex parte reexamination 90/015,497), plus Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art contests against KPI's Malikie cryptographic patents. These do not touch the '277/'287/'682 patents but illustrate the sustained validity pressure on the KPI portfolio. (Unified Patents, 2026-04-28)

---

9. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or present posture

None of settlement/dismissal/judgment/appeal has occurred for Netrality. Present posture:

• The N.D. Ill. action (1:26-cv-03929) was transferred to MDL No. 3190 and is before Judge James Rodney Gilstrap in the E.D. Tex. for coordinated/consolidated pretrial proceedings (JPML order 2026-08-07, MDL ECF No. 64; tag-along CTOs followed through September 2026).
• Netrality's answer remained due 2026-06-15 at the last public docket pull (2026-05-04); whether it answered before transfer is not verifiable from free sources. No Rule 12 motion, counterclaim, or transfer motion by Netrality is publicly documented.
• The MDL has continued to grow (e.g., Cogent Communications transferred in as 2:26-cv-00799 on 2026-09-09, from N.D. Tex.), and Netrality's corporate-parent disclosure (Netrality Holdco Trust → Netrality Parent, LLC → Macquarie Infrastructure Partners IV DC REIT entities) was filed in the MDL on 2026-05-14.
• Watch items for the next phase: (a) a consolidated MDL scheduling order and claim-construction track before Judge Gilstrap; (b) a possible sever-and-stay motion by Netrality tracking Lumen's; and (c) Valtrus/KPI's motion to consolidate Vertiv I and Vertiv II (Dkt. 315 in 2:24-cv-00361), which remains pending and will shape how much of the MDL's '277/'682 casework collapses into the existing Vertiv DJ.

Sources: MDL 3190 docket; JPML CTO-1, govinfo; PacerMonitor, Valtrus v. Cogent, 2:26-cv-00799; MDL 3190 brief.

---

10. Sourcing caveats

• Verified (docket text / court or agency documents): filing date and judge, service date, the 4/30/2026 and 5/4/2026 extension entries, the § 1407 motion, the Aug. 7, 2026 JPML transfer to Judge Gilstrap, the Lumen sever-and-stay motion, the PTAB IPR2025-00667/-668/-669 denials, and the Oct. 9, 2025 E.D. Tex. joint notice resolving the '277 and '870 claims.
• Not verified / flagged: (i) the exact asserted-claim set for '277 in this particular case (the case metadata lists only '277; the movants' § 1407 brief describes the operator suits as '287 + '682 with only "certain cases" adding '277); (ii) whether Netrality answered before the 6/15/2026 deadline and whether any Rule 12 or sever/stay motion was filed; (iii) whether the Netrality action was in the August 7, 2026 initial transfer group or arrived via a later CTO — free sources show it as an MDL 3190 member but not which transfer vehicle. The complaint-technical discussion above relies partly on a third-party AI docket service (ai-lab.exparte.com), which should be treated as non-authoritative.

I'll research this systematically across the docket, MDL proceedings, and firm announcements.

Good grounding. Now let me pin down the appearances specifically docketed in the Netrality case (N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-03929) and the MDL 3190 master docket.

Let me pull the fuller docket text and the MDL master docket.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Key Patent Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Netrality Properties, LP, No. 1:26-cv-03929 (N.D. Ill.), now in MDL No. 3190 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Plaintiffs Key Patent Innovations Limited ("KPI") and Valtrus Innovations Limited are represented by a single primary firm — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF) — which has staffed this entire multi-defendant data-center campaign out of its Redwood Shores (CA) and Washington, D.C. offices. Three RJLF attorneys entered appearances on the N.D. Ill. docket the day the complaint was filed. No separate Chicago local-counsel appearance, and no in-house counsel, appears in the docket as retrieved. Texas-side counsel (Findlay Craft; Miller Fair Henry) appear in affiliated cases in the same MDL.

---

Appearances docketed in 1:26-cv-03929 (N.D. Ill.)

Docket citations: N.D. Ill. ECF Nos. 5 (Berkowitz), 6 (Colsher), 7 (Houghton), all entered April 8, 2026 — the same day as the complaint (ECF No. 1) — per the Justia/PACER docket sheet for 1:26-cv-03929.

MDL 3190 (E.D. Tex.) appearances

• Matthew G. Berkowitz filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs Key Patent Innovations Limited and Valtrus Innovations Limited in the MDL docket (JPML/MDL No. 3190, ECF Nos. 3–4, May 14, 2026), and signed the plaintiffs' amended certificates of service (ECF Nos. 8–9, May 15, 2026). Note the JPML docket lists KPI/Valtrus as both plaintiffs and "Defendants/Consol Defendants" because they are declaratory-judgment defendants in the related Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations action (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00084) that is consolidated into the same MDL.
• The MDL transfer motion was brought by "Plaintiffs and Declaratory Judgment Defendants Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd." (JPML, filed Apr. 28, 2026; briefing hearing set for July 30, 2026, Asheville, N.C.). The Panel's Aug. 7, 2026 transfer order assigned the MDL to Judge James Rodney Gilstrap (E.D. Tex.).

Texas-side / local counsel appearing for these plaintiffs in affiliated MDL cases (not shown on the Netrality N.D. Ill. docket)

---

Caveats and verification gaps

1. Sealed filings: No attorney-related filings in this case are sealed. The docket shows ordinary appearance forms. The sealing activity in this litigation family concerns the underlying HPE patent-purchase agreement and trust documents (see Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-07063-PCP (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026), granting redactions of the purchase agreement, trust-related board minutes, and E.D. Tex. sealed materials), not counsel identity.
2. No separate Chicago local counsel is shown. The only plaintiff-side appearances on the N.D. Ill. docket as of the last-retrieved snapshot (May 4, 2026) are the three RJLF attorneys. That is consistent with local practice — out-of-state counsel appearing pro hac vice generally must designate a member of the N.D. Ill. bar, and no such designation appears in the retrieved docket text. I could not verify a pro hac vice order or local-counsel designation for this specific case; PACER access is required for the complete docket.
3. Post-transfer E.D. Tex. appearances not verified. The N.D. Ill. case was transferred into MDL 3190 (E.D. Tex.) under CTO practice; the I could not confirm the new E.D. Tex. case number assigned to the Netrality matter or any additional appearances filed there after mid-2026. The docket aggregator for the N.D. Ill. matter lists it as closed/transferred.
4. No in-house counsel identified. KPI and Valtrus are Irish non-practicing entities (registered at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin); no in-house attorney has entered an appearance in this case.
5. Defendant's counsel (for completeness, not responsive): Timothy P. Maloney and Daniel Joel Schwartz entered appearances for Netrality Properties, LP on April 30, 2026 (N.D. Ill. ECF Nos. 15–16); Maloney also filed the MDL-wide extension motion for the defendant group.
6. Research cutoff note: I was not able to complete secondary verification against individual RJLF attorney biographies or Law360/Reuters counsel listings before exhausting my search steps. The name/role/firm pairings above are grounded in docket entries and the ip fray counsel breakdown; the "experience" notes are limited to matters documented in the retrieved sources rather than inferred.

Practice context (why this team)

RJLF is the boutique that has run essentially the entire Valtrus/KPI monetization program: the HPE data-center cooling portfolio suits against DataBank, CyrusOne, SAP, Google, Microsoft and Meta, as well as the parallel Malikie (BlackBerry portfolio) campaign against Nintendo, Canon, D-Link, OPPO and Brother. KPI/Valtrus's suits in this April 2026 wave were filed the same day in E.D. Tex. and N.D. Ill. against seven defendants, with the data-center group (STACK, EvoDC, Netrality, CoreSite, Prime Data Centers, Lumen, NTT) handled by the Colsher/Houghton/McCarthy team and the Hisense multimedia claims handled by a separate RJLF team (Colsher, Khue V. Hoang, Berkowitz, Michael Caulkins) plus Claire Abernathy Henry.

Primary sources: Justia docket, Key Patent Innovations Ltd. v. Netrality Properties, LP, No. 1:26-cv-03929 (N.D. Ill.) (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2026cv03929/[498483](/patent/498483)); JPML docket, MDL No. 3190 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/multi-district/jpml/MDL%20No.%[203190](/patent/203190)/[1752936](/patent/1752936)) and associated-case docket for ILN/1:26-cv-03929 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/multi-district/jpml/ILN/1:26-cv-03929/[1752952](/patent/1752952)); JPML Hearing Session Order (July 30, 2026); JPML CTO-1 (Aug. 2026); ip fray, "Malikie, Key Patent Innovations launch wave of multi-patent infringement suits…" (Apr. 2026); Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-07063-PCP (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026).

I'll research this case and its counsel of record. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the docket and defense counsel specifically.

Now let me confirm the firms and check for any additional counsel appearances.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Netrality Properties, LP

Short answer: Two attorneys have entered an appearance for Netrality Properties, LP in this case — Daniel Joel Schwartz and Timothy P. Maloney, both of Nixon Peabody LLP's Chicago office. Both appeared on April 30, 2026 (N.D. Ill. Dkts. 15, 16), roughly three weeks after service (Dkt. 14, served 4/10/2026). No in-house counsel, no separate Illinois "local counsel," and (as of the last retrievable docket snapshots) no separately docketed Texas local counsel have appeared.

Roster

Both are consistently listed by Law360 as Nixon Peabody (Chicago) attorneys, and Maloney's 2024 Federal Circuit argument is captioned "Timothy P. Maloney, Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL" (Fed. Cir. No. 23-1455, Rule 36 judgment).

Docket basis (N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-03929, Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.)

• Dkt. 15 — Attorney Appearance for Netrality Properties, LP by Timothy P. Maloney (4/30/2026).
• Dkt. 16 — Attorney Appearance for Netrality Properties, LP by Daniel Joel Schwartz (4/30/2026).
• Dkt. 17 — Motion by Netrality Properties, LP for extension of time to answer (signed/filed by Schwartz, 4/30/2026).
• Dkt. 18 — Minute entry (5/4/2026) granting extension to answer or otherwise plead through 6/15/2026.

Because both attorneys are Chicago-based and (per firm bios) admitted in the N.D. Ill., the docket shows no pro hac vice motions and no separate local-counsel designation — the Nixon Peabody Chicago team functions as counsel of record in this district.

MDL-wide activity

The case was centralized into MDL No. 3190, In re: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, transferred to the E.D. Tex. (Judge James Rodney Gilstrap) by Panel order dated August 7, 2026 (MDL No. 3190, ECF No. 64). On the J.P.M.L. side:

• MDL No. 3190, Dkt. 6 (5/14/2026) — Notice of Appearance by Daniel J. Schwartz on behalf of Netrality Properties, LP and other data-center defendants (Iron Mountain, H5 Data Centers, et al.).
• MDL No. 3190, Dkt. 10 (5/15/2026) — Motion for extension of time filed by Timothy P. Maloney on behalf of Netrality and the other data-center defendants.
• MDL No. 3190, Dkt. 12 (6/5/2026) — Joint response in opposition, filed by Schwartz for the same group.

Caveats / gaps

• No answer or dispositive motion by Netrality is reflected on the retrievable dockets. The last public N.D. Ill. docket snapshot available to me was retrieved May 4, 2026; the J.P.M.L. docket snapshot was last retrieved June 5, 2026. Anything filed after those dates (including the 6/15/2026 responsive pleading, any Rule 12 motion, or any new E.D. Tex. appearances) is not reflected in the sources I could reach.
• Lead-counsel designation: neither the N.D. Ill. docket nor the J.P.M.L. docket formally designates a "lead counsel." My characterization of Schwartz as lead day-to-day counsel is inferred from who filed the substantive papers; Maloney's greater trial/Federal Circuit profile and his role on the consolidated MDL defense filings suggests he is likely lead trial counsel.
• In-house counsel: none has appeared. Netrality's Rule 7.1/JPML corporate disclosure identifies it as indirectly held through Netrality Holdco Trust, Netrality Parent LLC, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners IV REIT/AIV entities (MDL No. 3190, Dkt. 7, 5/14/2026) — that is corporate-parent disclosure only, not a counsel appearance.
• E.D. Tex. local counsel: I found no docketed Texas local counsel specifically for Netrality. (By contrast, co-defendants in the parallel cases retained local counsel — e.g., Claire E. Juneau for Lumen in W.D. La., Eric Ferrante in D.N.J. — but those are different defendants.) Note that Maloney's firm bio lists E.D. Tex. admission, so no local-counsel requirement may be triggered.
• Sealed filings: none of the defense-side filings I located are sealed; the docket does not disclose any sealed counsel or anonymous representation.

For context (plaintiffs' side, not asked but relevant for cross-reference)

Plaintiffs Key Patent Innovations Ltd. and Valtrus Innovations Ltd. are represented by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Matthew G. Berkowitz (Redwood Shores, CA), Patrick Colsher and Sean M. McCarthy (New York), and Connor S. Houghton (Washington, D.C.) — the same team that filed the N.D. Ill. complaints (Dkts. 5–8).

Sources relied on

• Justia Dockets, N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-03929 docket sheet (retrieved 5/4/2026): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2026cv03929/498483
• Justia Dockets, J.P.M.L. MDL 3190 tag-along docket for ILN/1:26-cv-03929 (retrieved 6/5/2026): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/multi-district/jpml/ILN/1:26-cv-03929/1752952
• J.P.M.L. Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-1) in In re Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3190 (transfer order Aug. 7, 2026; assignment to Judge Gilstrap): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00762/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00762-0.pdf
• J.P.M.L. motion-for-transfer briefing citing Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. Netrality Properties, LP, No. 26-cv-03929 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026): https://mdlcases.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/MDL-3190.pdf
• Law360 firm/attorney profiles for Daniel J. Schwartz and Timothy P. Maloney (Nixon Peabody, Chicago): https://www.law360.com/firms/nixon-peabody/attorneys/daniel-j-schwartz ; https://www.law360.com/firms/nixon-peabody/attorneys/timothy-p-maloney
• Super Lawyers profile (Nixon Peabody, 70 W. Madison St., Ste. 5200, Chicago): https://profiles.superlawyers.com/illinois/chicago/lawyer/timothy-p-maloney/dbdf2a8d-75d2-40be-8a5a-96cf12da01c2.html
• Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment, No. 23-1455 (6/5/2024) (Maloney, Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, for appellant): https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1455.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.6-5-2024_2329061.pdf
• Legacy Fitch Even bio for Maloney (pre-Nixon Peabody combination) documenting his trial/IPR track record: http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=3&A=2601&format=xml&p=5482

Not confirmed / do not rely on: the new E.D. Tex. MDL case number for this particular Netrality action; any post-June-2026 appearances; and any Netrality in-house attorney identity. Those require a fresh PACER pull of the E.D. Tex. MDL 3190 docket.