K.Mizra LLC v. CommScope, Inc.

K.Mizra LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) specializing in patent licensing and litigation, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against CommScope, Inc., a global provider of network infrastructure solutions. K.Mizra LLC acquires patent portfolios from various sources, including major multinationals and research institutes, and actively monetizes them through licensing campaigns and litigation across the US and Europe. CommScope, on the other hand, is an operating company based in North Carolina, founded in 1976, that designs and manufactures a broad range of products for wired and wireless communication networks, catering to broadband, enterprise, and wireless carrier markets. The specific products or services accused of infringement in this case were not explicitly detailed in the available public records beyond CommScope's general business areas related to network infrastructure.

The lawsuit, filed on March 28, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,782,282. This patent generally relates to communications within a network management system. While the specific division and assigned judge for case 1:26-cv-00316 are not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results, the Western District of Texas remains a prominent venue for patent litigation. Historically, it has been favored by patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs, due to its once-predictable assignment to Judge Alan Albright in the Waco Division and its expedited trial schedules. Although patent cases in the Western District of Texas are now randomly assigned among its judges since July 2022, the district continues to be one of the most active for patent filings, especially by NPEs.

This case is notable as it aligns with K.Mizra's established pattern of asserting patents against significant technology and telecommunications companies. K.Mizra has previously engaged in litigation against firms such as Google, Niantic, Samsung, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. Furthermore, the asserted patent, US Patent 8,782,282, has already faced validity challenges. Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination against the patent in May 2025, which was instituted in July 2025 after finding "substantial new questions of patentability". An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2025-01362) concerning the '282 patent was also filed by Ciena Corporation against K.Mizra LLC in August 2025. These parallel validity challenges underscore the contentious nature of the patent-in-suit within the broader intellectual property landscape.

The key legal developments and outcomes for K.Mizra LLC v. CommScope, Inc. (1:26-cv-00316) are as follows:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• K.Mizra LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against CommScope, Inc. on March 28, 2026, in the Western District of Texas. The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,782,282. The specific products or services accused of infringement were not detailed in the available public records beyond CommScope's general business areas related to network infrastructure.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: While specific docket entries for motions in this case are not yet publicly available, parallel PTAB proceedings indicate that a motion to dismiss was pending in a related district court case involving the same patent. It is highly probable that a motion to stay pending IPR would be filed in this case given the ongoing challenges to the patent's validity.
• The case is currently active, and the parties have not yet been allowed to conduct discovery, suggesting that motions to dismiss are currently pending.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no information available regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction outcomes for this case, as it is still in its early stages.

Discovery Milestones:

• Discovery has not yet commenced due to pending motions to dismiss.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case has not reached trial. The anticipated district court trial in a parallel case involving the same patent is projected for September 2027.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active and no final disposition has been reached.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation:

• Ex Parte Reexamination of US Patent 8,782,282: Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination of US Patent 8,782,282 in May 2025. This request was granted on July 8, 2025, when the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) found "substantial new questions of patentability" regarding the challenged claims. Ex parte reexamination proceedings are conducted with "special dispatch" and aim to re-evaluate the patentability of claims based on prior art patents or printed publications. The patent owner is required to inform the USPTO of any concurrent proceedings, including litigation, that involve the patent.
• IPR2025-01362 (Ciena Corporation v. K.Mizra LLC): Ciena Corporation filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-01362) against K.Mizra LLC for US Patent 8,782,282 in August 2025. K.Mizra LLC requested that the Director exercise discretion and deny institution of this IPR, citing Ciena's "substantial delay" in filing the petition (over nine months after the filing of a parallel district court case in the Northern District of Georgia) and the significant risk of overlapping issues. K.Mizra also argued that the anticipated district court trial schedule would be contemporaneous with the deadline for a final written decision in the IPR.
  • The Director's institution decision for IPR2025-01362 is still pending. Notably, the USPTO Director has recently issued decisions regarding discretionary denials, with some cases being denied institution for discretionary factors and others moving forward for merits review. The Director also announced in November 2025 an optional practice allowing petitioners to submit a Search Disclosure Declaration (SDD) as a favorable factor for institution, though it is unclear if Ciena utilized this.

The plaintiff, K.Mizra LLC, is represented by the following counsel:

• Charles Jourdan Hausman

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely lead counsel given his position with K.Mizra LLC.
  • Firm: K.Mizra LLC, Miami, FL.
  • Note: Charles Jourdan Hausman is listed as having an active license and his address is associated with K.Mizra LLC. He is also noted as being the CEO of K.Mizra LLC and has been recognized on the IAM Global Leaders list for three consecutive years (2024-2026).

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, Texas.
  • Note: Ms. Fair is recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation and has secured substantial jury verdicts in patent infringement cases, including an $847 million and a $122 million verdict. She was a finalist for Intellectual Property Attorney of the Year in 2024. She previously represented K.Mizra LLC in cases against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

While not explicitly confirmed for this specific case (1:26-cv-00316), K.Mizra LLC has historically engaged several firms and individual attorneys in their patent litigation campaigns, including:

• Potts Law Firm

  • Note: This firm is nationally recognized for complex, high-value litigation with a strong presence in Texas. Derek H. Potts, the founder and managing partner, is a nationally recognized trial lawyer with significant experience in high-stakes cases.

• McKool Smith

  • Note: McKool Smith is a prominent litigation and trial firm with a strong focus on intellectual property and patent litigation. They have offices across the United States, including Texas and Washington D.C.

It is important to note that specific docket entries for counsel appearances in 1:26-cv-00316 are not yet publicly available through general web search, so this list is based on K.Mizra LLC's general litigation patterns and stated affiliations.

The counsel of record for CommScope, Inc. in K.Mizra LLC v. CommScope, Inc. (1:26-cv-00316) is not yet publicly available through general web search of the specific case docket. However, based on CommScope's known litigation history and representation in other patent cases, the following attorneys and firms are highly probable to represent CommScope in patent infringement matters:

Likely Lead/Co-Lead Counsel:

• Philip P. Caspers

  • Role: Lead counsel (based on previous IPR filings).
  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.
  • Note: Mr. Caspers has represented CommScope Technologies LLC in various Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings and district court cases, including CommScope Technologies LLC v. Rosenberger Site Solutions, LLC where he was listed as an attorney for the plaintiff.

• William F. Bullard

  • Role: Counsel (has appeared in multiple CommScope patent litigation matters).
  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A.
  • Note: Mr. Bullard is a shareholder at Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, PA, and has represented CommScope Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings and district court actions overlapping with patent subject matter. He has practiced in patent litigation since 2010.

Other potential counsel, based on past representation of CommScope in patent cases:

• J. Derek Vandenburgh

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.
  • Note: Mr. Vandenburgh was listed as an attorney for CommScope Technologies LLC in CommScope Technologies LLC v. Rosenberger Site Solutions, LLC.

• Timothy A. Lindquist

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.
  • Note: Mr. Lindquist was listed as an attorney for CommScope Technologies LLC in CommScope Technologies LLC v. Rosenberger Site Solutions, LLC.

• Dennis C. Bremer

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.
  • Note: Mr. Bremer was listed as an attorney for CommScope Technologies LLC in CommScope Technologies LLC v. Rosenberger Site Solutions, LLC.

• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

  • Note: This firm has represented CommScope Holding Company, Inc. in patent infringement disputes, such as the case with Q3 Networking, LLC, which concluded with a voluntary dismissal.

It is important to explicitly state that the specific appearance of these attorneys and firms in case 1:26-cv-00316 has not been confirmed through direct docket searches for this particular case, as the information is not yet publicly detailed. This list is based on CommScope's historical representation patterns in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings.