K.Mizra LLC v. Nokia Corporation et al.

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

I have substantial material. Now let me pin down the procedural posture, trial status, and any IPR activity.

Now let me pin down the trial date, the summary-judgment outcomes, and the parallel PTAB/reexam activity.

Case Overview — K.Mizra LLC v. Nokia Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00974-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Parties and what they do. K.Mizra LLC is a Delaware LLC headquartered in Miami, Florida, that does not make or sell products — it is a patent monetization vehicle (NPE/PAE) whose asserted portfolio was assembled by assignment: the five patents originated with Hammerhead Systems, Inc., passed to Brixham Solutions Ltd. and then to Global Innovation Aggregators LLC before reaching K.Mizra (Compl. ¶26, Dkt. 1). On the other side are three Nokia entities: Nokia Corporation (Finland), Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy (Finland, the network-infrastructure operating arm), and Nokia of America Corporation (the U.S. sales/service subsidiary). The complaint is directed principally at Nokia's carrier routing and network-orchestration business. K.Mizra is represented by Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX) and Folio Law Group; Nokia by Alston & Bird LLP, with local counsel appearing on the docket (Deron Dacus; appearances at Dkts. 11–15) — note that K.Mizra twice moved to disqualify both Alston & Bird (Dkt. 195) and Nokia's technical expert Richard Gitlin (Dkt. 135), and both motions were denied on the merits at the October 20, 2026 pretrial conference (Dkt. filed 10/23/2026, items 1–3).

Accused technology. The complaint identifies two buckets of accused instrumentalities: (i) "Accused Nokia Network Operations Instrumentalities" — the Network Services Platform (NSP) and its Transport Slice Controller, Nokia Services Director, Digital Operations Center, Orchestration Center, Assurance Center, Unified Inventory, and an E2E Network Slice Orchestrator; and (ii) "Accused Nokia Router Instrumentalities" — Nokia's Service Router Operating System (SR OS), its BGP VPLS solution, and the 7750 SR, 7710 SR, 710 SR, 7450 ESS and 7x50 SR/ESS platforms (Compl. ¶¶2–3, 59–60, 109). In substance K.Mizra alleges that Nokia's MPLS pseudowire, VPLS/PBB-VPLS, pseudowire-redundancy and segment-routing/transport-slice features practice the claims — e.g., the PBB-VPLS "MAC-hiding … pseudowire aggregation" model for the '354 and '880 patents, and SR OS "pseudowire redundancy"/"VPLS link redundancy" for the '249 patent (Compl. ¶¶92–95, 110–120). Infringement is pleaded both directly and under § 271(b) inducement (based on Nokia documentation/training materials), with willfulness predicated on March 5, 2024 notice letters that included element-by-element claim charts (Compl. ¶¶69–71, 85–87).

(Claim sets and asserted priority dates per Nokia's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, which reproduce K.Mizra's March 12, 2025 Infringement Contentions.)

Procedural posture and venue significance. Filed November 25, 2024 in the Marshall Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with a jury demand and a technical advisor (Michael Dean Paul) appointed. The case has moved very fast by EDTX standards: docket control order (Dkt. 27), preliminary invalidity contentions, a March 31, 2026 Markman hearing and an April 14, 2026 claim construction opinion (Dkt. 124), then a heavy dispositive/Daubert/MIL docket (Dkts. 125–151, 195, 232–257) resolved from the bench at an October 20, 2026 pretrial conference, memorialized in the October 23, 2026 order — so trial was imminent in the October/November 2026 trial term. Venue is not seriously contested: the complaint grounds it on Nokia of America's regular and established places of business in the district (offices in Lewisville and Plano) plus § 1391(c)(3) for the foreign defendants (Compl. ¶¶19–21). Marshall matters here for the usual reasons plus a specific one: Judge Gilstrap's patent docket is fast and trial-tested, and this is a legacy-standard case (2005–2007 priority dates asserted against today's shipping SR OS releases), which magnifies both the royalty base and the read-across risk for the rest of the carrier-router industry. The claim construction outcome was largely pro-patentee — VSI construed broadly as "a learning bridge …," "preemption" given plain meaning rather than Nokia's "dropping" gloss, and Nokia's in-band-control-plane exclusion rejected under the "comprising" presumption — which materially shaped the pretrial rulings (Dkt. 124 at 11–17).

Why it is notable. Three things stand out. First, the plaintiff-side posture: K.Mizra runs a broad campaign on this Brixham/Hammerhead-origin MPLS/pseudowire family across vendors and non-vendors alike — parallel actions include K.Mizra v. Ciena (N.D. Ga., asserting the '282, '176 and '320 patents, currently stayed on Ciena's motions to dismiss), *K.Miz

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with broad searches on the litigation and the patents.

Key developments through late 2026 are emerging. Let me dig into the Markman order, the pretrial rulings, and any trial/verdict.

The Markman stage is confirmed. Now let me nail down the PTAB proceedings, the summary judgment rulings, and whether trial/verdict occurred.

K.Mizra LLC v. Nokia Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00974-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — Chronology of Key Legal Developments

Research note / confidence levels: The public record for this case is unusually thin on narrative coverage (no Law360/Reuters/IPWatchdog reporting surfaced), but two primary-source opinions are available on GovInfo (the Markman order and the October 2026 pretrial omnibus order), plus the live docket, Nokia's P.R. 3-3 contentions, and a PTAB petition file that discusses this case. Where I could not confirm an event (e.g., the answer's exact filing date, the outcomes of the individual summary-judgment motions, whether a verdict issued), I say so explicitly rather than infer.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Substance of the complaint. Five patents from the Ping Pan / Richard Gitlin "pseudowire" family, acquired through Hammerhead Systems → Brixham Solutions → Global Innovation Aggregators → K.Mizra:

• '176 (Global IP-Based Service Oriented Network Architecture) — claims 1–7, 9–11, 13–16, 18–20; priority 2006-08-04
• '320 (Application Wire) — claims 1–5, 7–12, 14–20; priority 2005-10-07
• '354 (PBB/MPLS service mapping) — claims 1–3, 5–6, 9–10, 12–13, 16–18, 20; priority 2007-01-25
• '249 (Pseudowire protection using a standby pseudowire) — claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13; priority 2005-02-14
• '880 (L2VPN over Ethernet / fast convergence) — claims 1, 14, 26, 39; priority 2007-03-26

(Asserted-claim/priority mapping is taken from Nokia's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, which recite K.Mizra's 2025-03-12 infringement contentions.)

Two accused product families: (i) "Network Operations Instrumentalities" — Nokia Digital Operations Center, Orchestration Center, Assurance Center, Unified Inventory, Network Services Platform (NSP) including Transport Slice Controller, Services Director, E2E Network Slice Orchestrator; and (ii) "Router Instrumentalities" — SR OS, BGP VPLS, 7750 SR, 7710 SR, 710 SR, 7450 ESS, 7x50 SR/ESS. Venue was pleaded primarily on the Plano, Texas facility (NokiaEDU Training Center).

Pleadings-stage observation: no Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss and no § 1404(a) transfer motion appears in the records I could retrieve. The foreign-defendant venue theory (§ 1391(c)(3)) was pleaded in the complaint but apparently never tested by motion — a notable non-event given that NSN Oy and Nokia Corp. are Finnish entities and Judge Gilstrap's docket has seen such challenges in parallel K.Mizra cases. Flagging this as an absence of evidence, not proof of absence.

---

2. Case management and invalidity contentions

• Docket Control Order (Dkt. 27) set the P.R. 3-3/3-4 deadlines and the trial setting.
• 2025-03-12 — K.Mizra serves asserted claims/infringement contentions.
• Nokia's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (date not stated on the face of the excerpt; served after the 2025-03-12 contentions) assert §§ 101, 102, 103 and 112 against all asserted claims, and preview an Alice challenge to at least representative claim 9 of the '176 patent. Nokia simultaneously attacked the infringement contentions as deficient under P.R. 3-1 — an early signal that K.Mizra's theory (NSP/SDN orchestration software as the infringing "node device") would be the central vulnerability.
• Technical Advisor appointed: Michael Dean Paul (per GovInfo party metadata) — relevant because the claim construction involved packet-networking pseudowire/PBB-VPLS terminology.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Markman hearing: 2026-03-31 (Judge Gilstrap).
• Markman order: 2026-04-14 — Memorandum Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Dkt. 124. (GovInfo PDF; Justia text; analysis)

Three terms were presented. Net result: largely a K.Mizra win.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff K.Mizra LLC — K.Mizra LLC v. Nokia Corp. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00974-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

K.Mizra is represented entirely by outside counsel. No in-house/general-counsel appearance appears on the docket; K.Mizra is a non-practicing-entity patent owner with no litigation department reflected in the record.

Core trial team — Folio Law Group PLLC

Appearances in this case: Dkt. Nos. 6 (Abraham), 7 (Win), 8 (Leffler), and 9 (Dewberry), all filed November 27, 2024 — two days after the complaint. Docket snapshot: Justia docket 2:2024cv00974.

Local counsel

Case-specific litigation conduct (context for the team's role)

The Folio/Henry team has litigated an unusually contentious pretrial phase against Nokia's Alston & Bird team, including K.Mizra's motion to disqualify Nokia's counsel Alston & Bird LLP (Dkt. 195) and a related request for hearing (Dkt. 249), plus a motion to disqualify/exclude Nokia expert Dr. Richard Gitlin (Dkt. 135). Per the Court's memorandum opinion and order following the October 20, 2026 pretrial conference, the Gitlin disqualification was denied in substance (Court found no sharing of confidential strategic material) and the Alston & Bird disqualification motion was resolved at/after the pretrial conference. See govinfo, 2:24-cv-00974, Dkt. 1 opinion PDF. Claim construction was decided by Judge Gilstrap on April 14, 2026 (Memorandum Claim Construction Opinion and Order).

Sourcing caveats

• The docket entries I can verify (Nos. 6–10, and the Justia docket snapshot last retrieved January 6, 2025) establish the four Folio appearances and Ms. Henry's role in the initial filings. The public docket snapshots available to me do not contain a formal "Notice of Lead Counsel" designation, so "lead counsel" for Leffler is inferred from K.Mizra's consistent practice in its other cases and his first-listing in Folio signature blocks; Win and Dewberry are likewise listed as lead/back-up in K.Mizra's PTAB powers of attorney.
• I could not verify whether any substitution of counsel, additional pro hac vice admissions, or withdrawal occurred between mid-2025 and the October 2026 pretrial conference; the later filings I retrieved (pretrial order, claim construction order) do not reproduce a full counsel list in the text available to me. If a 2026 substitution exists, it is not reflected in what I can source.
• Not counsel: "Michael Dean Paul, Technical Advisor" appears in the govinfo case metadata — he is the Court's appointed technical advisor, not plaintiff's counsel.
• Note for completeness: in K.Mizra's separate case against Silicon Motion (No. 2:24-cv-00101-JRG), the March 5, 2025 joint filing lists Patrick J. Conroy (Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Dallas) as "Lead Attorney" for K.Mizra — a different defense-side/co-counsel arrangement that does not appear in the Nokia docket and should not be attributed to this case.

I'll research Nokia's counsel of record from the docket, firm pages, and press coverage.

Good initial picture. Now let me verify each Alston & Bird attorney and check for later appearances.

Counsel of Record for the Defendants (Nokia)

Bottom line. Nokia is defended by a national trial team from Alston & Bird LLP, with The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, TX) as East Texas local counsel. Four Alston & Bird attorneys entered appearances for all three Nokia entities on the same day (Jan. 6, 2025, Dkts. 12–15); Dacus made the first defense filing (Dkt. 11, Dec. 10, 2024). Alston & Bird's role as Nokia's counsel is independently confirmed by the Court's October 23, 2026 pretrial order resolving "Plaintiff K.Mizra's Motion To Disqualify Nokia's Counsel Alston & Bird LLP (Dkt. No. 195)" — denied on the merits.

Notes, caveats, and things I could not confirm

• Docket coverage is partial. The free docket snapshot (Justia, last retrieved Jan. 6, 2025) ends at Dkt. 15, so it captures only the initial appearances. Additional Alston & Bird appearances almost certainly exist in the 250+ docket entries generated between January 2025 and the October 2026 pretrial conference (Dkts. 125–151, 195, 232–257). Those later notices are behind PACER; I did not invent names to fill the gap. If you need the complete appearance list as of trial, a PACER pull of the docket's "Attorneys" tab is the only reliable source.
• One possibly relevant name I could not verify. A Law360 firm-page listing for Alston & Bird shows Cathina LeAnn Gunn-Rosas (Euless, TX) tagged to "Patent / Texas Eastern" and to this case's filing date. She does not appear on the Justia counsel listing, and I found no appearance notice or firm bio confirming her role. Treat as unconfirmed/likely a Law360 data artifact rather than counsel of record.
• Do not confuse with prior Nokia matters. Michael Clayton Deane (Alston & Bird, Atlanta) appears on Nokia powers of attorney in the consolidated TQ Delta action, No. 2:21-cv-309 — I found no evidence he has appeared in this case.
• Counsel consistency with the earlier case sections. These appearances corroborate the two disqualification fights noted in the overview: the attack on Alston & Bird (Dkt. 195) was an attack on the trial team listed above (Davison/Stevens as the likely targets of any conflict theory), and the attack on Nokia's technical expert Richard Gitlin (Dkt. 135) was aimed at the defense case that team built. Both were denied on October 23, 2026, and the Court ordered a joint status report on how to proceed by November 10, 2026 — meaning the Alston & Bird team remains intact and pressing toward the imminent trial setting.
• No in-house counsel identified. I found no Nokia legal-department attorney on the docket or in any accessible filing. Nokia's pleadings are signed by outside counsel.
• For completeness (plaintiff's side, not asked but useful for service/meet-and-confer): K.Mizra is represented by Claire Abernathy Henry (Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX; Dkt. 1 signatory) and Folio Law Group PLLC (Seattle) — Timothy Franklin Dewberry, Cristofer Ivan Leffler, Cliff Win, Jr., and Joseph Michael Abraham (Dkts. 6–9).

Would you like me to next pull the complete PACER appearance list, or profile the defense expert witnesses (Gitlin, Bakewell, Poret, Taylor, Raffalovich, Stasik, Groehn) that this team put forward?