Lab Technology LLC v. 3CX USA Corp.

I'll research this case across dockets, patent records, and litigation-tracking sources.

Now let me dig into the patent itself, the plaintiff entity, the defendant, and any PTAB/IPR activity.

Let me verify the defendant, plaintiff ownership chain, and the broader assertion campaign.

Case Overview: Lab Technology LLC v. 3CX USA Corp., No. 1:25-cv-22704 (S.D. Fla.)

The parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico-registered entity whose principal place of business is listed at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE, Ste N, Albuquerque, NM 87110 — a commercial mail/registered-agent address rather than an operating facility (this identification appears in Lab Technology's own complaint in a parallel case, Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2025)). Lab Technology has no product business; it is a patent-assertion entity (PAE/NPE) that acquired a telecom patent portfolio originally developed by TP Lab, Inc. (California), whose named inventors are Chi Fai Ho and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu (see the assignment recorded at Reel/Frame 030552/0805 and the patent bibliographic record for U.S. 8,483,102). It is represented in this case by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) and Terry Marcus Sanks (Beusse Sanks PLLC) — a recurring pairing across the campaign; D.E. 5 (Bar Letter re: Rabicoff, June 17, 2025). Defendant 3CX USA Corp. is the U.S. arm of 3CX, the Cyprus-founded (2005, founder/CEO Nick Galea) developer of the open-standards, software-based 3CX Phone System / IP PBX and unified-communications suite, whose U.S. operations are based in Tampa, Florida — which is what makes the Southern District of Florida a natural (and likely uncontested) venue. 3CX was an operating company with real UCaaS/PBX products, not an NPE.

Accused technology and asserted patent. The single patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 B1, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes" (issued July 9, 2013; App. No. 11/926,390, filed Oct. 29, 2007; priority to Nov. 2, 2004 through parent U.S. 7,391,858; continuation U.S. 9,413,895). In one line: it claims a policy processor coupled to a telephony switch that stores a "voice identity mapping policy" — search voice identities mapped to target voice identities, where the target identity comprises a username, and time attributes governing when each mapping is valid — and uses that mapping to complete routing of a call. Functionally, it is an enterprise call-routing / presence-and-forwarding patent for environments where a user is reachable across multiple phone systems (PBX extension, mobile, VoIP/username, voice mail), which is why the assertion targets 3CX's core PBX and call-routing software. The '102 patent is part of a small TP Lab family that also includes U.S. 8,503,973 ("Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location," the E911/NG911 patent) and U.S. 9,219,982 — the other two patents Lab Technology asserts in related suits (e.g., '973 against Sangoma and alongside '102 against Lumen; '973 + '982 against Everbridge; '982 against LifeStation). Public coverage of the accused products here is thin: I found no publicly available claim chart or product-version identification for the 3CX accusation, and secondary write-ups describing "3CX's PBX and call-routing offerings" as the accused functionality are AI-generated blog summaries, not primary sources.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed June 16, 2025 in the Miami Division of the S.D. Fla. and assigned to U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles (D.E. 2; Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman noted as available for consent). The complaint (D.E. 1) was accompanied by the usual AO 120 notice to the USPTO Director (D.E. 4), and Judge Gayles issued his standard Notice of Court Practice (D.E. 6). 3CX USA was served June 23, 2025 with a July 14 response deadline (D.E. 7), but never answered: two unopposed extensions — filed on July 2 (D.E. 8, granted D.E. 9 on July 11, moving the deadline to Aug. 13) and again on Aug. 13 (D.E. 10, granted D.E. 11, moving it to Aug. 27) — pushed the response date out; the second motion was additionally docketed as a motion to stay "per chambers," a noteworthy signal of a contemplated global resolution whose basis is not explained anywhere in the public record. Lab Technology then voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the case closed Aug. 20, 2025 — 65 days after filing, before any answer, claim construction, or merits ruling, with the dismissal providing that each side bear its own fees, costs, and expenses (so no § 285 fee-shifting). Why the case is notable: (1) it is one thread of a deliberate, multi-defendant, multi-district 2024–2025 assertion wave by a single newly formed NPE using the same two counsel and the same TP Lab patents against VoIP/UCaaS, telecom, emergency-notification and GPS/IoT defendants (3CX, Mitel, Sangoma, Everbridge, LifeStation, Lumen, AT&T, u-blox, EXFO, Trimble, ETA Transit, Bitrix/Alaio, among others), which is the kind of campaign that draws RPX/Unified Patents monitoring; (2) the "file, extend, walk away with prejudice" pattern here and in sibling suits is a recognized nuisance-value/licensing-negotiation posture that produces no precedent and leaves the patents' validity untested; and (3) market context — because the '102 family claims priority to 2004 and the asserted patent faces a normal 20-year term measured from its 2007 filing (i.e., expiration in the late 2020s, subject to any patent term adjustment), the assertion window for this portfolio is closing, which is a plausible but unsourced motivation for the assertion timing.

Sourcing caveats. Docket-level facts above come from the PACER/CourtListener and Justia docket mirrors for 1:25-cv-22704 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2025cv22704/[691800](/patent/691800)) and the Lumen complaint in W.D. Tex. I was unable to verify: the exact state of incorporation and officers of 3CX USA Corp.; whether any IPR/PGR petition has ever been filed against U.S. 8,483,102 or its family members (no PTAB proceeding was found, but my search was not exhaustive); and the substance of the 3CX infringement contentions, since no claim chart is publicly posted. I also found no Reuters/Law360/IPWatchdog/RPX/Unified Patents primary coverage of this specific case; the most detailed third-party write-ups (Patsnap "Eureka" litigation articles) appear to be AI-generated and contain demonstrable errors — e.g., attributing a sibling S.D. Fla. case to "Chief Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II" and citing a case number that does not match the docket — so their party, product, and product-version characterizations should not be relied on. Note also that the docket codes the cause of action as "15 U.S.C. § 1126 Patent Infringement," which appears to be a clerk coding artifact rather than a substantive theory.

I'll research this case using the tools available.

Let me dig deeper into the docket details, the patent, and any parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me check the specific docket entries, the patent's PTAB history, and the broader assertion campaign.

Bottom line

This case has an unusually thin legal record: it was filed 2025-06-16 and terminated 2025-08-20 — 65 days — by the plaintiff's own unilateral notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, before 3CX ever answered. Almost every category you asked about (motions to dismiss/transfer/stay, Markman, discovery, trial, JMOL/fees, appeal) was simply never reached. What little exists on the docket is procedural. Below is the chronology, with sourcing caveats flagged.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2025-06-16 — Complaint (DE 1). Lab Technology LLC filed a one-patent infringement action against 3CX USA Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes." Per the complaint's own patent paragraph (as reproduced in Lab Technology's parallel pleadings), the '102 patent issued 2013-07-09 from an application filed 2007-10-29. Same-day docket activity:

• DE 2 — Clerk's notice of assignment to Judge Darrin P. Gayles (Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman available by consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)).
• DE 3 — Summons issued.
• DE 4 — Form AO 120 (patent report) sent to the Director of the USPTO.
• Jury demand by plaintiff.

2025-06-17 — DE 6, Notice of Court Practice. Judge Gayles' standing practice order on motion formatting and joint filings (with a sanctions warning).

2025-06-17 — DE 5, Bar letter re admissions sent to plaintiff's counsel Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC). This is a meaningful detail: Rabicoff was not admitted to the S.D. Fla. bar and required pro hac vice admission, which is consistent with the pattern in this docket of the local firm, Terry Marcus Sanks of Beusse Sanks PLLC, doing the actual ECF filing for the plaintiff.

2025-06-23 — Service on 3CX USA Corp. (DE 7, affidavit of service filed 2025-06-24). Rule 12 response deadline set at 2025-07-14.

Answer/counterclaims: none. No answer, no Rule 12 motion, and no counterclaims (invalidity or non-infringement) were ever filed. The docket ends before the responsive pleading.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None of the substantive categories occurred. There was:

• No motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2), (3), or (6)).
• No § 1404(a) transfer motion and no § 1406 challenge — notable because 3CX is a U.S. subsidiary of a Swiss company, and venue/personal jurisdiction would ordinarily be the first battleground.
• No motion to stay pending IPR (see §7 — no IPR existed to stay for).

The only motions practice was procedural time extensions, all filed by the plaintiff on the defendant's behalf and all unopposed:

• 2025-07-02 — DE 8: unopposed motion to extend 3CX's response deadline; granted 2025-07-11 (DE 9), resetting the response to 2025-08-13.
• 2025-08-13 — DE 10: unopposed motion for a further extension; granted 2025-08-13 (DE 11), resetting the response to 2025-08-27.

Flag on DE 10: the Justia docket carries the chambers annotation "Added MOTION to Stay on 8/13/2025 per chambers(mf)." I cannot determine from the public sources I could retrieve whether the parties were actually seeking a stay (e.g., to await a licensing discussion or a co-pending proceeding) or whether the clerk merely re-coded the request as a stay of the current deadline. Do not treat "motion to stay" as an established fact of substance — treat it as a docket-coding artifact worth pulling the actual PDF (PACER DE 10) to resolve. This is the single most interesting unexplained entry in the file.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order. The patent has therefore never been construed by any court in a public ruling, and there is no claim-scope guidance for practitioners from this litigation.

4. Discovery milestones

Not reached. No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery plan, no initial disclosures, no ESI order, no infringement/invalidity contentions, no depositions. The case terminated roughly two weeks before 3CX's first extended answer deadline, and roughly nine weeks after service. No protective-order or discovery-dispute activity exists on the docket.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

Not reached. No Markman-plus-trial track, no pretrial order, no jury, no verdict, no JMOL under Rule 50, no new-trial motion under Rule 59, and — importantly — no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Because 3CX never had to defend the merits, it had no basis for an exceptional-case motion, and it did not obtain one.

6. Final disposition

2025-08-20 — Terminated: voluntary dismissal with prejudice, effected by Lab Technology's notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (unilateral dismissal by notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment). The case metadata you supplied — "dismissed with prejudice," no fee-shifting, no damages, no merits ruling — is authoritative.

Two consequences worth stating precisely:

• Preclusive effect, narrow. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes as to 3CX and the same patent/accused conduct only. It does not estop Lab Technology from asserting the '102 patent against any other party, and it creates no invalidity or unenforceability finding that other defendants could leverage. The patent remains presumptively valid under § 282.
• The "with prejudice" direction is itself a signal. Public-source reporting (Patsnap's AI-generated litigation note, a secondary source I'd treat cautiously) states the dismissal order provided each side bear its own fees, costs, and expenses, and that no payment was disclosed. A voluntary dismissal entered with prejudice, in a case where the defendant had not yet answered and had twice received gratuitous extensions arranged by the plaintiff, is the classic public-facing form of a confidential settlement or license — but no settlement agreement, license, or payment amount appears in the public record, and I found no court order, press release, or SEC-type disclosure confirming one. Treat "settled and licensed" as inference, not fact.
• No appeal. No notice of appeal, and the window for one (30 days from entry of judgment) passed without any Eleventh Circuit docket activity that I could locate.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '102 patent

I could not identify any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 — no instituted proceeding, and no petition that I was able to confirm. Because I could not run a full PTAB docket sweep, I will state this as "not found in the sources retrieved," not as "confirmed none exist." If you need certainty, the definitive check is the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) / Patent Center "Proceedings" tab for 8,483,102, plus a Freedom of Information-style review of any post-grant filings.

Practical significance either way:

• No stay leverage existed. Absent an IPR petition, 3CX had no § 315(b)/§ 318(a)(1) vehicle to seek a district-court stay, which removes one of the two most common reasons a defendant would pay for delay rather than settle.
• No IPR estoppel. Because there was no IPR, no § 315(e) estoppel attached to anyone, and the '102 patent's validity is wholly unadjudicated — it is neither strengthened by a PTAB affirmance nor weakened by a cancellation.
• Term proximity matters. The '102 patent claims priority to a 2007-10-29 application and issued in 2013, placing it near the end of its statutory term (presumptively ~2027-10-29 plus any PTA). That compressed remaining-life window is a strong economic explanation for a 65-day, fee-free exit in one of a long series of similar suits.

8. Strategic context: this was one skirmish in a serial campaign

The reason to care about this stub of a case is the campaign around it. Lab Technology LLC (a New Mexico entity per its own complaints, Albuquerque address) is an acquired-patent assertion vehicle, and it has asserted the '102 patent and its sibling U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 ("Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location") against a broad set of UC/VoIP and telephony defendants. Confirmed filings include:

Two structural observations that distinguish this case:

1. The June 2025 S.D. Fla. cluster (1:25-cv-22704, -22712, -22716, and a fourth number in the 22700-series) was filed the same week against competing SMB/VoIP PBX vendors — 3CX, Mitel, Sangoma — i.e., a deliberate single-session, multi-defendant assertion against the same technology vertical. 3CX was docket 22704, the earliest number in the wave.
2. The parallel W.D. Tex. cases were all terminating by voluntary dismissal in the same period (Lumen dismissed 2025-06-24/25, about three weeks before 3CX's dismissal). The 3CX dismissal-with-prejudice is consistent with the tail of that wave being converted to confidential resolutions rather than merit litigation.

I could not confirm which counsel appeared for 3CX — the docket shows no defense appearance, which is consistent with a pre-answer resolution (and is why the Patsnap summary also lists no defense counsel). I also could not confirm the '102 patent's original assignee or its chain of title to Lab Technology.

---

Sourcing and reliability caveats

• Most reliable: the Justia PACER-derived docket for 1:25-cv-22704 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2025cv22704/691800), which documents DE 1–11 and was last retrieved 2025-08-13 — i.e., it does not reflect the termination or the dismissal entry. The 2025-08-20 termination date and "with prejudice" characterization come from the case metadata you supplied (authoritative) and are consistent with secondary reporting.
• Use with caution: the Patsnap "Eureka" litigation write-ups (https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/lab-technology-llc-v-3cx-usa-corp-voip-patent-dispute-ends-in-voluntary-dismissal-patsnap-eureka/) are AI-generated litigation summaries. Its statements about the dismissal order's fee language and about the '102 patent's issue date align with primary documents, but I would not rely on it for the verbatim order text without pulling PACER.
• Not independently verified: the docket number of the notice of dismissal and the order closing the case; the existence or terms of any settlement/license; 3CX's counsel; and the absence of any PTAB proceeding on the '102 patent.
• Data artifact: Justia codes this case's cause of action as "15 U.S.C. § 1126 Patent Infringement." § 1126 is a trademark provision (foreign registration); this is a mis-coded civil cover sheet, not a substantive pleading defect.

Action items if you need a certifiable record: (1) pull PACER DE 10 to resolve the "MOTION to Stay" coding; (2) pull the full-text docket entries after 2025-08-13 for the dismissal and closing order; (3) run the PTAB E2E "Proceedings" search on 8,483,102 and 8,503,973; and (4) pull the assignment record for the '102 patent to establish Lab Technology's chain of title and any security interests.

I'll research the docket and counsel for the plaintiff in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the individual attorneys and firms.

Let me check the full docket via CourtListener and verify whether Rabicoff formally appeared.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Lab Technology LLC v. 3CX USA Corp., No. 1:25-cv-22704 (S.D. Fla.)

Bottom line: Two attorneys are associated with the plaintiff in this matter — Terry Marcus Sanks (Beusse Sanks, PLLC, Winter Park/Orlando, FL), who is the Florida-barred attorney who actually made the docketed filings, and Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL), who was named on the complaint and was the campaign's lead attorney across Lab Technology's 2024–25 assertion wave. No in-house counsel appears, consistent with Lab Technology being a non-practicing assertion entity with no in-house legal department. No defense counsel ever entered an appearance before the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal.

Summary table

Detail

1. Terry Marcus Sanks — Beusse Sanks, PLLC (Winter Park / Orlando, FL)

• Role: The only attorney shown on the face of the docket as actively filing. Entries 7 (summons returned executed), 8 (unopposed extension), and 10 (second unopposed extension) all bear the filer tag "(Sanks, Terry)." (Justia docket)
• Firm/office: Beusse Sanks, PLLC, 157 E. New England Ave., Suite 375, Winter Park, FL 32789; the firm also lists an Orlando office at 612 E. Colonial Dr., Suite 250. (Super Lawyers profile; Martindale)
• Experience: Registered patent attorney, Florida Bar No. 154430 (admitted 1998); admitted to the S.D. Fla. and M.D. Fla. district courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the Federal Circuit. He has been named on 450+ U.S. patents as prosecuting attorney and is a repeat Florida counsel of record for patent-assertion plaintiffs — e.g., Patent Armory, Inc. v. Norse Atlantic Airways US LLC (S.D. Fla.) and Patent Armory v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Monitor Systems, LLC v. Transportation Control Systems, and Lone Star Document Management, LLC v. Docuphase. (CourtListener parties page for Patent Armory)

2. Isaac Rabicoff — Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL)

• Role: Named as plaintiff's counsel on the complaint. He is the attorney behind Lab Technology's parallel 2025 filings and is identified in third-party litigation write-ups as plaintiff's counsel here alongside Sanks. (PatSnap case note)
• Important caveat on his appearance: On June 17, 2025 — the day after filing — the clerk issued Dkt. 5, "Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Isaac Rabicoff, mailing date June 17, 2025." That is the standard S.D. Fla. notice to an attorney named on a pleading who is not a member of this court's bar. Nothing in the docket retrieved to date shows a pro hac vice motion or a notice of appearance for Rabicoff before the August 20, 2025 dismissal, so his formal appearance in this case is not established by the record I could retrieve. (Justia docket)
• Firm/office: Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613 (per his CourtListener appearances; the firm's address has moved over time — earlier filings list 73 W. Monroe St. and 100 N. LaSalle St., Chicago). (CourtListener — Focus Global Solutions v. Marvell)
• Experience: USPTO Reg. No. 74,147. Managing partner of Rabicoff Law LLC, a boutique focused on patent litigation and PTAB trials; he has served as patent-owner lead counsel in numerous IPRs/CBMs (e.g., IPR2017-00797, IPR2020-00111, CBM2014-00159) and as plaintiff's counsel in high-volume assertion campaigns including Sportbrain Holdings and William Grecia. In 2025 alone he filed Lab Technology suits against Lumen, Cisco, Verizon, Amazon, u-blox, Sangoma, and this 3CX action. (IPR2017-00797 mandatory notices; N.D. Tex. Lab Technology complaint summary)

3. Other firms — flagged but unverified for this case

• Lab Technology's complaints in some 2025 cases list additional co-counsel (e.g., DNL Zito in Lab Technology LLC v. u-blox America, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00610 (N.D. Tex.)). I found no docket indication that DNL Zito or any other firm appeared in the 3CX matter, and I would not list them as counsel here without confirming an appearance. (Ex Parte AI complaint summary)
• No in-house counsel identified. Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico entity at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE STE N, Albuquerque, NM 87110 (as pleaded in its parallel complaints), with no publicly identified legal department.

Role characterization and confidence

• High confidence: Sanks and Beusse Sanks are plaintiff's Florida counsel of record — his name is on three docketed filings and, incidentally, on the parallel Sangoma matter. High confidence: Rabicoff was designated plaintiff's counsel on the pleading (the Bar Letter confirms the clerk treated him as an attorney appearing for plaintiff).
• Lower confidence / expressly noted: The exact "lead vs. local counsel" labeling. The docket does not contain a lead-counsel designation order or a pro hac vice motion in this short-lived case, so the assignment of "lead" to Rabicoff rests on the pattern of the surrounding Lab Technology campaign and on secondary reporting (PatSnap, an AI-assisted litigation blog), not on a document filed in 1:25-cv-22704. No sealed filings appear to be implicated — the only filings were the complaint, service, two extension motions, and the dismissal.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

The Justia docket shows only 11 entries, all filed by plaintiff's counsel. Let me verify against the RECAP/CourtListener docket and check for any defense appearance.

The Justia docket shows no defense appearance. Let me check CourtListener/RECAP for the complete docket and search for any 3CX litigation counsel.

Finding: No defense counsel appeared in this case

Based on the public docket for Lab Technology LLC v. 3CX USA Corp., No. 1:25-cv-22704 (S.D. Fla.), no attorney entered an appearance for 3CX USA Corp. before the case was dismissed, and I found no record of any counsel of record representing the defendant. I will not guess at names or firms.

What the docket shows

The docket mirror (Justia, reflecting PACER, last retrieved Aug. 13, 2025) lists 11 entries, and every filing was made by plaintiff's counsel — not by any defense attorney:

Source: Justia docket, 1:25-cv-22704.

Why no defense counsel appears

• The extensions were filed by plaintiff's counsel, not the defense. Both motions (Dkt. 8 and 10) are captioned "Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time ... for Defendant 3CX USA Corporation to Respond," and were filed by Terry Marcus Sanks of Beusse Sanks PLLC on the plaintiff's side. This is a common courtesy practice in NPE cases where a defendant's counsel negotiates extensions informally before formally appearing; it is not a defense appearance.
• 3CX never answered or moved under Rule 12. The case terminated 65 days after filing, before the defendant's extended response deadline, via plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with dismissal with prejudice entered around Aug. 20, 2025.
• A pre-answer resolution means no defense appearance was required or made. The third-party litigation summary of the case also states "No defense counsel was identified in the available case record, consistent with an early pre-answer resolution" (Patsnap Eureka case summary).

For contrast — counsel who did appear (plaintiff side)

• Terry Marcus Sanks — Beusse Sanks PLLC (Florida local counsel for plaintiff Lab Technology LLC); filed the complaint, service return, and both extension motions. Docket filer of record for all substantive plaintiff filings here. (Justia docket)
• Isaac Rabicoff — Rabicoff Law LLC (plaintiff's counsel; a high-volume patent-assertion filer; appeared in the parallel Lab Technology suits, e.g., Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex.), and Lab Technology LLC v. Alaio, Inc., 1:25-cv-01234 (E.D. Va.)). Note the clerk issued a bar-admission letter to him in this case (Dkt. 5).

Caveats and sourcing limits

• I could not pull the raw PACER docket directly, so I relied on the Justia mirror, which was last refreshed Aug. 13, 2025 — one week before the Aug. 20 dismissal. It is therefore theoretically possible (though inconsistent with the pre-answer posture) that a defense Notice of Appearance was docketed between Aug. 13 and Aug. 20. Nothing in the available record suggests one was filed.
• Any defense-side engagement would not necessarily appear anywhere. If 3CX retained outside or in-house counsel for the pre-suit demand letter or informal extension negotiations, that retention would be confidential and off-docket; I found no public source identifying 3CX's US litigation or patent counsel in this matter, and I will not speculate as to firm names.
• I did not verify whether 3CX USA Corp. used in-house counsel for this matter — no filing, press release, or firm announcement surfaced identifying such counsel.

Bottom line: For this case, the honest answer is that there is no counsel of record for the defendant — 3CX USA Corp. was dismissed before appearing, and the only attorneys on the docket (Sanks and Rabicoff) represent the plaintiff. If you need to know who advised 3CX, that information is not in the public record and would require a direct inquiry to 3CX's legal department.