Lab Technology LLC v. Alaio, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the patent, the defendants, and the broader campaign.

Case Overview — Lab Technology LLC v. Alaio, Inc. et al., No. 1:25-cv-01234 (E.D. Va.)

Parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a patent-holding entity, not an operating company. Its complaints in this campaign identify it as a New Mexico corporation with a principal place of business at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE STE N, Albuquerque, NM 87110, and it is consistently represented by Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), a firm known for high-volume, single-defendant patent assertion filings — the classic NPE/PAE model in which the patent owner has no products to countersue over and therefore little counterclaim exposure. Lab Technology has filed a long series of short-lived suits across districts asserting a small family of telephony/unified-communications patents (e.g., against Lumen in W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00172, dismissed June 2025; against Cisco, W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00338; against AT&T, E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00412, voluntarily dismissed July 3, 2024; against u-blox America, N.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-00610, dismissed Aug. 2025; against Everbridge, D. Del. 1:25-cv-01355, asserting the '973 and '982 patents). The original defendants here were Bitrix, Inc. (the U.S. entity behind the Bitrix24 CRM/collaboration platform, whose telephony/VoIP and call-routing features are the apparent target) and Alaio, Inc. Bitrix was served on July 29, 2025 and appeared through Kevin Garden (Dkt. 8, 9, 10), but the amended complaint filed August 27, 2025 names Alaio, Inc. alone (Dkt. 13), and only Alaio appears in the docket thereafter — suggesting Bitrix was dropped or carved out, though no dismissal order for Bitrix appears in the retrieved docket. I could not verify what Alaio, Inc. does or whether it is a reseller, affiliate, or unrelated telephony/UC vendor; that is a genuine gap in the public record I retrieved, and I would not assume it is a Bitrix24 affiliate.

Patent and accused technology. The sole asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes," issued July 9, 2013 from Application No. 11/926,390 (filed Oct. 29, 2007; earliest priority Nov. 2, 2004 via App. No. 10/980,046, which issued as US 7,391,858). Inventors are Chi Fai Ho and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu; it was assigned to TP Lab, Inc. (California). In one line: the claims cover a policy processor, coupled to a telephony switch and a voice-identity mapping database, that maps a caller-supplied "voice identity" (a phone number, extension, or VoIP username) to a target identity/username according to stored mapping policies that include validity time attributes, and routes the call accordingly — i.e., follow-me/identity-based call routing across dissimilar phone systems (Class 5 switch, PBX, mobile switching center, IP telephony). The patent family includes a continuation, US 9,413,895. The accused products are not spelled out in the docket text I retrieved, but given the defendants and the campaign, the theory is almost certainly Bitrix24's VoIP telephony / call forwarding / SIP-connector routing functionality and Alaio's corresponding offerings; the actual accused-instrumentality charts are in Exhibits 1–2 to the complaint and amended complaint (Dkt. 1, 13), which I did not retrieve.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed July 24, 2025 in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia (the "1:" case prefix), assigned to District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. with Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick as referral judge (Dkt. 1, Initial Case Assignment). The case is pre-answer: Bitrix obtained a 30-day extension to September 18, 2025 (Dkt. 11–12); the amended complaint against Alaio issued August 27, 2025 (Dkt. 13); Alaio filed a consent motion for extension (Dkt. 14), granted September 18, 2025, setting Alaio's answer deadline at October 18, 2025 (Dkt. 15). The docket snapshot available to me was last retrieved September 19, 2025, so events after that — including whether an answer, motion to dismiss, § 101 challenge, stay, transfer motion, or IPR petition followed, and whether the case settled or was voluntarily dismissed like most of Lab Technology's other suits — could not be confirmed. I found no PTAB IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding against the '102 patent in the sources searched; treat "no IPR linkage" as an absence of evidence rather than verified fact. Venue matters here for three reasons: (1) E.D. Va. is a recognized "rocket docket" with fast time-to-trial and a mandatory scheduling order culture, which pressures NPE defendants toward early settlement — consistent with Lab Technology's pattern of 30-to-110-day exits elsewhere; (2) E.D. Va. has been an active NPE-filing district, and Lab Technology filed multiple 2025 E.D. Va. suits against telephony/UC targets (e.g., 3CX USA, Mitel Networks, Sangoma), suggesting deliberate venue selection rather than defendant-specific convenience; and (3) TC Heartland venue constraints make an EDVA filing meaningful as a signal that the plaintiff is asserting the defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, which for a software/cloud defendant is itself often the first litigated issue.

Why it's notable. This is a low-value, high-volume assertion rather than a bet-the-company case, but it is representative of three 2025–26 trends: late-life monetization of VoIP/UC call-routing patents from the 2004–2013 TP Lab family, whose claims map broadly onto any cloud PBX or CRM-with-telephony product (creating near-universal E911/telephony-compliance exposure across UCaaS vendors); the "file-and-settle" NPE playbook run by a single prolific firm; and Eastern District of Virginia's continuing pull as a fast NPE venue. Market-wise, the accused technology — embedded telephony in CRM/collaboration suites like Bitrix24 — is exactly the kind of feature set that makes a non-practicing plaintiff's licensing demand cheap to settle and expensive to try.

Sourcing caveats. Party names, the patent, filing date, judge assignment, and docket entries 1–15 are drawn from the Justia docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2025cv01234/[578344](/patent/578344)) and are reliable. Patent text and family data come from Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8483102B1](/patent/US8483102B1)) and Justia Patents. Related-case details come from CourtListener (Lumen, 7:25-cv-00172), the Everbridge and u-blox dockets, and secondary PatSnap Eureka case notes for the AT&T and LifeStation matters — the latter is an AI-generated litigation summary, so I have flagged its conclusions rather than adopted them as verified. I could not verify Alaio, Inc.'s business, the specific accused Bitrix/Alaio features, any post-September 2025 docket activity, current case status, or any PTAB proceeding; those remain open questions and should be checked against PACER (E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-01234), Docket Navigator/RPX, and the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint before relying on them.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and IP news sources.

Bottom line

As of the last publicly retrievable snapshot of the docket (2025-09-19), Lab Technology LLC v. Alaio, Inc. (E.D. Va. No. 1:25-cv-01234) is still in the pleading stage. No answer, no counterclaims, no motion of substance, no Markman order, no discovery order, no trial, and no IPR on the asserted patent appear in any source I could retrieve. The case has not produced any merits ruling. Because the docket data I can reach stops ~12 months before today's date (2026-09-13), the present posture is unverified — treat everything below as a verified record through 2025-09-19 plus contextual portfolio research, not as a current status report.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Strategic read on the pleadings phase:

• The complaint was filed against Bitrix; the operative pleading names Alaio. The only summons requested with the original complaint was for Bitrix (Dkt. 5), and Bitrix was served on 2025-07-29. Four weeks later the amended complaint was directed to Alaio. The docket text does not show a summons issued to, or service on, Alaio before the amendment. This is consistent with plaintiff realigning the accused entity (or adding/substituting the correct corporate defendant) very early — a common move where the operating entity and the contracting entity in a SaaS/UCaaS relationship differ. The Justia docket still lists both Bitrix, Inc. and Alaio, Inc. as defendants.
• No answer and no counterclaims appear by 2025-09-19. Two separate defendants each obtained consent extensions, suggesting coordinated representation and an early-stage defense strategy rather than immediate invalidity counterclaims.
• The two exhibits attached to the amended complaint (Exs. 1–2) are presumably the patent and an infringement claim chart; the docket text does not identify the patent title. I could not confirm the subject matter or title of U.S. Patent 8,483,102 from any source. It is not one of the other Lab Technology patents I identified in the portfolio (see §8), so I'm not willing to characterize its claims.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None verified through 2025-09-19. No Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss (including any TC Heartland / § 1400(b) venue challenge, which would be the obvious first move given the E.D. Va. forum and the Alexandria-HQ venue theory), no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion to sever, and no summary-judgment motion.

Note for monitoring: the Federal Circuit's venue jurisprudence and E.D. Va.'s local rules make venue and transfer motions the most likely first substantive filings in a case like this, especially because Bitrix, Inc.'s U.S. headquarters is alleged to be in Alexandria, Virginia (901 N. Pitt St., Suite 325) — a fact pleaded in a separate NPE complaint against Bitrix. That makes a venue challenge to Bitrix unlikely to succeed but does not resolve whether Alaio has a regular and established place of business in the district.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no Rule 16 conference, no Markman briefing, no claim-construction order appears in the record. Judge Alston's E.D. Va. patent practice typically sets claim construction after an initial scheduling order; nothing of the kind is on the docket as of the last retrieval.

---

4. Discovery milestones

None. No scheduling order → no Rule 26(f) conference, no joint discovery plan, no ESI order, no protective order, no discovery motions or motions to compel. Nothing to analyze.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

No dismissal, no settlement, and no judgment appear in the available record. The last docketed action is the 2025-09-18/19 order extending Alaio's answer deadline to 2025-10-18. As of that snapshot the case was active and pending before Judge Alston, with Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick handling pretrial/consent matters.

Posture caution: my accessible sources stop at the 2025-09-19 docket retrieval. Between 2025-10-18 and today (2026-09-13) there have likely been 9+ months of activity (answer, counterclaims, Rule 26(f) plan, possibly a scheduling order). I cannot state what happened and will not guess. To close the gap, pull the live docket via PACER (Dkt. 16 onward), RECAP/CourtListener, or Docket Alarm; the case number and court are confirmed by metadata.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on U.S. Patent 8,483,102 was found, and no PTAB proceeding is linked to this docket in any source I searched. Consequently, there is no stay-pending-IPR dynamic in this case as of the record I can verify. Given that the patent issued in July 2013 (from the number series), it is IPR-eligible but past the 9-month PGR/CBM window; any challenge would now be an IPR. Statutory bars under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) would run one year from service on Bitrix (service 2025-07-29 → bar ~2026-07-29), so the window for a timely IPR petition by Bitrix has now passed; Alaio's service date is less clear and its § 315(b) clock may differ.

---

8. Critical context: who the parties are, and what this case really is

This is a high-volume NPE assertion case, not a bet-the-company patent war.

• Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is represented by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) — a prolific serial filer of infringement suits against telecom/VoIP/UCaaS defendants. The same plaintiff/Rabicoff pairing appears across a nationwide campaign:

  • Lab Tech. v. AT&T, Inc., E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00830 (filed 2024-10-11) — docket
  • Lab Tech. v. [Verizon Communications Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%20Inc.), E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00323
  • Lab Tech. v. Zoom Communications Video, Inc., D. Colo. 1:24-cv-01711 (filed 2024)
  • Lab Tech. v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00172 (filed 2025-04-17; voluntary dismissal 2025-06-24/25, ~2 months in) — CourtListener
  • Lab Tech. v. ETA Transit Inc., S.D. Fla. 0:25-cv-60940 (filed 2025-05-12)
  • Lab Tech. v. LifeStation, Inc., S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-09284 (filed 2025-11-06; settled and dismissed without prejudice 2026-02-24 — 110 days, no Markman, no merits ruling)
  • Lab Tech. v. Solera Holdings, LLC, N.D. Tex. 4:26-cv-00297 (filed 2026-03-12; joint stipulation of dismissal 2026-04-23) — docket
  • Lab Tech. v. TELUS International (U.S.) Corp., D. Nev. 2:26-cv-00127 (filed 2026)
  • Lab Tech. v. Yeastar Digital Technology Co., Ltd., E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00709 (filed 2026-08-18, assigned to Judge Gilstrap/Payne)

  Portfolio patents asserted in the campaign include 8,381,309 ("secure communication over a public network"), 8,515,032 ("system to record and analyze voice message usage information"), and 9,219,982 ("apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone"). The '102 patent now at issue here is a fourth member of that family — but I could not verify its subject matter, so I won't equate it to any of the above.

  Pattern: near-zero merits adjudication. The campaign's observable endpoint is early voluntary dismissal or quick confidential settlement, sometimes within weeks (Lumen: ~2 months; Solera: ~6 weeks; LifeStation: ~110 days). No reported claim construction, validity holding, or damages award.

• Defendant Bitrix, Inc. is the U.S. entity behind Bitrix24, the business collaboration/CRM/telephony platform, headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia — which explains the E.D. Va. filing and satisfies venue under § 1400(b). Bitrix is a repeat NPE target: in a separate action, DatRec, LLC v. Bitrix, Inc. (E.D. Va., Alexandria Division), Bitrix was accused of infringing U.S. Patent 8,381,309 — notably the same '309 patent Lab Technology asserts elsewhere in its campaign (RPX litigation document). Treat that document with some caution: the text retrieved was garbled and internally inconsistent as to the accused product.

• Defendant Alaio, Inc. — I could not verify who or what Alaio, Inc. is, or its relationship to Bitrix. No reliable source I retrieved explains why the amended complaint targets Alaio rather than Bitrix. This is the single most important factual gap in the case: if Alaio is a Bitrix affiliate or alter ego, that shapes both venue and any indemnity/contract defense; if not, it may explain plaintiff's mid-course correction. Defense counsel of record is Kevin Garden, who entered for Bitrix on 2025-08-19 and filed the Alaio extension motion on 2025-09-17 (suggesting common representation of both defendants).

---

9. What I could not verify (flag for follow-up)

1. Docket activity after 2025-09-19 — answer, counterclaims, scheduling order, Markman, discovery, transfer/stay motions, settlement. Highest priority.
2. Current case status as of 2026-09-13 — active, settled, or dismissed?
3. Title, claims, priority, and prosecution history of U.S. Patent 8,483,102 — no source confirmed it.
4. Identity of Alaio, Inc. and its corporate relationship to Bitrix.
5. Any PTAB petition on the '102 patent (none found; confirm via PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / Unified Patents portal).
6. Whether this case is one of several Lab Technology suits filed on the '102 patent — if so, the campaign pattern (rapid dismissal/settlement) is the best predictor of outcome here.
7. Damages model and pre-suit notice — no infringement charts available in the retrieved docket text.

Recommended retrieval targets: PACER for 1:25-cv-01234 (Dkt. 16+); CourtListener/RECAP; RPX Insight for the '102 patent's other litigations; USPTO Patent Center for the '102 patent and its assignment history (to confirm Lab Technology's chain of title); PTAB PTACTS for any post-2025 petitions.

---

10. Assessment

On the record I can verify, this is a pleading-stage, single-patent NPE case in its first 60 days, with the only contested activity being agreed extensions of the answer deadline. The realistic outcomes, based on Lab Technology's documented campaign behavior and the near-total absence of merits rulings across its docket, are early confidential settlement or voluntary dismissal — not claim construction, trial, or appeal. But that assessment rests on a docket snapshot that is roughly a year stale, so the operative next step is to pull the current docket before drawing any conclusion about where this case actually stands today.

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

Docket retrieved. Now let me identify the plaintiff's counsel, firm, and check for any local counsel.

Let me verify whether any local counsel or additional plaintiff's attorneys have appeared, and check Rabicoff's admissions/experience.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Lab Technology LLC v. Alaio, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01234 (E.D. Va.)

Bottom line

As reflected on the docket (last retrieved September 19, 2025, per the Justia/PACER mirror at dockets.justia.com), only one attorney has appeared for the plaintiff: Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois). Every plaintiff-side filing on the docket is attributed to him alone — the initial Complaint (#1), Notice of Appearance (#2), Corporate Disclosure Statement (#3), AO-120 report (#4), Proposed Summons (#5), Summons Returned Executed (#8), and the Amended Complaint (#13, filed Aug. 27, 2025).

⚠️ Caveat on currency: I could only retrieve the docket as of Sept. 19, 2025. Today is Sept. 13, 2026, so nearly a year of activity (including the Oct. 18, 2025 answer deadline set by Dkt. 15, and any subsequent scheduling order, claim construction, or new appearances) is not captured. If a local counsel or additional plaintiff's attorney has since appeared, it would not show in what I could access. Any name other than Rabicoff below would be speculation, so I have not included one.

Attorney table

No local counsel, of-counsel, or in-house attorney is disclosed on the docket as retrieved. Kevin Garden appears only for defendant Bitrix, Inc. (Dkt. 9) — not for the plaintiff.

Points worth flagging

1. No separate local-counsel appearance appears in the record I retrieved. E.D. Va. Local Civil Rule 83.1(D) generally requires either court membership or association with a member of this court's bar, and Rule 83.1(D)(3) addresses pro hac vice admission. The docket shows no pro hac vice motion by Rabicoff and no E.D. Va. local-counsel notice of appearance in the plaintiff's filings through Sept. 19, 2025. That could mean (a) Rabicoff is himself a member of the E.D. Va. bar, (b) a local-counsel association exists but was not surfaced in the docket text I could access, or (c) the issue simply hadn't been raised yet. I could not confirm which — I'd verify against PACER directly.

2. Pattern of practice — Rabicoff as sole/lead plaintiff's counsel. In Lab Technology's parallel campaigns, Rabicoff Law appears as the constant, sometimes paired with local firms in other districts:

   • Lab Technology LLC v. LifeStation, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09284 (S.D.N.Y.) — Rabicoff appeared pro hac vice (Dkt. 6). (PacerMonitor)
   • Lab Technology LLC v. ETA Transit Inc., No. 0:25-cv-60940 (S.D. Fla.) — plaintiff's counsel listed as Beusse Sanks + Rabicoff Law LLC.
   • Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Tech., No. 1:25-cv-01356 (D. Del.) — plaintiff's counsel listed as Silverman, McDonald & Friedman + Rabicoff Law LLC.
   • Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Techs., Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex.) — Rabicoff alone; voluntarily dismissed June 2025.

   This pattern (out-of-district lead + local firm) suggests that if local counsel has since been added in E.D. Va., the firm would likely be an Alexandria/Richmond-based shop — but I have no evidence of a specific E.D. Va. local-counsel firm in this case, so I won't name one.

3. Plaintiff's identity. Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, NM (per the parallel Lumen complaint) — a non-practicing/holding entity asserting, in this case, U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 ("System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes," issued July 9, 2013). This is consistent with the NPE assertion-campaign profile noted in the LifeStation coverage.

Sources

• Docket sheet: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2025cv01234/578344 (counsel attribution on Dkts. 1–8, 13)
• Firm bio: http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html
• PTAB powers of attorney confirming name, bar number (Reg. No. 74,147), and firm address: USPTO PTAB filings (e.g., ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1481596)
• Parallel-case counsel composition: PacerMonitor (LifeStation), Ex Parte AI case analyses (ETA Transit; Greenlight), CourtListener (Lumen)

If you need certainty on whether additional plaintiff's counsel (particularly E.D. Va. local counsel) has appeared since September 2025, a live PACER pull of the current docket is required — the public mirrors I could reach are stale by roughly a year.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case. Let me run several searches.

Now let me identify the counsel named in the docket — Kevin Garden — and check for any additional appearances.

Let me check CourtListener's docket and search for any additional defense appearances.

Counsel of Record for the Defendants

Bottom line: Based on the publicly available docket (Justia's RECAP-sourced docket sheet, last retrieved 2025-09-19), the only defense-side attorney who has appeared is Kevin Garden of The Garden Law Firm P.C. in Alexandria, Virginia. There is a meaningful evidentiary gap on Alaio, Inc. — I explain it below rather than guess.

Source docket entries (Justia docket for 1:25-cv-01234)

Attorneys identified

Kevin Garden — lead counsel (and, given his Alexandria office, effectively local counsel as well)

• Firm: The Garden Law Firm P.C., 211 North Union Street, Suite 100, Alexandria, VA 22314 (the firm also lists 901 N. Pitt St., Suite 325, Alexandria, VA 22314). He appears as Senior Counsel (Litigation) affiliated with femida.us / Int'l Legal Counsels PC, also Alexandria, VA.
• Admissions: Virginia (1989); District of Columbia (1991); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1990); Ninth Circuit (2001); D.D.C. and Court of Federal Claims (1992). J.D., Washington College of Law, American University (1989).
• Relevant experience note: His published profile emphasizes federal and arbitration litigation for software, IT, and security-products companies, including intellectual property rights, copyright, trademark, and trade-secret disputes, alongside government-contracts and administrative practice (GAO, TTAB, Federal Circuit). That IP/software-litigation background is the closest fit to a § 271 patent case, though I did not find public evidence of him serving as counsel in a substantive patent infringement merits proceeding — his Federal Circuit admission and software-company IP work are the best available indicators. Treat the "patent litigation depth" characterization as uncertain.

No in-house counsel identified. No attorney from Alaio or Bitrix has appeared in a corporate/in-house capacity on the public docket.

Important caveats and gaps

1. Alaio appearance is inferred, not confirmed. Filing 14 shows a consent motion filed on Alaio's behalf with the docket's attorney attribution to Kevin Garden, but I did not retrieve a separate "NOTICE of Appearance" for Alaio in the docket as last captured. It is possible (a) a separate Alaio notice of appearance exists and was not in the retrieved excerpt, or (b) Alaio is being represented through the same firm without a distinct appearance entry. This should be verified on PACER.

2. Bitrix's status is ambiguous. The amended complaint (Filing 13) names only Alaio. Garden's notice of appearance predates that amendment and was entered for Bitrix. Whether Bitrix was voluntarily dismissed, or whether there were subsequent filings, is not reflected in the retrieved docket.

3. The docket is stale relative to today's date. Justia's sheet was last retrieved 2025-09-19, nearly a year before today (2026-09-13). The October 18, 2025 answer deadline has long passed. Any answer, Rule 12 motion, scheduling order, protective order, or additional counsel appearances filed after September 2025 — including whether a larger litigation firm was retained to handle patent-specific issues — are not captured here. Additional defense counsel may well have entered appearances that I cannot see.

4. No parallel PTAB proceedings or related decisions were located for U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 in connection with this docket within my searches, so I cannot report on IPR counsel.

For plaintiff-side context (contrast)

The docket shows plaintiff's counsel as Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago), who filed the complaint, amended complaint, and all associated notices (Filings 1–5, 8, 13). Rabicoff is a high-volume patent plaintiff's-side filer, which is consistent with Lab Technology LLC's other suits (e.g., Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00172, voluntarily dismissed June 2025).

Recommended verification: Pull the live PACER docket for 1:25-cv-01234 (Dkt. entries 14 and later) to confirm (i) whether a formal notice of appearance exists for Alaio, and (ii) whether any post-September-2025 counsel additions occurred. I'd rather flag this than attribute counsel to a party on an inferred basis.