LG Electronics Inc. et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.

Case overview and background

Parties and business posture. This proceeding is the PTAB side of a broader, multi-forum patent campaign by Maxell, Ltd. — a Japanese operating company founded in 1960–61 as Maxell Electric Industrial, a Hitachi group member since 1964, renamed Hitachi Maxell and then Maxell, Ltd. in 2017 — which today sells batteries (including all-solid-state and coin cells), data media, projectors, and optical/automotive camera lens units. Maxell is therefore not an NPE/PAE in the classic sense: it makes and sells products, but it also monetizes a large patent portfolio it acquired from Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi Consumer Electronics in 2009–2013, and it sues to drive licensing (prior campaigns against Apple, Samsung, Huawei and ZTE, plus an ITC action and foreign suits; see Maxell's own description in Maxell v. Apple, W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00158, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1–5, and the JCMS in Maxell v. LG, N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-04972, Dkt. 132, listing six prior E.D. Tex. cases on the same patents). LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. are the accused manufacturers/sellers of the smartphones and laptops at issue. On the PTAB side, LG is the petitioner and Maxell the patent owner; in the parallel district court case the roles reverse.

The technology and the patent. The accused products are LG smartphones and laptops — the complaint names, by example, the LG V60 ThinQ 5G and dozens of G-series, Aristo, K-series, Stylo and tablet models — accused of infringing nine Maxell patents spanning camera/white-balance processing, electric-camera imaging, wireless/antenna control, display/video processing, recording media, and video editing (PatSnap case record for 5:24-cv-04972; complaint Counts 1–9). This IPR concerns only U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072, "Editing Method and Recording and Reproducing Device," issued February 5, 2019 from Application No. 15/808,175 and claiming priority to Japanese application 2004‑349264 (filed December 2, 2004). In one line: it claims a recording/reproducing device and method in which video recorded on a recording medium is presented as thumbnails organized into user-defined groups, and a user can delete a video from one group without deleting the underlying video file from the medium or from other groups — i.e., non-destructive, metadata/pointer-based playlist editing. Maxell asserted only claims 11–15 of the '072 patent in the district court, while LG challenged all claims 1–19 in the petition on three § 103 grounds (Bryant alone; Kaplan, and Kaplan in view of Sporer; and Horn), each mapping the "non-destructive delete" limitation to metadata or pointer updates (Petition, IPR2025-00394, Paper 2; ground summaries via Ex Parte petition analysis). The '072 patent is a family member of the similarly titled '449 patent (also asserted in the district court and separately challenged in IPR2025-00393), so the two IPRs were closely parallel.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Maxell filed suit on December 29, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Texarkana Division), No. 5:23-cv-00152-RWS, before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III — a venue Maxell has repeatedly used. LG moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and Judge Schroeder granted the motion on July 1, 2024 (Dkt. 59); the case was docketed in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on August 9, 2024 as No. 5:24-cv-04972, initially before Judge Eumi K. Lee and reassigned on February 24, 2025 to Judge Noël Wise (Dkt. 130; Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen). That transfer is the venue hinge: LG then filed seven IPRs between December 30, 2024 and January 22, 2025 ('493, '449, '072, '729, '760, '188, '284), and Maxell's preliminary response (Paper 7, Apr. 11, 2025) argued discretionary denial under § 325(d) (Kaplan and Bryant were allegedly already before the Examiner via an IDS) and § 314(a)/Fintiv, stressing that the N.D. Cal. case was ~15 months old, 300,000+ pages had been produced, claim-construction exchanges were underway, LG had waited nearly a year to petition, and the '072 patent was near the end of its term given its 2004 priority — all against the backdrop of the Office's early-2025 rescission of the Fintiv interim procedure and ensuing guidance, which the brief expressly cited. Judge Wise denied LG's motion to stay the district case on April 25, 2025; the parties noticed a prospective settlement on April 29, 2025; LG's § 101 motion for judgment on the pleadings on the '188, '072, '449 and '760 patents was fully briefed but never decided. The parties then jointly moved to terminate this IPR on July 1, 2025 (Paper 8), filed a with-prejudice Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation in N.D. Cal. on July 2, 2025, and the Board (APJs Kevin C. Trock, Jason W. Melvin writing, and Frederick C. Laney) terminated the proceeding on July 14, 2025 (Paper 10), keeping the settlement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and stating expressly that the order "does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)"; post-institution fees were refunded (Papers 11–12). The case is notable for three reasons: (i) it illustrates the current Maxell playbook — an operating company asserting a Hitachi-derived consumer-electronics portfolio against major OEMs simultaneously in district court, the ITC, the UPC and Japan (see Maxell v. Samsung, E.D. Tex., complaint filed April 2025, referencing ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1432); (ii) it shows the 2024–25 "file IPRs late, after transfer and after § 101 motion practice" strategy, which converts the PTAB into settlement leverage rather than a validity adjudication; and (iii) because termination came before institution, no claim was ever construed or cancelled, no § 315(e) estoppel attached, and the merits of LG's obviousness theories — including the § 325(d) "Examiner error" fight over Kaplan and Bryant — remain untested, leaving the '072 patent presumptively valid and available for assertion against other OEMs.

Sourcing note: docket events and the termination decision are drawn from the PTAB papers (Paper 10, available via Docket Alarm), the N.D. Cal./E.D. Tex. dockets (Justia/CourtListener), the Joint Case Management Statement (Dkt. 132, filed Mar. 17, 2025), and MLex/Law360 reporting of April 29, 2025. The precise text of claims 1 and 11–15 and the full petition briefing are not reproduced in the public sources I could reach, so the claim sketch above is a summary of the petition's and complaint's characterizations rather than verbatim claim language; that the patent has expired (as opposed to being near expiration) is also not confirmed — Maxell argued only "imminent" expiration.

I'll research this case and the related litigation. Let me start with parallel searches.

Good — this is one of seven parallel IPRs alongside a district court case. Let me dig into the docket details.

Let me pull the full dockets and check the parallel IPR family.

Scope note before the chronology

The proceeding in the case metadata (IPR2025‑00394) is not itself an infringement action — it is one of seven parallel LG IPRs attacking the nine Maxell patents asserted in the underlying district court case. The infringement litigation is:

Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. — filed as No. 5:23‑cv‑00152 (E.D. Tex., Judge Robert W. Schroeder III), transferred and re-docketed as No. 5:24‑cv‑04972 (N.D. Cal.), ultimately before Judge Noël Wise (San Jose), with Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on discovery. The chronology below tracks the district court case with the PTAB track layered in, since the two directly interacted on the stay motion and on discretionary-denial briefing.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Counsel: Maxell — Mayer Brown (Michael A. Molano, Edward D. Johnson, Alan Grimaldi, Graham Buccigross, Cliff Maier) and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson (Geoffrey Culbertson, Kelly Tidwell). LG — Fish & Richardson, with Gillam & Smith in Texas.

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance

Motion to transfer (E.D. Tex.) — granted.
LG filed a sealed § 1404(a) motion to transfer (Dkt. 30); Judge Schroeder set argument for 2024‑06‑20 (Dkt. 32, entered 2024‑05‑06). The motion was granted on 2024‑07‑01, and the case was transferred to N.D. Cal., where it was docketed on 2024‑08‑09 as 5:24‑cv‑04972 and assigned to Judge Eumi K. Lee. This forum loss was the single most consequential early ruling for Maxell.

Rule 12(c) § 101 motion — fully briefed, never decided.
On 2024‑10‑04, LG filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that the asserted claims of the '188, '072, '449, and '760 patents are directed to the abstract idea of "recording, manipulating, and displaying data" and are ineligible under § 101 (Dkt. 94). Maxell opposed on 2024‑11‑01 (Dkt. 105), supporting its opposition with declarations from Dr. Mahdi Eslamimehr (Dkt. 108, attaching the '072 notice of allowance and reasons for allowance) and Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (Dkt. 107). LG replied (Dkt. 113). The hearing, originally set for 2025‑03‑12 before Judge Lee (Dkt. 117), was vacated when the case was reassigned and renoticed for 2025‑05‑13 before Judge Wise. No ruling ever issued — settlement intervened, and the § 101 defense was never adjudicated. This is the most significant "what if" in the case: the eligibility question was fully briefed but unresolved at dismissal.

Motion to stay pending IPR — denied.
LG moved to stay the district court case pending the seven IPRs; briefing was complete by 2025‑01‑24. Judge Wise denied the stay on 2025‑04‑25, four days before the settlement notice — meaning the N.D. Cal. case was proceeding on a live claim construction and trial track while the PTAB petitions sat awaiting institution decisions.

3. Claim construction — no Markman order, no hearing

The case did not reach a claim construction ruling. What occurred:

• 2024‑12‑05: Case Management & Scheduling Order and referral to private ADR (Dkt. 118). The order set a claim construction tutorial and required private mediation no later than 45 days after the claim construction order.
• 2025‑02‑18: Patent L.R. 4‑1 exchange of proposed terms for construction.
• 2025‑03‑11: Patent L.R. 4‑2 exchange of preliminary claim constructions and extrinsic evidence.
• A further CMC was set for 2025‑05‑21 and a claims construction tutorial was calendared, but the reassignment order (Dkt. 130) and then the settlement eliminated them.

So: no Markman hearing, no claim construction order, no constructions adopted. Any representation that the court construed the '072 claims would be unsupported.

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• 2024‑12‑10 / 2024‑12‑12: Stipulated protective order filed and entered as modified by Judge van Keulen (Dkt. 120).
• 2024‑12‑18: Maxell serves its N.D. Cal. infringement contentions. LG attacked them as deficient — no claim charts beyond 9 total across 9 patents for ~290 accused products.
• 2025‑02‑03: LG serves Patent L.R. 3‑3 invalidity contentions, expressly incorporating invalidity positions from every prior Maxell suit and IPR against these patents.
• By 2025‑03‑17: The parties had collectively produced over 300,000 pages — a figure Maxell used in the PTAB to argue Fintiv Factor 3 investment.
• 2025‑03‑17: Joint Case Management Statement filed at Judge Wise's direction (Dkt. 130 ¶ 8), flagging the § 101 motion and claim construction as the case-dispositive issues and confirming a jury trial expected to last 10 days.

5. Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions — none

There was **no trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new‑trial motion, and no fee

I'll search for press coverage across several angles.

Let me search additional angles for dedicated coverage.

Press coverage summary

Bottom line: the IPR itself drew essentially no press attention. I searched the caption (LG Electronics Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2025-00394), the parties, the '072 patent number, and settlement/verdict angles across legal trade and mainstream outlets. No Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra item discussing IPR2025-00394 turned up. The only search results tied to the proceeding itself were docket/analytics aggregators — Docket Alarm and Ex Parte's AI case lab — plus USPTO filings and the Board's own papers. That is unsurprising for an IPR that settled before institution: there was no institution decision, no final written decision, and no merits ruling to report.

The closest thing to dedicated coverage is of the underlying district court case. MLex reported on 2025-04-29 that Maxell and LG had given notice to U.S. District Judge Noël Wise (N.D. Cal.) of a "prospective" settlement of Maxell's claims that LG infringed nine patents covering recording media, imaging devices, and information processing through smartphones, laptops, and tablets. MLex specifically tied the deal to this IPR: it noted the settlement left unresolved LG's § 101 challenge to a subset of patents — Nos. 7,421,188, 10,199,072, 9,818,449 and 6,856,760 — raised in an October 2024 motion for judgment as a matter of law that was fully briefed but not yet decided, with a hearing set for May 13; and that LG had not yet moved to dismiss the seven pending PTAB petitions, including the '072 petition. MLex also reported that Judge Wise denied LG's bid to stay the district court case pending institution decisions on 2025-04-25. Per the Board's 2025-07-14 termination decision (Paper 10), the parties filed their joint motion to terminate on 2025-07-01 and the confidential settlement agreement (Ex. 1041) was kept separate from the patent file under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — which is why no terms have surfaced anywhere.

Where coverage goes beyond the record — and where it's thin. No outlet reported any dollar figure, royalty, or license term for this dispute; the only public characterizations are analyst commentary rather than reporting. A PatSnap litigation blog post characterized the N.D. Cal. dismissal — a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation dismissing all claims "WITH PREJUDICE," each side bearing its own costs, docketed closed 2025-07-02 — as evidence of a "commercially negotiated exit," reasoning that the absence of any cost-shifting motion suggests neither side won a merits judgment, and framed the nine-patent assertion against "over 60 distinct LG product families" as "an aggressive, portfolio-wide enforcement strategy." That is inference from the docket, not reporting, and PatSnap is a patent-analytics vendor with a commercial interest in flagging enforcement risk.

One caution for anyone researching this case: search results for "Maxell v. LG" are dominated by a different dispute — Mondis Technology/Hitachi Maxell v. LG over U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180, in which a jury awarded $45 million in 2019, a retrial reduced it to $14.3 million in 2023, and the Federal Circuit reversed and invalidated the claims in August 2025. That decision drew coverage in Korean outlets such as IP Daily and The Guru, and a Fish & Richardson award announcement — but none of it concerns the '072 patent or IPR2025-00394, and those dollar figures should not be attributed to this case. Separately, Field News reported on 2026-04-02 that Maxell filed a new E.D. Tex. suit against LG over smart TV video processing and casting patents — a later, distinct round of litigation.

Sourcing caveat: I could not verify via any independent outlet the precise filing date or terms of the settlement that produced the IPR termination; MLex's April 2025 description ("prospective" settlement, § 101 motion unresolved) predates the July 2025 dismissal and PTAB terminations, and no retrieved article reconciles the two beyond the docket record itself.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• 1 Leeron G
• Ex. 1021 | IPR2025-00394 | LG Electronics Inc v. Maxell Ltd | Ex Parte
• Search court records on patent:(10199072), page 2 - - All Courts
• Search court records on patent:(10199072)
• Petition analysis | IPR2025-00394 | LG Electronics Inc v. Maxell Ltd | Ex Parte
• - IPR2025-00392, filed December 31, 2024, against U
• LG전자, 몬디스·맥셀 제기 1,400만 달러 특허 침해 소송 승소… 美 CAFC, 특허 무효 판결
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Ex. 1004 | IPR2025-00394 | LG Electronics Inc v. Maxell Ltd | Ex Parte
• Maxell v. LG Electronics: 9-Patent Smartphone Dispute Dismissed | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered

I'll research counsel of record for LG as petitioner in IPR2025-00394.

Now let me pull the actual petition documents for IPR2025-00394 to confirm the designated counsel.

Let me verify the mandatory notice / power of attorney filings and the joint motion signature blocks, plus attorney bios.

Framing note before the list

Two things need clarifying, because they change who counts as "plaintiff’s counsel":

1. In IPR2025-00394 itself there is no "plaintiff." The Board caption is LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., with LG as Petitioner and Maxell as Patent Owner. The case metadata in this assignment lists LG as "Plaintiff(s)," so for the PTAB proceeding the operative question is: who represented LG (Petitioner) of record.
2. In the underlying district court case the roles flip. Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 5:23-cv-00152 (E.D. Tex.), transferred to No. 5:24-cv-04972-NW-SVK (N.D. Cal.), had Maxell as plaintiff and LG as defendant. So if you meant "the plaintiff in the infringement case" literally, that is Maxell — I've listed both sides below so either reading is covered.

Both sides used the same firms in both forums: Fish & Richardson for LG, Mayer Brown for Maxell.

---

1. Counsel of record for LG (Petitioner — the party listed as plaintiff in the metadata)

Designated in the Petition's mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)–(4), filed December 30, 2024 (Petition, Paper 2, § VII.C, attorney docket 18768-0217IP7), and confirmed as the service list in the Board's termination decision, Paper 10 (July 14, 2025):

Points of care on this list:

• No in-house LG counsel appears of record in the IPR. The Petition designates only the four F&R attorneys. I found no LG legal-department attorney on any Board paper; if one was involved, that person was not designated under § 42.8(b)(3).
• No change of counsel or withdrawal is reflected in the record I could retrieve (papers 1–11). The Petition (Paper 2), the Power of Attorney (Paper 1, Dec. 30, 2024), the Mandatory Notice (Paper 3, Jan. 21, 2025) and Paper 4 (Notice of Power of Attorney) are docketed, but I was only able to read the full text of the Petition and Paper 10 — I could not independently open Papers 1, 3 or 4, so a later addition/removal of an attorney between January and July 2025 cannot be excluded. Paper 10's service list is the strongest evidence of who remained counsel through termination.
• Service of the Petition was made on Maxell at its prosecution correspondence address — Mattingly & Malur, PC, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 210, Alexandria, VA — not on litigation counsel.

2. LG's counsel in the parallel district court case (LG = defendant there)

Same firm, different bench. From LG's N.D. Cal. filings (Dkts. 124, 125, 128, 129) and the March 17, 2025 joint case management statement in No. 5:24-cv-04972-NW-SVK:

3. If you meant Maxell (the actual district-court plaintiff) — for completeness

• In IPR2025-00394: Maxell's counsel of record were Robert Pluta (rpluta@mayerbrown.com) and Nicholas Ciulla (nciulla@mayerbrown.com) of Mayer Brown LLP, per the Paper 10 (July 14, 2025) service list. Mayer Brown signed the joint motion to terminate and the joint BCI request with F&R.
• In N.D. Cal.: Maxell's team was Edward D. Johnson (SBN 189475), Cliff A. Maier (SBN 248858) and Graham (Gray) Buccigross (SBN 234558) of Mayer Brown's Palo Alto office; Michael A. Molano (SBN 171057), Mayer Brown, San Francisco; and Alan M. Grimaldi (pro hac vice), Mayer Brown, Washington, DC. Johnson argued/filed Maxell's opposition to LG's stay motion; Molano supplied the opposition declaration.

---

Sourcing and caveats

• The LG-side PTAB roster is grounded in the Petition's § VII.C mandatory-notice table (filed Dec. 30, 2024, text retrieved via PTActs) and the Board's termination decision, Paper 10 (PDF via Docket Alarm).
• District-court names are grounded in the N.D. Cal. docket entries reproduced on CourtListener and the joint case management statement filed in the related IPR.
• Not verified: I did not retrieve the F&R or Mayer Brown attorney biography pages in this pass (a search for Riffe's firm bio hit my tool-call limit), so the "experience" notes are limited to what the case record itself shows — his designation as lead counsel across LG's Maxell IPR series and F&R's role as LG's outside patent litigation counsel. I have no independent sourcing for case counts, wins, or other client work, and I have not asserted any.
• Nothing in the file is sealed as to counsel; only the settlement agreement (Ex. 1041) was sealed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). No attorney names are redacted anywhere in the record.

I'll research Maxell's counsel of record in this IPR and the related district court litigation.

Let me pull the Patent Owner's mandatory notice and power of attorney filings.

Let me look for the actual Patent Owner filings — the power of attorney, mandatory notice, and the discretionary-denial brief signature blocks.

Counsel of Record — IPR2025-00394

Framing note first, because it affects who you're actually looking for. In this PTAB proceeding the party designations are inverted relative to a conventional infringement suit. LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. are the Petitioners (the asserting party), and Maxell, Ltd. is the Patent Owner — i.e., the respondent/defendant side. In the parallel district court case (Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 5:24-cv-04972-NW-SVK, N.D. Cal.), the roles flip: Maxell is plaintiff, LG is defendant. I've set out both sides below, leading with Maxell since that matches the "defendant(s)" designation in the case metadata.

---

1. Maxell, Ltd. — Patent Owner (respondent/defendant side)

Verification caveat — read this before citing the table. The authoritative IPR-side document is Paper 4, "Notice: Power of Attorney" (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2025), with Paper 3, "Notice: Mandatory Notice" filed the same day and Paper 7, "Brief In Support of Discretionary Denial" (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2025). I identified all three on the docket but could not retrieve their text, so I have not confirmed that the Mayer Brown attorneys named above are the ones formally designated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) in IPR2025-00394. The table is built from two verified sources outside the IPR caption block: (a) the Patent Owner's own exhibit in the companion proceeding IPR2025-00393 (Ex. 2002, filed Apr. 11, 2025), whose cover page reads "MAYER BROWN LLP / EDWARD JOHNSON (SBN 189475) … Attorneys for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.," and (b) the N.D. Cal. docket's Maxell signature blocks. That the same Mayer Brown team handled the § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretionary-denial briefing across the LG petition family is a strong inference, not a confirmed fact.

Possible additional name, unconfirmed: Jamie B. Beaber (Mayer Brown, Washington, D.C.) has appeared for Maxell in its prior campaigns (service lists in Maxell v. Huawei, E.D. Tex.) and appears on Maxell's attorney list in the later 2026 E.D. Tex. suit, but I found no evidence tying him to IPR2025-00394 specifically.

In-house counsel: none identified. Maxell is a Japanese corporation (Kyoto); no in-house attorney appears in any retrieved filing, and I would not assume one appeared.

2. LG Electronics Inc. / LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. — Petitioners (plaintiff side)

---

What I could not verify, and why

• The IPR2025-00394 caption block itself. The Board's termination decision (Paper 10, July 14, 2025) and the joint motion to terminate (Paper 8, July 1, 2025) both carry appearances sections, but the retrieved text of those papers did not include the counsel listings. Paper 4 (Power of Attorney) is the document that would settle the Maxell question definitively and it is public on PTAB E2E — that's the one to pull.
• The Dec. 30, 2024 LG petition's own § 42.8(b)(3) table. I verified Riffe/Huang/Schwentker/Cannon/Yu from the sister petitions (IPR2025-00392/00393, and the 00519 joint motion), which share Fish's docket series 18768-0217IP1 through IP4. It would be unusual but not impossible for the '072 petition to name a different lead.
• Nothing is sealed here. The settlement agreement (Ex. 1041 in this proceeding) was kept separate from the patent file under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), but counsel's appearances were not sealed — this is a retrieval gap on my end, not a sealing issue.
• Caution on name collisions. Searches for Maxell/LG counsel are polluted by (a) the unrelated Mondis/Hitachi Maxell v. LG dispute over U.S. Pat. No. 7,475,180, and (b) Maxell's 2026 E.D. Tex. suit (No. 2:26-cv-00266), where Maxell's counsel list includes Beaber, Dyro, Haines, Gelsleichter, Grimaldi, Levy, Bonner, Culbertson, and Tidwell, with Melissa Richards Smith for LG. Those attorneys should not be reported as counsel in IPR2025-00394 without further confirmation.

Practical next step

Pull these three PTAB E2E documents for IPR2025-00394 and the answer resolves cleanly: Paper 3 (Mandatory Notice, Jan. 21, 2025), Paper 4 (Power of Attorney, Jan. 21, 2025), and Paper 7 (PO Discretionary Denial Brief, Apr. 11, 2025 — signature block). Paper 7 is the highest-value check because it was Maxell's substantive filing in this very proceeding and will name every attorney who actually worked the IPR, not just the ones on the corporate power of attorney.