Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd.

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

Key facts are emerging. Let me dig into the patents, the IPRs, and the related Luminati campaign.

Let me verify the specific patents asserted against BI Science and the IPR linkage.

I'll research this case aggressively across dockets, PTAB records, and legal news sources.

Good progress. Now let me dig into the specific '614/'511 patents, the docket for 2:19-cv-00397, and parallel PTAB proceedings.

I'll research the counsel of record for Luminati Networks in this case.

Let me get the specific docket entries and appearances for this case.

Let me verify the firms and attorney backgrounds.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Luminati Networks Ltd. — Case No. 2:19-cv-00397-JRG

Bottom line: Seven attorneys entered appearances for Luminati in the '397 docket itself — four from the national IP boutique RuyakCherian LLP (Berkeley, CA / Washington, D.C.), one Capshaw DeRieux LLP local counsel (Gladewater, TX), and two from the Tyler, TX trial firm Mann | Tindel | Thompson. Korula T. Cherian was designated "Attorney in Charge" at filing. The case was consolidated into lead case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG on April 16, 2020 (Consolidation Order), so the substantive docket after that point runs under the lead case number.

Note on sourcing: the underlying docket text is reproduced on Unified Patents' litigation portal and UniCourt; I was not able to pull the raw PACER docket sheet in this session, so entry numbers below are as reflected in those docket-text sources and should be verified against PACER.

---

A. Appeared in 2:19-cv-00397-JRG

1. Korula T. ("Sunny") Cherian — Lead counsel / Attorney in Charge

• Firm: RuyakCherian LLP (now Cherian LLP), Berkeley, CA office (1936 University Ave., Ste. 350) and Washington, D.C. office (1700 K St. NW, Ste. 810).
• Docket: Designated "Attorney in Charge" for Luminati at filing (Notice of Designation of Attorney in Charge, 12/06/2019 — Dkt. 5 in the '397 docket text); signed the complaint (Dkt. 1).
• Note: Founding partner of the firm; Luminati's lead patent counsel across its EDTX proxy-network campaign (2:18-cv-00483, 2:19-cv-00395/396/397). In the earlier '483 case he was initially lead counsel and, in Feb. 2020, moved (unopposed) to substitute Robert Harkins as lead — a motion the court later denied without prejudice.

2. Robert M. Harkins, Jr. — Lead counsel / of counsel (national)

• Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Berkeley, CA.
• Docket: Notice of Attorney Appearance, filed 12/06/2019 (Dkt. 4 in the related '396/'397 filing sequence).
• Note: Named as successor lead counsel in the '483 case (Unopposed Motion for Substitution of Lead Counsel, Dkt. 147) and handled Luminati's claim-construction presentations (e.g., submission of Markman hearing slides). Appeared for Luminati on the Federal Circuit appeal.

3. Ronald Wielkopolski — Of counsel (national)

• Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Docket: Notice of Attorney Appearance, 12/06/2019.
• Note: Declared himself "counsel of record for Plaintiff Luminati Networks, Ltd." in the related Luminati v. B Science litigation (declaration in support of Luminati's motion for sanctions, 2:18-cv-00483). Frequently the signing attorney on Luminati's discovery/motion papers and its Federal Circuit entries of appearance.

4. Amadou Kilkenny Diaw — Of counsel (national)

• Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Docket: Notice of Attorney Appearance, 12/06/2019.
• Note: Listed on the complaint signature blocks for the December 2019 Luminati EDTX complaints. Later a senior in-house/DOJ and FTC-adjacent lawyer; his patent-litigation footprint in this matter is comparatively light.

5. Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III — Local counsel (EDTX)

• Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater, TX (114 E. Commerce Ave.).
• Docket: Notice of Attorney Appearance, 12/06/2019 (Dkt. 6 in the '397 docket text).
• Note: Dean of the EDTX Marshall/Gladewater patent local-counsel bar; long-time Luminati local counsel and a frequent P.R. 4-1/4-2 and Local Rule CV-7(h) conference participant in this campaign.

6. James Mark "J. Mark" Mann — Trial/local counsel (EDTX)

• Firm: Mann | Tindel | Thompson, Tyler, TX (112 E. Line St., Ste. 304).
• Docket: Notice of Attorney Appearance, 03/23/2020.
• Note: Tyler-based patent trial lawyer; on the VLSI v. Intel trial team (W.D. Tex.) and a regular appearances/first-chair counsel in EDTX patent cases. Also signed Luminati's Notice of Appeal in the related '483 case.

7. Gregory Blake Thompson — Local counsel (EDTX)

• Firm: Mann | Tindel | Thompson, Tyler, TX.
• Docket: Notice of Attorney Appearance, 03/29/2020.
• Note: Mann/Tindel firm partner (Texas Bar No. 24042033); appears alongside Mann as regional counsel in EDTX patent matters.

---

B. Counsel appearing on signature blocks in the related/consolidated pleadings (no confirmed '397 appearance)

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux — Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater, TX. Signed the December 6, 2019 complaints and many Luminati papers in this campaign; her Notice of Attorney Appearance was filed in the lead case 2:19-cv-00395 (docketed 05/18/2020), not in '397. Treat as local counsel of record for the group, with the caveat that '397-specific appearance is not confirmed.
• Corrine Saylor Davis — RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, D.C. Listed on the complaint signature blocks for the related '395/'396 complaints; no confirmed appearance in '397.
• Robert Ruyak — RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, D.C. Name/letterhead appears on some Luminati signature blocks in the campaign; no confirmed '397 appearance.

---

C. Related representation context (same plaintiff, same patents)

• Federal Circuit: In Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd., No. 20-2118 (Fed. Cir.), entries of appearance for appellee/cross-appellant Luminati were filed by Korula T. Cherian; Robert M. Harkins, Jr. (corrected entry, 08/26/2020) and Ronald R. Wielkopolski (08/25/2020). (A separate appeal, 21-1664, also traces to E.D. Tex. 2:18-cv-00483.)
• PTAB: In BI Science (2009) Ltd. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-00167, patent-owner counsel of record was RuyakCherian LLP; petitioner BI Science was represented by Liston Abramson LLP (Ronald Abramson / M. Michael Lewis), who also appeared for the defendant before withdrawing in the district court.
• Defense side (for contrast): BI Science was represented by Eric H. Findlay and Debby Gunter of Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, TX), with Finnegan as IPR/settlement counsel.

---

D. Explicit caveats

• Docket numbers: Because I relied on secondary docket-text mirrors (Unified Patents portal, UniCourt) rather than the raw PACER sheet, the document numbers for the appearances should be confirmed on PACER. The attorney identities and dates, however, are consistent across multiple sources.
• Sealed/withdrawn filings: Several Luminati filings in the campaign were filed under seal or in redacted form, and there was at least one lead-counsel substitution motion in the related '483 case that the court denied without prejudice. Nothing in the '397 record indicates an undisclosed appearance.
• Case posture: Per the case metadata, this action was resolved by a February 24, 2020 settlement agreement and an April 29, 2020 arbitration award; the docket shows the '397 case was consolidated into 2:19-cv-00395 (4/16/2020) and Luminati's claims

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

I found initial leads. Let me dig into the specific docket for this case and confirm defendant-side appearances.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-00397-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The defendant, BI Science (2009) Ltd. (a/k/a BI Science Inc., an Israeli company), was represented by the Tyler, Texas firm Findlay Craft, P.C., with Eric H. Findlay as the attorney of record/lead counsel. The docket in this case shows defendant-side filings signed by Findlay for every substantive event (the two unopposed extensions of time to answer and the Answer/Counterclaim). No separate national or in-house counsel appeared on this docket.

Sourcing note up front: this case terminated quickly (settlement/arbitration) and its docket is short. My identification is built from the publicly mirrored docket (Unified Patents litigation portal, UniCourt, CourtListener/RECAP, and Internet Archive copies of E.D. Tex. filings), because a direct PACER attorney list for -397 was not retrievable. Where I could not confirm a specific appearance in this docket, I say so.

---

Confirmed on the -397 docket (Findlay Craft, P.C. — Tyler, TX)

Docket support (case 2:19-cv-00397-JRG):

• 02/21/2020 — "Defendants Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re BI Science (2009) Ltd. (Findlay, Eric)"
• 03/25/2020 — "Defendants Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re BI Science (2009) Ltd. (Findlay, Eric)"
• 03/27/2020 — "ANSWER to 1 Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, COUNTERCLAIM against Luminati Networks Ltd. by BI Science (2009) Ltd. (Findlay, Eric)"
• 04/16/2020 — Consolidation order pulling -397 into lead case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (all further filings made in the lead case).

Sources: Unified Patents case page for 2:19-cv-00397 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:19-cv-00397); UniCourt docket mirror (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-luminati-networks-ltd-v-bi-science-2009-ltd-[274945](/patent/274945)).

---

Related-case defendant counsel (same defendant, NOT confirmed to have appeared in -397)

The same defendant was defended across a family of Luminati suits in E.D. Tex. (2:18-cv-00483, 2:19-cv-00352, and lead case 2:19-cv-00395). Counsel appearing there — but which I cannot confirm entered an appearance in 2:19-cv-00397 — included:

• Ronald Abramson and M. Michael Lewis — Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY. Appeared for BI Science in the earlier 2:18-cv-00483 case; later withdrew (Dkt. 193, granted by the court's July 2, 2020 order).
• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner — described in a filing as BI Science's "preexisting counsel" engaged "primarily as settlement counsel and counsel for any post-grant review proceedings." Finnegan did not appear as counsel of record on the district-court docket.
• Findlay Craft filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in the related BI Science case (Dkt. 188/190, 2:18-cv-00483) in May 2020 because the case was winding down and the firm is "not appellate counsel," stating BI Science intended to retain new appellate counsel. This is the same firm that made the filings in -397.

Sources: Findlay Craft withdrawal motion (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.[185891](/patent/185891)/gov.uscourts.txed.185891.190.0.pdf); Jus Mundi copy of the E.D. Tex. July 2, 2020 order granting withdrawal (https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-luminati-networks-ltd-v-b-i-science-2009-ltd-order-and-final-judgment...); Dkt. 123.2 correspondence listing Findlay Craft + Liston Abramson as counsel for BI Science.

---

On appeal (context, not the -397 trial docket)

On the Federal Circuit appeal arising from the consolidated E.D. Tex. litigation (No. 2020-2118, BI Science (2009) Ltd. v. Luminati; consolidated with 20-2181, 21-1664, 21-1667), BI Science's appellate counsel of record were:

• Michael A. Charish, John Christopher Rozendaal, and William H. Milliken (entry of appearance filed 08/18/2020) — the substitute appellate team Findlay Craft's withdrawal motion foreshadowed.

Source: CourtListener/Dockets.Justia CAFC 20-2118 docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/20-2118). The Federal Circuit affirmed on 08/30/2023 (Prost, Schall, Hughes, JJ.; nonprecedential).

---

Important caveats

1. No defendant attorney-appearance notice surfaced in -397. Unlike the plaintiff (which filed appearances for Korula Cherian, S. Calvin Capshaw, Robert Harkins, Amadou Diaw, Ronald Wielkopolski, James Mark Mann, and Gregory Blake Thompson), the defendant's counsel is identifiable in -397 only through signed filings; the docket text does not show a standalone "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance" for the defendant.
2. Sealed filings. Several defendant-side filings across the family of cases (e.g., the motion to withdraw, the sealed response to the motion to enforce settlement) were filed under seal; redacted versions were filed publicly. Sealed material may contain additional counsel names I could not verify.
3. Consolidation. Because -397 was consolidated into lead case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG on 04/16/2020, later attorney activity for BI Science appears on the -395 docket rather than on -397.
4. I did not identify any in-house counsel or separate Israeli counsel entering an appearance in this U.S. action.