Microsoft Corporation v. Sterling Computers Corporation

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a verified overview.

Let me dig into the parallel litigation, the accused products, and the related IPRs.

Now let me verify the parallel proceedings and the litigation's current status.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The petitioner is Microsoft Corporation, the operating company defending both a district court infringement suit and, via its IPR, seeking to cancel the claims of the asserted patent. Its PTAB counsel is Winston & Strawn LLP (Scott Border, Tathagata Goswami, Joe Netikosol) — the same firm appearing for Microsoft in the co-pending district court action (see IPR2025-00270, Paper 8, Notice of Referral to Board Panel, May 28, 2025; W.D. Tex. Dkts. 23, 26). The patent owner is Sterling Computers Corporation, which is not the original inventor. Sterling was formed in California in 1996, describes itself in corporate filings as being in "RESALE IT EQUIPMENT," and holds itself out as an "ISO 9001:2015 certified firm" providing IT sales and services (RPX, "Turn Of Sterling Computers To Patent Litigation No Fluke," July 17, 2024, via Mondaq). The '911 patent reached Sterling in a September 2014 assignment of four issued patents from Bluespace Software, a messaging/multi-level applications vendor serving the defense and intelligence community; the '217 patent asserted against Meta and X came from the same Bluespace portfolio (RPX, same). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database lists Sterling as a "Product company" (category 8) asserter rather than a classic PAE, though the pattern — a small IT reseller monetizing a handful of acquired software patents against large platform companies — has PAE characteristics. Sterling's PTAB counsel is Padmanabhan & Dawson, PLLC (Devan Padmanabhan, Michelle Dawson); RPX reported DiNovo Price LLP as Sterling's district court counsel, which I could not independently reconcile with the pro hac vice order naming Padmanabhan in the Microsoft case (W.D. Tex. Dkt. 13).

Asserted patent and accused technology. The sole patent in this IPR is U.S. Patent No. 8,073,911, "System and Method for Enforcing Compliance on Electronic Messages." In one line: it claims a computer messenging server in which a sent message is stored as a "message container" holding relational references pointing to a plurality of externally stored "sent submessages" (replies/forwards), plus a "governance module" controlling a governance policy database that applies compliance rules — potentially different rules to different submessages — via source/target/rank elements in a "population structure" (see petition summary at Ex Parte AI Lab, IPR2025-00270; complaint analysis, 1:24-cv-00406 ¶¶ 38–48). The accused instrumentality in the district court case is Microsoft Exchange Online (also simply "Exchange"), with the infringement theory mapped to two features: "mail flow rules" (alleged governance module/policy database) and Exchange "conversations," which group a thread by the Message-ID of the first email with replies referencing it in References/In-Reply-To headers (alleged relational references/message container). The complaint chart is built almost entirely from Microsoft's own public Learn documentation (Compl. ¶¶ 39–48, 1:24-cv-00406). Claims 1 (server) and 10 (computer program product) are the asserted independents.

Procedural posture and IPR linkage. The underlying district court case — Sterling Computers Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:24-cv-00406 (W.D. Tex., Austin Division) — was filed April 17, 2024 before Judge Robert L. Pitman (Dockets.Justia; RPX). On February 12, 2025, Judge Pitman denied Microsoft's Rule 12(b)(6) Alice motion without prejudice, holding that § 101 was premature: claim construction was imminent, fact discovery had not begun, and the step-two inquiry required clear and convincing evidence that could be informed by discovery. The court expressly permitted Microsoft to refile after claim construction (E.D. Tex.-style deferral reasoning; Dkt. 48 at 5–7, available at storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172783609). Microsoft's IPR petition was filed January 17, 2025, the same week it moved to dismiss. Sterling declined to file a discretionary-denial brief under the Board's March 26, 2025 "Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management" memo, so on May 28, 2025 the case was referred to a merits panel (Paper 8) — meaning the Fintiv-type argument for discretionarily denying institution based on the parallel Texas case was never pressed. Institution was granted September 23, 2025 (Paper 12), on two obviousness grounds: Rohall (US 2003/0163537) in view of Schiavone (US 2002/0120600) for claims 1–8, 10–13, 15, 18, 20–21; and Rohall/Schiavone/Gomes (US 8,375,008) for claims 9 and 27 (challenged claims 1–13, 15, 18, 20–21, 27). The panel is APJs Karl D. Easthom, Amber L. Hagy, and Bach V. Hoang, with Hoang authoring. Patent Owner's response was due December 16, 2025; per the Amended Scheduling Order of March 10, 2026 (Paper 19), oral argument was moved from June 24 to July 16, 2026. Trial is therefore in mid-2026, before any final written decision. Note: I could not confirm from the sources retrieved whether the Microsoft district court action has been stayed pending this IPR; the Meta and X cases against Sterling were stayed on February 24, 2025 (W.D. Tex., 1:24-cv-00551, ECF No. 45, as recited in Meta's July 10, 2025 joinder motion in IPR2025-01248), but a parallel stay order in the Microsoft case was not verified here.

Why it is notable. Three things. First, it is one campaign, not one case: Sterling sued Microsoft ('911), Meta ('217), and X ('217) in W.D. Tex. in April–May 2024, and the defendants responded with a coordinated IPR cluster — Microsoft's IPR2025-00270 ('911), Meta's IPR2025-00430 (filed Jan. 31, 2025, '217), X's IPR2025-00299 (instituted June 10, 2025), and Meta's follow-on IPR2025-01248 (filed July 10, 2025, seeking joinder with the X IPR if institution were denied in the -430). Notably, IPR2025-00430 shares the identical panel (Easthom, Hagy, Hoang) with this proceeding. Second, the subject matter goes to the heart of Microsoft 365: Exchange Online's mail flow rules and conversation threading are ubiquitous enterprise compliance infrastructure, so an invalidity holding — or, conversely, a survivor set of claims — has real exposure for Microsoft's cloud messaging stack and potentially for third parties running Exchange-compatible compliance rules engines. Third, the case sits at the intersection of two of the biggest PTAB/dispute dynamics of 2025–26: the Board's post-Fintiv "Interim Processes" era, in which patent owners must affirmatively opt in to discretionary-denial arguments (Sterling did not, forfeiting the district-court-crowding defense), and § 101 as the parallel invalidity track, where Judge Pitman's deferral means the eligibility question is being parked for post-claim-construction resolution even as the Board runs to a mid-2026 hearing. Finally, it is a small-IT-reseller-asserts-acquired-software-patent story: a ~dozen-patent portfolio bought from a defunct defense/intelligence messaging vendor, deployed against three of the largest platform companies in the country.

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

Now I have the core picture: a W.D. Tex. district court case (Sterling v. Microsoft, 1:24-cv-00406) plus the PTAB IPR. Let me dig deeper.

Bottom line up front: the case metadata conflates two different proceedings

Before the chronology, one correction that matters for everything below. The caption in the case metadata — Microsoft Corporation v. Sterling Computers Corporation — is the PTAB caption for IPR2025-00270. The district court litigation runs the other direction: Sterling Computers Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:24-cv-00406-RP (W.D. Tex., Austin Division), in which Sterling is the plaintiff/patentee and Microsoft is the defendant/accused infringer. Microsoft is the IPR petitioner because it is the district court defendant. There is no separate "Microsoft v. Sterling" district court case; if you search that caption you will land on the IPR docket.

So the "litigation" you asked about is really a two-track AIA-era dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,073,911 ("System and Method for Enforcing Compliance on Electronic Messages"), asserted against Microsoft Exchange / Exchange Online.

---

Consolidated chronology

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (district court)

• Complaint filed 2024-04-17. Sterling asserts the '911 patent against Microsoft Exchange/Exchange Online, with an exemplary claim chart mapping "message container"/"relational references"/"submessages" to Exchange conversation threading (Message-ID, References/In-Reply-To headers) and "governance module" to Exchange mail flow rules. Complaint text: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4503759](/patent/4503759)/1-24-cv-00406_txwd_complaint_exparte.pdf
• Initial response was a motion, not an answer. Microsoft's first substantive response (2024-06-13) was the Rule 12(b)(6) motion — no answer or counterclaims confirmed at that stage. Because the motion was denied without prejudice, Microsoft's answer and the presence/absence of counterclaims (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) is not confirmed in the materials I could retrieve.
• Docket source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/1:2024cv00406/1172783609 (note: that Justia snapshot was last retrieved 2024-06-14, so it stops at Dkt. 27).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to dismiss (§ 101 / Alice) — DENIED 2025-02-12. The court (Judge Pitman) held that deciding eligibility on the pleadings was premature, citing: (1) claim construction was imminent; (2) fact discovery had not begun; and (3) Alice Step Two requires clear and convincing evidence and is fact-laden (Berkheimer). The court expressly permitted Microsoft to refile after the claim construction order issued and fact discovery opened — a live threat that remains the most significant invalidity vehicle in the case.

• Order: Sterling Computers Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:24-cv-00406-RP (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2025) (Dkt. 48), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172783609/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172783609.48.0.pdf; reprinted at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10355101](/patent/10355101)/sterling-computers-corporation-v-microsoft-corporation/

Motion to stay pending IPR — not confirmed. This is the natural companion motion once IPR2025-00270 was instituted (2025-09-23), and W.D. Tex. practice makes it likely one was filed. I could not verify that a stay motion was filed, how the court ruled, or whether the court imposed an IPR-estoppel/claim-dropping condition. Treat as unverified.

3. Claim construction

• The 2025-02-12 order states claim construction "is set to begin this month" and that the § 101 decision would follow "the issuance of the Court's claim construction order."
• The actual Markman order and constructions are not confirmed in the sources I retrieved. There is no reported Markman opinion for 1:24-cv-00406 in the searches run. Given the order's language, a claim construction order was contemplated in Q1–Q2 2025; its substance (especially the construction of "message container," "relational references," and "governance module," which the IPR turns on) is a genuine gap.

4. Discovery milestones

• As of 2025-02-12, fact discovery had not begun (a fact the court relied on). The court noted discovery would be probative on the Alice Step Two "well-understood, routine, conventional" question.
• No specific discovery orders, motions to compel, or ESI/source-code disputes for this case are confirmed. (Discovery skirmishes I did see — motions to compel granted 2024-12-19 and 2025-05-07, leave to amend granted 2025-05-27 — belong to the D.S.D. IBM case, not this one; see §7.)

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None confirmed. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion is public in the sources retrieved. W.D. Tex. median time-to-trial (~28 months from filing) would put a trial window around mid-to-late 2026, so trial may be pending or recently set — but I cannot confirm a date.

6. Settlement / dismissal / appeal — present posture

• No settlement, dismissal, or appeal confirmed. The district court case appears active as of the last confirmed event (2025-02-12 denial of the motion to dismiss).
• The IPR is at the decisive moment: institution 2025-09-23 → FWD statutory deadline 2026-09-23 (today). Any FWD would be appealable to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. § 319, and would also feed the district court case via § 315(e) estoppel (applying to Microsoft's IPR grounds) and via the court's stay calculus.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceeding — IPR2025-00270 (the primary driver)

Petition: filed 2025-01-17; challenged claims 1–13, 15, 18, 20–21, 27 (note: not all claims — 14, 16–17, 19, 22–26 are outside the IPR).

Grounds (both § 103):

• Ground 1 — Claims 1–8, 10–13, 15, 18, 20–21 obvious over Rohall (US 2003/0163537) in view of Schiavone (US 2002/0120600). Rohall supplies the messaging module/thread structure ("shadow documents," parent-child pointers); Schiavone supplies the rule-based compliance engine mapped to the "governance module."
• Ground 2 — Claims 9 and 27 obvious over Rohall + Schiavone + Gomes (US 8,375,008) for the deduplication ("stored exactly once") and "search rules" limitations.
• Petition analysis: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00270/doc/summary/1

Procedural milestones:

• 2025-05-28 — Notice of Referral to Board Panel. Under the March 26, 2025 Interim Processes memo, PO was offered the chance to seek discretionary denial (e.g., Fintiv-style / "settled expectations"). Sterling did not file such a brief, so the case went to a merits panel: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00270/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Sterling_Computers_Corporation/docs/05-28-2025-Board/Notice__Other-8-Notice__Referral_to_Board_Panel.pdf
• 2025-09-23 — Institution granted (Paper 12, "Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review").
• 2025-12-16 Due Date 1 (PO Response); 2026-03-10 Due Date 2 (Petitioner Reply / MTA opposition).
• PO filed a contingent Motion to Amend — the amended scheduling order references replies to "Petitioner's opposition to the MTA" and a possible "revised MTA." So the IPR includes an amendment contingency, not just invalidity.
• 2026-07-16 — Oral argument (originally 2026-06-24; moved at PO's request, unopposed): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00270/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Sterling_Computers_Corporation/03-10-2026-Board/Order__Other-19-AMENDED_SCHEDULING_ORDER/
• Panel: APJs Karl D. Easthom, Amber L. Hagy, Bach V. Hoang (Hoang authored the amended scheduling order).

Counsel:

• Petitioner Microsoft: Scott Border, Tathagata Goswami, Joe Netikosol — Winston & Strawn LLP.
• Patent Owner Sterling: Devan Padmanabhan, Michelle Dawson — Padmanabhan & Dawson, PLLC (same firm that appeared in the district court case).

Effect on the litigation: the IPR is the case's center of gravity. It covers essentially all commercially relevant claims (including asserted claims 1 and 10), the district court itself deferred § 101 to allow development on the merits, and institution gave Microsoft a strong basis to seek a stay. A FWD cancelling claims 1–13/15/18/20–21/27 would gut the district court case; a FWD upholding them, combined with § 315(e)(2) estoppel, would push Microsoft back onto § 101 and any non-IPR defenses.

---

8. Related Sterling campaign (context, not this case)

Sterling is a practicing entity (category "8 – Product company" in the Stanford NPE database) headquartered in South Dakota, and the '911 patent appears in a broader assertion campaign. The Stanford NPE database lists only one district court case for patent 8,073,911 — 1:24-cv-00406 (W.D. Tex.): https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8073911 and https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/sterling-computers-corporation. Separately, Sterling Computers Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 4:23-cv-04150 (D.S.D., Judge Camela C. Theeler; Mag. J. Veronica L. Duffy) is an active parallel campaign case with a denied 12(b)(6) (2024-11-05), granted-in-part motions to compel (2024-12-19; 2025-05-07), leave to amend (2025-05-27), and summary-judgment briefing in spring 2026 — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67838915/sterling-computers-corporation-v-international-business-machines/. I could not confirm that the '911 patent is asserted in the IBM case (the Gomes prior art is a Lotus Notes-related patent, so it is plausible IBM is a target on the same family, but that is inference, not verification).

---

9. What is NOT verified (explicit gaps)

1. Microsoft's answer and any counterclaims/declaratory-judgment counts in 1:24-cv-00406 — not confirmed.
2. The Markman/claim construction order and constructions — not confirmed; timing suggests 2025.
3. Any motion to stay pending IPR and its disposition — not confirmed.
4. Discovery milestones (scheduling order, fact/Expert discovery cutoffs, motions to compel) — not confirmed.
5. Trial date, verdict, JMOL/new trial/fees — none confirmed.
6. Settlement, dismissal, or appeal — none confirmed; case appears active.
7. Whether the IPR2025-00270 FWD has issued — due today, 2026-09-23; not yet confirmed in the sources retrieved.
8. Whether any other IPR/PGR (e.g., by a Microsoft co-defendant) targets the '911 patent — only IPR2025-00270 appears in PTAB dockets for this patent.

To close gaps 1–7, the definitive sources are the PACER docket for 1:24-cv-00406-RP (post-June-2024 entries are not in the free Justia/CourtListener snapshots I could reach) and the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / PTAB E2E docket for IPR2025-00270 (Papers 13–20+, and the FWD if issued today). If a FWD issued in the last 24 hours, it should appear as the next paper after the July 16, 2026 oral-argument paper.

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, in IPR2025-00270.

Let me dig into the petition's mandatory notices and the Winston & Strawn team.

Let me verify the identities of the Winston & Strawn attorneys and check for any recent firm changes.

Bottom line

The petitioner (plaintiff-side party) in IPR2025-00270, Microsoft Corp. v. Sterling Computers Corp. is Microsoft Corporation. Across every Board paper in which counsel appear, Microsoft is represented by a Winston & Strawn LLP team of three: Scott Border, Tathagata D. ("TD") Goswami, and Joe Netikosol. The Board's caption does not break out "lead" versus "back-up" — that designation lives in the petition's mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), which I could not retrieve in full text, so the lead/back-up split below is flagged as not confirmed from this record.

---

Counsel of record for Petitioner Microsoft Corporation

Appearance is drawn verbatim from the Board's caption blocks in Paper 8, Notice of Referral to Board Panel (May 28, 2025) and Paper 19, Amended Scheduling Order (Mar. 10, 2026) — both list the identical three-attorney roster with @winston.com addresses:

Caveat on "lead counsel": In PTAB practice the caption lists attorneys alphabetically/without rank; the formal lead designation is in the petition's mandatory notices. Because I could not open the § 42.8 notices for IPR2025-00270, I am inferring Border's lead role from (a) his consistent position as first-listed/first-named petitioner counsel in Microsoft's other Winston-handled IPRs and (b) IPA Technologies, where the Federal Circuit identified Border as Microsoft's counsel alongside lead argument counsel Joseph Micallef. This is an inference, not a documented designation in this proceeding.

Firm-affiliation discrepancy worth flagging (unverified): A live web profile for Scott Border appears on Fenwick & West's site (partner, Litigation, Washington D.C., sborder@fenwick.com), which would indicate a post-2025 move away from Winston. However, the Board's March 10, 2026 amended scheduling order still lists him at WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, which is the operative counsel-of-record entry. Similarly, a "Winston Taylor" firm page lists a Tathagata D. Goswami patent advisor (td.goswami@winstontaylor.com). I could not confirm either move with a reliable primary source; the counsel of record per the Board's own papers remains Winston & Strawn. A docket check or subpoena-return/service-list review would settle this.

In-house counsel: No Microsoft in-house attorney is named in any PTAB paper or caption I retrieved for this IPR. Microsoft's power of attorney in PTAB matters is typically signed by a Microsoft legal-department officer (e.g., a Corporate Vice President & Deputy General Counsel in older filings), but I found no POA or § 42.8 notice for IPR2025-00270, so any in-house name here would be speculation. Not identified.

---

Related district court counsel (same parties, mirrored patent)

The IPR is a defensive/parallel move against Sterling Computers Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:24-cv-00406 (W.D. Tex., Judge Robert Pitman) — the underlying infringement suit over the '911 patent, filed April 17, 2024. There, Microsoft is the defendant, and its litigation team (per the W.D. Tex. docket) is a separate roster:

• Scott M. Border — pro hac vice, granted June 14, 2024 (Dkt. 26); Winston & Strawn.
• Juan C. Yaquian — pro hac vice, granted June 14, 2024 (Dkt. 27); Winston & Strawn.
• Kelly C. Hunsaker — local/W.D. Tex. counsel; filed the pro hac vice motions (Dkt. 21, 23, 24).
• Eimeric Reig-Plessis — notice of appearance June 13, 2024 (Dkt. 22); also credited on Winston's PTAB client alerts.

Note that Microsoft's lead counsel in the district case is at the same firm as its IPR team, which is common in parallel PTAB/district campaigns (and, per a Winston-sourced 2021 PTAB sanctions case — One World Techs. v. Chervon, IPR2020-00884 et al. — a firewall-sensitive arrangement the firm has written about).

For completeness, the patent owner's counsel is Devan Padmanabhan and Michelle Dawson, Padmanabhan & Dawson, PLLC (per Papers 8 and 19); Sterling's district-court filings have also involved DiNovo Price LLP and local W.D. Tex. counsel.

---

Source and evidentiary caveats

1. No sealed or withheld appearances identified. Every caption block I retrieved affirmatively lists petitioner's counsel, so no "counsel hasn't appeared yet" caveat applies — the roster is on the face of the Board's public papers.
2. Key documents I could locate but not read in full: the Petition itself (Paper 2, filed Jan. 17, 2025), its § 42.8 Mandatory Notices (which contain the lead/back-up designation and any in-house POA), and the institution decision (Paper 12, Sept. 23, 2025). Those are the definitive sources for the lead/back-up roles and any additional petitioner-side attorneys; I could not verify their text within this research.
3. Dated procedural posture: Note that the case has moved well past the "no final written decision" framing in the existing summary. The Board instituted review on Sept. 23, 2025 (Paper 12), and the amended scheduling order of March 10, 2026 (Paper 19) sets Patent Owner's response and motion to amend (Due Date 1) at Dec. 16, 2025, petitioner's reply and MTA opposition (Due Date 2) at March 10, 2026, and oral argument for July 16, 2026 before APJs Easthom, Hagy, and Hoang. No final written decision has issued as of today.
4. Names I did not invent: I list only the three names that appear in the Board's own captions plus the district-court appearance names from the W.D. Tex. docket. Where I could not source a bio or role (Netikosol; the lead/back-up split; in-house counsel), I have said so rather than filling the gap.

Primary sources: Docket Alarm docket and documents for IPR2025-00270 (Paper 8, Paper 19); Docket Alarm case listing; Justia docket, Sterling Computers Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 1:24-cv-00406; Winston & Strawn partner announcement, July 17, 2023; Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., Nos. 2021-1412 et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022); Winston Taylor bio for T.D. Goswami.

I'll research the counsel of record. Note an important framing issue I'll address up front: the "defendant" in this campaign depends on which proceeding you mean — in the IPR the parties are Petitioner/Patent Owner, while in the underlying district court case Sterling v. Microsoft, Microsoft is the defendant. I'll cover both sides and flag the ambiguity.

Now let me verify the district court counsel for the defense side (Microsoft, the defendant in the underlying infringement suit) and the plaintiff side (Sterling).

Let me pin down firm affiliations for both sides' district court counsel and check for local counsel.

I hit a research step limit mid-way, so I'll flag what's verified versus what isn't. One framing point first, because it materially changes who "the defendant" is:

The caption in this docket (IPR2025-00270) has no "defendant." The PTAB proceeding is Microsoft Corp. (Petitioner) v. Sterling Computers Corp. (Patent Owner). The defendant in the underlying infringement case — Sterling Computers Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:24-cv-00406 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.) — is Microsoft. So I'm listing counsel for both roles, separated. (Sterling is the "defendant/respondent" only if you read the IPR caption as the litigation.)

---

A. Microsoft — the defendant in the infringement case / Petitioner in the IPR

PTAB (IPR2025-00270) — counsel of record

Listed in the Board's own caption blocks in Paper 8 (Notice of Referral to Board Panel, May 28, 2025) and Paper 19 (Amended Scheduling Order, Mar. 10, 2026):

District court (1:24-cv-00406, W.D. Tex.) — counsel of record

From the docket sheet (entries 19–24) and the Jan. 17, 2025 IPR/12(b) filings:

In-house counsel: I found no Microsoft in-house attorney entered as counsel of record in the entries retrieved. (Contrast older Microsoft cases, e.g. Parallel Networks v. Microsoft, where Stacy Quan and T. Andrew Culbert appeared as in-house — those are unrelated and not counsel here.)

---

B. Sterling Computers — the patent owner / the party defending the patent

PTAB (IPR2025-00270) — counsel of record

Captions in Papers 8 and 19 list two attorneys only:

(Firm-confirmed from the Board's caption block; individual experience notes here are thin because I could not complete the firm-website lookup — treat as unverified.)

District court (1:24-cv-00406, W.D. Tex.) — counsel of record

DiNovo Price LLP (Austin, TX) — the firm RPX identified as Sterling's counsel. Appearances filed April 17, 2024 (Dkts. 4–7):

---

C. Contradiction / gap flags

1. Reconciliation of the earlier "DiNovo vs. Padmanabhan" puzzle in the prior section of this case: these are not competing reports — both firms are on the Sterling plaintiff side. DiNovo Price LLP is the Austin-based firm of record (Price, Goodpastor, Gervey, French), and Padmanabhan & Dawson appears pro hac vice in Texas while being the sole firm on the PTAB side. The RPX "DiNovo Price" note and the Dkt. 13 Padmanabhan order are consistent.
2. Docket currency. The Justia docket sheet I retrieved was "last retrieved on June 14, 2024," and one aggregator (the Ex Parte/AI-Lab W.D. Tex. page) lists case status as "Closed." I could not verify a closing order, transfer, stay, or dismissal, and the Feb. 12, 2025 Pitman opinion (Dkt. 48) shows the case very much alive then. Flagging the "Closed" status as an unverified data point, not a finding — if the Texas case was later dismissed, transferred, or settled, new/withdrawn counsel may not appear in the entries above. The prior section already noted that a stay in this case (unlike the Meta/X cases stayed Feb. 24, 2025) could not be confirmed; that gap remains.
3. No counsel block in the institution decision was retrieved — Papers 8 and 19 are the sources for the PTAB counsel list; if a Power of Attorney, withdrawal, or substitution has been filed since March 10, 2026, I did not capture it.
4. Surname truncation (Britta S.) and the unverified firms for Robbennolt and Sankaran, and the unverified office for Yaquian, are the three soft spots in the list. I did not invent any name or firm to fill them.

Primary sources: PTAB IPR2025-00270 Papers 8 & 19 (docketalarm.com and the PDF at storage/docketalarm); W.D. Tex. 1:24-cv-00406 dockets.justia.com docket entries 4–7, 13–16, 19–27; CourtListener opinion 10355101 (Dkt. 48, Feb. 12, 2025); DiNovo Price firm profiles; Law360 Winston & Strawn case page for Hunsaker.