Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation

I'll research this case across docket sources, legal press, and patent databases.

Good initial data. Let me dig into the docket, settlement, counsel, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me verify the patent titles, the settlement report, and counsel details.

Case Overview — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 7:25-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Proxense, LLC is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business at 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon, founded in 2001 (originally incorporated as Margent Development LLC, renamed Proxense in 2005) by John J. Giobbi, who remains founder/CEO and is the named inventor on the asserted patents (the complaints describe him as an inventor on roughly 200 patents). Proxense is best characterized as a former operating company turned non-practicing entity: between roughly 2004 and 2012 it actually built "ProxPay" products — a battery-powered Personal Digital Key (PDK) using proximity detection, an on-board secure element, locally stored biometrics, and token passing to a trusted third party — employing 30-plus engineers, before shifting to licensing and enforcement. It holds a portfolio in the ~80-patent range, principally Giobbi's biometric/proximity authentication and wireless time-slot allocation inventions. Because Proxense no longer makes or sells products, it is treated as an NPE/PAE in the coverage (ip fray describes it as "a non-practising entity (NPE) and former operating company"; the complaint's own narrative stresses the 2008–2009 press coverage of its "virtual biometric wallet" as evidence of pioneering priority). Intel Corporation is the defendant — the operating semiconductor/platform company whose PC processors, chipsets, firmware security stack, and Wi-Fi silicon are directly accused.

The accused technology and the patents. The accused instrumentalities are Intel processors, chipsets and platforms implementing Platform Trust Technology ("PTT") — Intel's firmware-based TPM that virtualizes secure-element functions — and the Converged Security and Management Engine ("CSME"), plus Intel's Windows Hello biometric enrollment/provisioning flows. The complaint names Intel Core processors (8th–14th generation "and beyond"), Intel Evo consumer laptops, and Intel vPro enterprise platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 66, 93). Six patents are asserted, each with a claim-chart exhibit filed at D.I. 1 (Exs. A–F patents; G–L charts): (1) U.S. 9,405,898 — asserted claim 8, directed to presenting virtualized secure-element resources to the OS with a "model architecture" mapping those virtualized resources onto physical hardware, i.e., the hardware-abstraction function Intel's PTT allegedly performs; (2) U.S. 10,469,456 — device detection, local identity validation, and differentiated handling of transactions depending on whether they fall above or below preset thresholds, mapped to Windows Hello enrollment/provisioning; (3) U.S. 8,433,919 — biometric/proximity authentication portfolio patent (specific asserted claims and theory in Exhibit I); (4) U.S. 11,182,792 — biometric-proximity authentication portfolio patent (theory in Exhibit J); (5) U.S. 11,551,222, "Single Step Transaction Authentication Using Proximity and Biometric Input" (issued Jan. 10, 2023) — solving the "collision" problem when multiple biometric-capable devices are present by capturing a fresh biometric at transaction time and matching it to the correct device, mapped to multi-user Evo/vPro environments with Windows Hello; and (6) U.S. 9,990,628, "Two-Level Authentication for Secure Transactions" (issued June 5, 2018) — local comparison of a biometric sample followed by retrieval of a full profile from secure memory for re-validation, mapped to PTT/CSME secure-element operations such as key sealing/unsealing and credential release. Claim-specific sketches for the '919 and '792 are ones I could not independently verify — the asserted claims sit in Exhibits I and J, which I was unable to inspect.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The complaint was filed November 14, 2025 in the [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Division](/courts/western-district-of-texas-midland), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, with a jury demand, Nature of Suit 830, and AO-120 notice to the USPTO Director; Proxense's counsel of record on the filing is David L. Hecht (Hecht Partners LLP), who also represents Proxense in the parallel PTAB proceedings (with James Zak). The case was reported settled and terminated on or about March 24, 2026 — roughly four and a half months after filing (the specific dismissal/settlement docket entry number is not verified in the sources I retrieved). W.D. Tex. matters here for two reasons: it is the venue where Proxense has litigated essentially its entire campaign (Waco cases against Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and a separate Intel Wi-Fi case, No. 6:24-cv-00283-ADA), and Intel has deep Texas contacts — a 61-acre Austin campus with 2,000-plus employees and named Austin-based wireless/security engineers — which Proxense pleaded to establish § 1400(b) venue and which Intel has unsuccessfully resisted in related suits (Judge Albright denied Apple's transfer motion in Feb. 2025). The case is notable on several fronts. First, it is a firmware/platform-security target: accusing Intel's PTT/CSME and Windows Hello integration reaches the trust root of mainstream Core-based PCs, not just a discrete component, giving Proxense leverage over Intel's Evo/vPro "hardware-rooted trust" marketing and a very large royalty base. Second, it is part of a coordinated multi-defendant assertion pattern — Proxense has sued Samsung, Google (settled Jan. 24, 2025), Microsoft, Apple (both stayed pending PTAB outcomes), and Intel twice (Wi-Fi 6/OFDMA/TWT patents in Waco; biometrics here). Third, there is heavy IPR linkage: Intel's petitions IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329 (filed Dec. 23, 2024, against U.S. 9,265,043, 8,219,129, and 8,457,672) were discretionarily denied on June 26, 2025 by Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart under the "settled expectations" doctrine for long-issued patents — Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, Paper 12 — a decision now widely cited as the leading guidance (and limitation) on late-filed challenges to old patents. That same doctrine arguably made the asserted patents harder for Intel to invalidate at the PTAB, improving Proxense's settlement posture, while PTAB losses elsewhere (Apple, June 18, 2025; Microsoft, July 21, 2025) and a pending Federal Circuit appeal over conflicting PTAB/Central Reexamination Unit rulings on Proxense's '954 patent remain live risks. Intel's settlement therefore fits a pattern — Samsung, Google, Intel — of defendants buying peace rather than litigating this portfolio to judgment.

Sourcing caveats. Verified: case number, court/division, judge, filing date, the six asserted patents, the accused PTT/CSME/Windows Hello/Evo/vPro technology, Proxense's Oregon/Delaware identity and NPE status, Hecht as Proxense's counsel, and the March 24, 2026 settlement (metadata; ip fray; docket mirrors at PacerMonitor case 61206235, RPX Insight, ex parte complaint analysis). Not verified: Intel's district-court counsel in this specific case, the exact docket entry effecting dismissal, the asserted claims/theories for the '919 and '792 patents, and the final terms (if any) of the Intel settlement. I also could not confirm whether the parallel Waco Wi-Fi case (6:24-cv-00283) was resolved as part of the same settlement.

I'll research the docket, motions, and parallel PTAB proceedings for this case.

Let me get the ip fray coverage and check for Intel IPRs on these specific patents.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 7:25-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex., Midland Div.)

Bottom line up front: This was a short-lived "file-and-settle" case. It ran roughly four months and ten days — complaint filed 2025-11-14, case terminated 2026-03-24 — and appears to have been resolved before Intel ever litigated a substantive motion. There is no Markman order, no summary-judgment ruling, no trial, and no discovery fight of record that I could verify. Intel's settlement made it the third major defendant (after Samsung and Google) to license rather than litigate this portfolio to judgment.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2025-11-14)

The complaint attached Exhibits A–F (the six asserted patents) and Exhibits G–L (claim charts) — U.S. 9,405,898 ('898), 10,469,456 ('456), 8,433,919 ('919), 11,182,792 ('792), 11,551,222 ('222), and 9,990,628 ('628). Filed in the Midland Division, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, NOS 830, case flags AAC1 and PATENT. The three initial docket entries are the entire set of filings visible in every docket mirror I retrieved.

Answer, counterclaims, and Intel's responsive pleading are not verified. Given the March 24, 2026 termination, it is possible Intel never filed an answer (a text-order extension followed by a stipulated dismissal would leave no answer on the docket), but I could not confirm whether an answer/counterclaim set (which would typically include Intel's invalidity and non-infringement contentions, and possibly § 101 or § 285 counterclaims) was ever filed. Treat that as an open question.

Intel's district-court counsel in this case is also unverified. I found no reliable source naming Intel's litigation team for 7:25-cv-00531.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — none verified

I found no record of:

• a motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6) or § 101) by Intel;
• a motion to transfer venue (e.g., to the District of Oregon or N.D. Cal.). Notably, Intel's transfer track record in the parallel Proxense matters is poor — Judge Albright denied Apple's transfer motion in February 2025, and Proxense has repeatedly defeated intradistrict/district transfer bids (it even filed its own intra-district transfer motion in Proxense v. Hyundai, No. 6:25-cv-00016, which Chief Judge Moses denied on 2025-02-25). Proxense's transfer-motion declaration in that Hyundai case is a useful artifact: it catalogued the entire campaign's transfer orders (Google, Microsoft, LG, Apple) as exhibits;
• a motion to stay pending IPR;
• any summary-judgment motion.

If any of these were filed, they did not generate a published opinion, and the case died too quickly to produce one. I could not verify any of them, and none should be assumed.

3. Claim construction (Markman) — never reached

No Markman hearing, order, or joint claim-construction statement is verifiable for this case, and the timing makes that nearly certain: the case was terminated ~4.3 months after filing. Judge Albright's typical scheduling order would place a Markman hearing well after that (his parallel Proxense cases had Markman orders roughly a year after filing — e.g., the Google and Microsoft claim-construction orders referenced in RPX's May 2024 coverage). Proxense does, however, hold already-constructed claim terms from its Samsung, Google, and Microsoft cases (e.g., the Board's construction of "third-party trusted authority" as "a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction"), which it has cited as a judicial-economy reason to keep family-member cases in W.D. Tex. No Intel-specific construction exists.

4. Discovery milestones — none of record

No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) conference order, no infringement/invalidity contention deadlines, and no discovery motions are verifiable. With a November filing and a March termination, the case would at most have reached the initial-disclosures and preliminary-infringement-contention stage (W.D. Tex. Local Patent Rules require PICs roughly two to four months out). I could not confirm even that.

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

No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion (no § 285 or Rule 54(d) activity is verifiable). The case never approached trial.

6. Final disposition — settlement and termination (2026-03-24)

• 2026-03-24 — case reported settled and terminated (per the case metadata; docket mirrors mark it closed). The specific dismissal docket entry number is not verified.
• ip fray reported: "Intel joins Google, Samsung in settling patent dispute with biometrics firm Proxense in Western District of Texas — Meanwhile, Proxense's patent infringement suits against Apple, Microsoft, and LG are still pending." This is the best corroboration that the March 24, 2026 termination was a settlement as part of a license, not a merits ruling.
• By analogy to the Google resolution (stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Proxense's claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant's claims/defenses/counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees) and the Samsung resolution (consent judgment / dismissal with prejudice), the practical inference is that Intel took a paid-up license to the asserted patents — but the Intel stipulation's exact terms, and whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, are not verified.

Not confirmed: whether the companion Waco Wi-Fi case (Proxense v. Intel, No. 6:24-cv-00283, the '043/'129/'672/'152 patents) was folded into the same settlement. Intel was the defendant in both, so a global peace is plausible, but I found no source confirming it.

7. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings

No IPR or PGR petition against the six patents asserted in this case (the '898, '456, '919, '792, '222, '628) is verified. That is a meaningful negative: Intel had every incentive to file, and the absence of any such filing (at least none I could locate) is consistent with the rapid settlement.

What is verifiable is the surrounding PTAB ecosystem, which materially shaped the settlement leverage:

(a) Intel's own PTAB petitions and the "settled expectations" loss. Intel filed IPR2025-00327 / -00328 / -00329 on 2024-12-23 against U.S. 9,265,043, 8,219,129, and 8,457,672 (the Wi-Fi patents from the companion Waco case). On 2025-06-26, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart discretionarily denied institution in all three — Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12 — holding that the patents "have been in force over nine years, creating settled expectations," and that Intel gave "no persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources." The Director also supplied the first guidance on rebutting settled expectations: a significant intervening change in law bearing directly on patentability, or evidence that the patent was never "commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied in a petitioner's particular technology space." This decision is now a leading citation in the discretionary-denial line (cited in later petitions, e.g., the Fortinet v. Netskope IPR2026-00027 opposition, and in Federal Circuit briefing). Effect on this litigation: it made the asserted patents harder for Intel to invalidate at the PTAB and improved Proxense's settlement posture. Proxense's counsel Hecht has said the portfolio contains 34 patents issued 8+ years — i.e., a large bloc sheltered by the same doctrine.

(b) Proxense's broader PTAB losses — the countervailing risk. Proxense did not run the table:

• Google LLC v. Proxense, IPR2024-00232/-00233 ('730 and '954 patents) — terminated after Patent Owner's request for adverse judgment (2025).
• Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense, IPR2024-00775 ('730) — terminated after adverse judgment; IPR2024-00846 ('954) — was pending as of mid-2025.
• Apple Inc. v. Proxense, IPR2025-00074 / -00075 / -00600 ('289 and related) — Apple joined/piggybacked Google's and Microsoft's petitions; at least one Apple challenge was instituted (IPR2025-00075, joined to Google's IPR2024-00783, which was terminated as to Google on 2025-02-05).
• Parallel ex parte reexaminations 90/015,052 ('730), 90/015,053 ('905), and 90/015,054 (10,698,989) were pending.
• A Federal Circuit appeal was reportedly live over conflicting PTAB/Central Reexamination Unit rulings on the '954 patent.
• I could not verify the June 18, 2025 (Apple) and July 21, 2025 (Microsoft) adverse outcomes referenced in the prior case-summary section against specific final written decisions; treat those dates as unconfirmed.

Effect on this litigation: the mixed PTAB record cut both ways — Proxense had leverage (its old patents were hard to IPR) but also demonstrated validity risk (adverse judgments against the '730/'954 family). Intel's settlement sits at that equilibrium.

Numbering caution: a PTAB case captioned IPR2025-00531 appears in the Fortinet v. Netskope papers citing the Proxense settled-expectations standard. That is a different proceeding that coincidentally shares digits with this district-court case number (7:25-cv-00531); do not conflate them.

---

Chronology at a glance

---

Sourcing caveats and contradictions to flag

1. Docket-mirror contradiction. Several mirrors still display this case as "Status: Open" (e.g., the Ex Parte/AI-Lab case pages) or show an incomplete docket with only D.I. 1–3 (Docket Alarm: "The docket is incomplete"). These are stale/partial crawls, not evidence the case is live. I have treated the metadata's 2026-03-24 termination (settled) as authoritative over those mirrors, per your instruction.
2. What I could not verify — and you should not treat as established: (i) the dismissal docket entry number or its prejudice terms; (ii) whether Intel answered, counterclaimed, or moved to transfer/stay; (iii) Intel's counsel in this case; (iv) whether the Waco Wi-Fi case (6:24-cv-00283) was resolved in the same settlement; (v) any IPR/PGR filed against the six patents asserted here; (vi) the final license terms.
3. Party-name metadata note. The metadata caption is "Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation"; some docket mirrors render it "Proxense LLC v. Intel Corp." — same case, no discrepancy.
4. Unreliable sources excluded. Investor-forum chatter about Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel (a different Waco case, with a $2.25M settlement) surfaced in search results and mentions Intel counsel Sarah E. Piepmeier; that is a different litigation and I did not import it into this case's counsel analysis.

Net assessment: legally, this case produced no substantive rulings — its significance is entirely strategic. It is the third data point (Samsung 2023, Google 2025, Intel 2026) in a pattern of defendants licensing Proxense's Giobbi-era portfolio rather than litigating it, and it is the clearest illustration yet of the Intel v. Proxense "settled expectations" doctrine operating as a settlement-forcing tool for long-issued patents in W.D. Tex.

I'll search for press coverage across multiple angles.

Let me locate the specific ip fray articles on the Intel settlement and the Proxense CEO interview.

Let me find the direct URLs of the ip fray Intel settlement article and the Giobbi interview, plus check mainstream/trade coverage.

Press & Analyst Coverage — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 7:25-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex.)

Coverage of this specific docket is thin and essentially single-sourced. The only outlet I could find that reported on the Midland case itself is ip fray (Florian Mueller), which published a piece headlined "Intel joins Google, Samsung in settling patent dispute with biometrics firm Proxense in Western District of Texas," with the subhead "Meanwhile, Proxense's patent infringement suits against Apple, Microsoft, and LG are still pending." The article appears on ip fray's Intel and Western District of Texas index pages but I could not retrieve a working direct link to the post itself, so I am citing the category index rather than fabricating a URL. Corroborating its existence and its date, ip fray's own later reporting states as context that Proxense "previously settled its disputes with Samsung and later with Google (January 24, 2025, ip fray, article), and more recently with Intel (March 24, 2026, ip fray, article)" — see PTAB abused discretion by staying reexamination that favored patentee, Proxense tells Federal Circuit. That same piece frames Proxense as "a non-practising entity (NPE) and former operating company," and characterizes the settled-expectations rulings as improving Proxense's leverage against the still-stayed Apple and Microsoft suits. No monetary figure — no damages demand, no settlement sum, no royalty rate — has been reported by any outlet for this case. ip fray's implicit "market impact" take is directional rather than quantitative: the Google resolution "increases the likelihood of Proxense being able to strike deals with other defendants in the same district (Apple, Microsoft, Intel and LG)" (ip fray, Jan. 2025), and the Intel deal is presented as the third instance of that prediction holding.

Reporting that goes beyond the court record — executive statements and analyst takes. The most substantive non-docket material is ip fray's exclusive interview with Proxense founder/CEO John Giobbi (dated April 7, 2026 per ip fray's own cross-reference; indexed at the same Intel category page). Giobbi told ip fray: "Litigation has been the path we've had to take because the tech giants today just aren't willing to license patents that they infringe unless you sue them and take them to the mat." That is a plaintiff-side characterization and is not corroborated by any court filing in this case; treat it as advocacy framing. ip fray also reported Proxense counsel David L. Hecht's statement that the portfolio contains 34 patents issued 8+ years or older — context relevant to why the "settled expectations" doctrine matters to Proxense's campaign (a fact the outlet attributes to Proxense's lawyer, not to a court finding).

The related PTAB litigation drew more analytical ink than the district-court case. The June 26, 2025 Director-level denials in Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329, generated law-firm commentary that discusses Intel and Proxense directly — most notably ArentFox Schiff ("Overcoming the 'Settled Expectations' Doctrine: Guidance From Intel v. Proxense"), which summarizes Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart's guidance on rebutting settled expectations via a significant intervening change in law or evidence the patent was never "commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied" in the petitioner's technology space. Note the scope caveat: that commentary is about Intel's IPR petitions against Proxense's Wi-Fi patents, not the six biometric patents asserted in 7:25-cv-00531, and it is not coverage of this case's outcome. On the industry-roundup side, RPX Insight has tracked the Proxense campaign ("Proxense Sues Intel, Ups Number of Patents-in-Suit," May 25, 2024; and its "Biometric Authentication Campaign Turns to Apple" and Samsung/Google/Microsoft items), but the RPX items I retrieved address only the companion Waco case (6:24-cv-00283) and the earlier campaign filings — I found no RPX item reporting the 2025 Midland filing or its March 2026 termination.

Bottom line on the press record: I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360 article, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF coverage of Proxense v. Intel, No. 7:25-cv-00531, and no report of settlement terms. Law360's presence in the record appears limited to its attorney-firm index for Brittany B. Amadi, which associates her with a "November 14, 2025 — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Texas Western" case link (i.e., case-tracking metadata rather than a published article). The practical consequence is that every press characterization of this case traces back to one outlet (ip fray), and its substantive claims — that Intel took a license, that the settlement was a function of the settled-expectations doctrine and Proxense's NPE leverage — are inference and sourcing from Proxense's representatives, not reporting of disclosed terms. Anyone relying on the "settled for a license" narrative should cite it as ip fray's analysis and note that the actual dismissal entry and any agreement remain unverified (consistent with the caveats flagged in the earlier docket sections above).

Sources

• Google follows Samsung in settling patent dispute with biometrics firm Proxense in Western District of Texas: Apple, Microsoft, Intel, LG cases still pending
• January 2025 – Page 3
• 60. Proxense has been injured and seeks damages to adequately compensate it for Intel's infringement of the 129 Patent
• 34. Proxense was founded in 2001.4 From approximately 2004-2012, Proxense developed, inter alia, mobile payment technologies and...
• Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corp.
• 6:24-cv-00283 | Proxense LLC v. Intel Corp | Ex Parte
• IPR2024-00784, No. 14 Motion Motion to terminate due to settlement post DI - Joint Motion to Terminate (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2025)
• Complaint analysis | 7:25-cv-00531 | Proxense LLC v. Intel Corp | Ex Parte
• Category: Intel
• Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation (7:25-cv-00531), Texas Western District Court
• PTAB abused discretion by staying reexamination that favored patentee, Proxense tells Federal Circuit
• 33. Today, Proxense holds 80 patents on related technology, including digital content distribution, digital rights management, m...

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record for this case across docket sources and firm materials.

Let me dig into the specific docket entries and identify the full plaintiff-side team.

Let me look for co-counsel (Susman Godfrey) and any local counsel, plus the related Intel matters.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Proxense, LLC — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 7:25-cv-00531-ADA (W.D. Tex., Midland Div.)

Bottom line

The only attorney verified on the docket as plaintiff's counsel in this case is David L. Hecht of Hecht Partners LLP (New York). He is the filer of record on all three docket entries that exist in the case file (D.I. 1 Complaint; D.I. 2 AO-120 Notice; D.I. 3 Request for Issuance of Summons), and the docket mirrors show no notice of attorney appearance, no pro hac vice application, and no additional counsel entry before the case terminated on 2026-03-24. Proxense's broader litigation team (including James Zak and its Susman Godfrey co-lead counsel in the sister cases) is well documented in the campaign generally and in the companion Intel Wi-Fi case, but I could not verify that any of them entered an appearance on this docket.

---

1. Verified — plaintiff's counsel of record

Docket support: Complaint — "COMPLAINT (Filing fee $405 receipt number ATXWDC-20982311), filed by Proxense, LLC. (Hecht, David)"; Summons — "REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Proxense, LLC. (Hecht, David)"; D.I. 2 AO-120 forwarded to the USPTO Director. (PacerMonitor case 61206235; mirrored at the GAEFlex docket page for 7:25-cv-00531, which confirms Midland Division, Judge Albright, filed 11/14/2025, jury demand by plaintiff.)

---

2. Likely / campaign-level plaintiff team — NOT verified as appearing in 7:25-cv-00531

Local counsel: none identified. W.D. Tex. does not require a local-counsel admission, and no W.D. Tex.–based attorney or firm appears in the three-entry docket for this case.

In-house counsel: none identified. Proxense is a small NPE (founder/CEO John J. Giobbi); I found no record of in-house counsel appearing in this matter.

---

3. Explicit non-findings and caveats

• The docket is extraordinarily thin. Every mirror I retrieved (PacerMonitor case 61206235; GAEFlex; RPX Insight docket 7:25-cv-00531; Ex Parte AI-Lab case page; Docket Alarm) shows only D.I. 1–3, and the Ex Parte case page lists "Attorney: No Attorneys" — i.e., no appearance was docketed in its crawl. Because the case was reported settled/terminated roughly four months after filing, it is entirely plausible that Hecht never filed a formal Notice of Attorney Appearance and simply signed the pleadings, and that no pro hac vice motion was ever needed or filed (Hecht is presumably admitted in W.D. Tex., or was proceeding on the initial filing).
• "Settled" means the record may never be completed. If the dismissal was by stipulation shortly before any appearance deadline, the absence of co-counsel admissions is expected, not evidence they were uninvolved.
• Do not import Intel's counsel into the plaintiff column. Law360's entry for Brittany B. Amadi (WilmerHale) dated November 14, 2025 in "Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Texas Western" is Intel-side counsel, and Amadi's appearance on the docket I could verify is in a separate W.D. Wash. miscellaneous matter (Proxense LLC et al v. Intel Corp., No. 3:25-mc-05011, where she was admitted pro hac vice for Intel and local counsel Jenna Poligo signed). That is defendant-side and a different proceeding.
• Nothing is sealed-verified. I found no sealed filings or protective-order-gated attorney lists for this case; the limitation is docket incompleteness/staleness, not sealing (see the prior section's caveat that several mirrors still display "Status: Open").

---

4. Practical answer

If you need the name for a service list or a caption representation: David L. Hecht, Hecht Partners LLP, 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, dhecht@hechtpartners.com, (212) 851-6821 — the attorney whose CM/ECF login filed D.I. 1–3 and the only plaintiff-side name verified for 7:25-cv-00531. Any fuller team (James Zak; the Law360-listed Hecht Partners attorneys Murphy/Price; Susman Godfrey co-counsel) is supported only by campaign-level and companion-case evidence, and I would not represent those individuals as counsel of record in this docket without pulling the actual PACER docket sheet or the signed complaint signature block, which the free mirrors I could access do not expose.

I'll research Intel's defense team across docket sources, firm sites, court records, and legal press.

Strong lead: Brittany Amadi (WilmerHale) appears on Law360 for this case, plus a W.D. Wash. miscellaneous action. Let me verify and expand.

Defense Counsel of Record — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 7:25-cv-00531-ADA (W.D. Tex., Midland Div.)

Bottom line: The single best-evidenced name on the defense side is Brittany B. Amadi, a partner in WilmerHale's Washington, D.C. office — Law360's attorney-firm index ties her to "November 14, 2025 — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Texas Western," i.e., this exact case and its exact filing date (https://www.law360.com/firms/wilmerhale/attorneys/brittany-b-amadi). WilmerHale is Intel's long-standing patent defense firm in this district and elsewhere, so the firm-level attribution is solid. However, the docket for this four-month case shows no defendant appearance at all — every mirror I could reach (PacerMonitor case 61206235; GAEFlex; Ex Parte case page) displays only D.I. 1–3 (all filed by plaintiff's counsel David Hecht), and the Ex Parte case page records "Attorney: No Attorneys." Because the case settled on 2026-03-24 without any litigation of substance (see prior sections), Intel may never have entered a formal Notice of Appearance — so treat "counsel of record" here as effectively unverified on the face of this docket. Below I separate what is verified, what is strongly inferable, and what I could not confirm.

---

1. Verified / strongly evidenced — defendant's lead counsel

Docket support for the Amadi/Pologio Washington matter (PacerMonitor case 60329718, Proxense LLC et al v. Intel Corporation, 3:25-mc-05011, D. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright):

• D.I. 1 (2025-09-25) — "MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena, filed by Defendant Intel Corporation. Noting Date 10/15/2025";
• D.I. 2 — "DECLARATION of Brittany Amadi (including a copy of the subpoena) filed by Defendant Intel Corporation re 1 MOTION to Compel";
• D.I. 3 — Intel Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement;
• D.I. 4–5 (2025-09-26) — "APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Brittany Amadi FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Intel Corporation (Fee Paid) … (Poligo, Jenna)" — granted;
• D.I. 6 (2025-10-10) — "NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion … by Defendant Intel Corporation. (Poligo, Jenna)";
• D.I. 7 (2025-10-14) — minute order granting withdrawal and closing the case.

This is a genuine, verifiable Intel-counsel data point: Amadi and Poligo were litigating a Proxense-related third-party subpoena for Intel in the Western District of Washington in the fall of 2025 — i.e., immediately before this Midland complaint was filed. (The subpoena likely targeted a Seattle-area third party — Microsoft is the obvious candidate given the Windows Hello theory — but the declaration's contents are not in the free mirror and I could not confirm the subpoena recipient. Flagging that as unverified inference.)

---

2. WilmerHale — firm-level Intel relationship (context, not a docket fact for this case)

WilmerHale's Intel practice in W.D. Tex. is documented in the public record of the VLSI litigation: a § 282 notice in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., Nos. 6:19-cv-00254/-00255-ADA (W.D. Tex.) was signed by a WilmerHale team including William F. Lee, Louis W. Tompros, Mark D. Selwyn, Amanda L. Major, George F. Manley, Josh L. Stern, Jonathan A. Cox, Joseph J. Mueller, and others (courtlistener RECAP). Firm lore and Law360 both record Amadi on Intel's AVM and VLSI matters. So the firm-level inference — if Intel appeared, it was almost certainly WilmerHale, most plausibly Amadi — is reasonable; the individual attribution to this docket is supported only by the Law360 case link.

Named WilmerHale attorneys I could NOT verify as appearing in 7:25-cv-00531 (do not represent them as counsel of record): William F. Lee, Louis W. Tompros, Mark Selwyn, Amanda Major, Josh Stern, Joseph Mueller, Jonathan Cox, George Manley. Their connection is campaign-level (VLSI/Intel generally), not case-specific.

---

3. Explicit non-findings and caveats

1. No defendant appearance is visible in this case's docket. The entire docket as mirrored is D.I. 1 (Complaint), D.I. 2 (AO-120), D.I. 3 (Summons request) — all plaintiff-side. No answer, no Rule 12 motion, no notice of appearance, no pro hac vice motion, no corporate disclosure statement from Intel appears in the free mirrors (PacerMonitor 61206235; GAEFlex; Ex Parte case page, which literally reads "No Attorneys"). The case ran ~4 months and settled. It is entirely plausible Intel never appeared.
2. "No Attorneys" is a crawl artifact, not proof of non-representation. Given the settlement, the absence of an appearance docket entry is expected rather than remarkable — but it means I cannot confirm any attorney as "of record" in this specific case from the free sources available.
3. Local counsel in Texas: none identified, and none required. W.D. Tex. does not mandate local-counsel admission, and no Texas-based attorney or firm appears anywhere in the three-entry file. Jenna Poligo is W.D. Wash. local counsel in the separate miscellaneous action only — not Texas counsel.
4. In-house counsel: none identified. I found no record of any Intel legal-department attorney (e.g., an Intel IP litigation counsel) appearing or signing in this matter. Intel typically staffs these suits with outside counsel (WilmerHale) plus an in-house supervisor, but no in-house name is documented.
5. Prior-section contradiction to flag. The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section states the Law360 Brittany B. Amadi entry "is Intel-side counsel" and that her verified pro hac vice appearance was in the W.D. Wash. miscellaneous matter — that is correct and consistent with the fuller docket detail above (Application filed by Jenna Poligo on behalf of Defendant Intel Corporation). Note one clerical quirk: the admission order reads "ADMITS Attorney Brittany Amadi for Plaintiff Intel Corporation," and the misc. action's caption is "Proxense LLC et al v. Intel Corporation." That is a docket-labeling artifact in a miscellaneous/subpoena proceeding; Amadi represented Intel, as the underlying application and declaration make clear.
6. Related-case Intel counsel (different matters, for comparison only): Intel's PTAB/petition-side representation in Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329 (the six "settled expectations" denials) is not the same as district-court counsel, and I could not verify the petitioning firm's attorneys from the sources retrieved. The Finnegan article on that decision is commentary by Finnegan lawyers, not evidence that Finnegan represents Intel — do not import it as Intel counsel.
7. Unreliable-source exclusion preserved: the Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel chatter and Sarah E. Piepmeier reference the prior section excluded remain excluded.

---

4. Practical answer / how to firm this up

• If you need a name to populate a service list for this docket: Brittany B. Amadi, WilmerHale, Washington, D.C. — the only attorney independently linked to Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 7:25-cv-00531, by the filing date (Law360, Nov. 14, 2025) and corroborated by her contemporaneous Intel representation in the Proxense-related W.D. Wash. subpoena action.
• Caveat for a caption or certificate of service: she is not confirmed on the face of this docket, and the case is closed (settled 2026-03-24). For litigation use, pull the PACER docket sheet for 7:25-cv-00531 directly to check for a Notice of Appearance, pro hac vice order, or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 corporate disclosure statement — any of which would definitively name Intel's counsel. The free mirrors I could access do not expose those docket entries, if they exist.