Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

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

Let me dig deeper into the parties, patents, and PTAB proceedings.

Case Overview: Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

The parties. Proxense, LLC is a Bend, Oregon company founded in 2001 and led by founder/CEO John J. Giobbi, the named inventor on most of the patents-in-suit. Proxense is best characterized as a former operating company rather than a classic shell NPE: it developed "personal digital key" (PDK) technology — a pocket-sized wireless transmitter that carried a user's personal data (biometrics, medical records, payment credentials) on a microchip readable by nearby devices — and pitched it publicly in the early 2010s (Bend Bulletin, Oct. 14, 2010; complaint ¶ 34, ECF 93). Its litigation posture, however, is monetization-driven: it no longer appears to sell a product and does not seek injunctive relief, a point Microsoft itself emphasized in its stay briefing ("Proxense … does not make any products and is not seeking injunctive relief"). Microsoft Corporation is the Redmond, Washington-based operating company accused of infringement. Notably, Proxense has asserted the same patent families in parallel campaigns against Samsung (6:21-cv-00210-ADA, settled on the eve of jury selection), Google (dropped in January 2025 ahead of trial), and Apple. See Law360's Proxense case pages and Judge Albright's transfer order, ECF 29/Ex. 2012 (IPR2024-00233).

The accused technology. This is not a smartphone-payment case like Proxense v. Samsung — the Court and Microsoft both stressed that "this case does not involve any mobile phone or payment technology." Instead, Proxense accuses Microsoft's "universal platform password-less architecture": the Microsoft Identity Platform (formerly Azure Active Directory, now Entra ID), together with authenticators such as Windows Hello (Windows 10/11) and the Microsoft Authenticator app (Android/iOS), plus the Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL), FIDO2/WebAuthn and OpenID Connect protocols, and the bearer tokens Microsoft issues to "resources" (Office 365, Outlook, Xbox/Xbox Game Pass, Microsoft Family, and subscribing third-party apps). The theory is that Microsoft's identity platform and biometric authenticators perform the claimed PDK/RDC authentication-and-access-message functions, and that Microsoft "directs and controls" partners and customers. See Amended Complaint (ECF 93, ¶¶ 51–57) and Microsoft's Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (Ex. 2015, IPR2024-00233). The six patents split into two families: Family A — U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,352,730 and 8,886,954 (both titled "Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication") and 9,298,905 — directed to storing biometric data in a tamper-resistant device and wirelessly sending authentication codes/access messages once a user is biometrically verified; and Family B — U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,646,042, 9,679,289, and 10,073,960 (all titled "Hybrid Device Having a Personal Digital Key and Receiver-Decoder Circuit and Methods of Use") — directed to a hybrid device integrating a PDK with a receiver-decoder circuit (RDC) that wirelessly receives and decrypts data from an external PDK/RDC to enable applications, functions, or services. Asserted claims and priority dates are listed in Microsoft's invalidity contentions (Family A priority Dec. 20, 2004; Family B Dec. 6, 2007). Caveat: I could not independently verify the exact title of the '905 patent from the sources retrieved; treat "Family A biometric PDK authentication" as the reliable descriptor.

Procedural posture and why it matters. The case is before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division of the W.D. Tex. (Case No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA; complaint filed April 28/May 2, 2023 — the AO 120 form lists 4/28/2023 while the Court's opinions and RPX list 5/2/2023). Venue is the central procedural battleground: Microsoft moved to transfer to the Western District of Washington (Redmond), and Judge Albright denied the motion (order entered April 18–19, 2024; public version April 26, 2024), relying heavily on judicial economy — he had already construed 12 claims of two of the same patents and decided summary judgment and Daubert motions in the earlier Proxense v. Samsung case. This tracked the Federal Circuit's April 4, 2024 denial of Google's mandamus petition in the parallel case, where the court credited "the trial court's familiarity with the patents and technology from its substantial involvement with prior litigation" (ip fray, Apr. 2024). The court then entered claim construction on May 24, 2024 (ECF 66), largely adopting Proxense's proposed constructions from Proxense v. Samsung over Microsoft's narrower proposals — e.g., "receiver-decoder circuit" = "a component or collection of components, capable of wirelessly receiving data in an encrypted format and decoding the encrypted data for processing," and "personal digital key" = "an operably connected collection of elements including an antenna and a transceiver for communicating with a RDC and a controller and memory for storing information particular to a user." The case is now well advanced: the parties filed a Joint Notice of Case Narrowing (May 16, 2025), Proxense filed an Amended Complaint (ECF 93, May 6, 2025), Microsoft moved to dismiss the '730 patent with prejudice (ECF 95, May 9, 2025; reply ECF 105, May 30, 2025), and Microsoft filed a sealed Daubert motion targeting Proxense's damages experts Dr. Cole and Dr. Vanderhart (ECF 106, June 3, 2025). The docket as reflected by RPX shows the latest activity in June 2025; I could not confirm a firm trial date from the sources available.

The case is notable on several fronts. First, it is a leading example of a "former operating company" NPE monetizing a foundational-sounding portfolio against the entire passwordless-authentication ecosystem — impacting Microsoft's identity stack and, by extension, the FIDO2/WebAuthn standards ecosystem and Microsoft's developer/customer base. Second, it showcases an unusually dense PTAB linkage: nearly every asserted patent was hit with IPRs by Microsoft, Google, and Apple. The '730 patent was effectively wiped out — Proxense requested adverse judgment in IPR2024-00775 and IPR2024-00232, and on April 28, 2025 the PTAB entered adverse judgment and cancelled all claims 1–17, prompting Microsoft's motion to dismiss that patent with prejudice (ECF 95). A parallel ex parte reexamination (90/015,052) was stayed and then reopened after the adverse judgment, and the Examiner rejected Proxense's proposed amended claims (Office Action dated May 20, 2025). The '954 patent was instituted for review (IPR2024-00846, instituted Nov. 18, 2024), while the '289 patent went to a final written decision on July 17, 2025 in IPR2024-00407, where the Board (Judges Dang, McKone, Beamer, and Turner) determined all challenged claims unpatentable; Law360 reported on July 21, 2025 that Microsoft "knock[ed] out 2 Proxense patents," though I could confirm only the '289 FWD directly and would flag the second patent as unreported in my sources. That FWD is now on appeal. Third, the venue jurisprudence — Judge Albright's refusal to transfer based on judicial economy, effectively validated by the Federal Circuit's mandamus denial in the Google case — remains instructive for W.D. Tex. patent practice even as the Waco Division's case-assignment practices have shifted. Finally, the near-total PTAB attrition across the two case families (Family A especially) makes this a case study in how IPR/reexamination pressure can hollow out a multi-patent NPE campaign while the district court case grinds toward expert and Daubert practice.

I'll research this case across multiple sources, starting with the docket and key developments.

Let me pull the docket and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me get the full docket and check for 2025-2026 developments including any appeal.

Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.) — Litigation Timeline & Key Developments

Bottom line: This is a still-pending case in which Proxense asserted six biometric-authentication/"personal digital key" patents against Microsoft's passwordless-authentication stack. The district court has never reached trial. The decisive developments have come from the PTAB, where Microsoft (and co-petitioners Apple and Google) have now knocked out the claims of the '730, '289, and '042 patents, with the '954 and '905 patents under challenge as well. A Federal Circuit appeal appears to be underway in 2026. Citations below note where sourcing is thin.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2023)

Patents-in-suit (per AO-120 and the complaint): U.S. 8,352,730 ('730); 8,886,954 ('954); 9,298,905 ('905); 8,646,042 ('042); 9,679,289 ('289); 10,073,960 ('960). Accused products: Microsoft's "Universal Passwordless Architecture" — Microsoft Authenticator, Windows Hello, Platform Credential for macOS, Windows 10/11 (CloudAP/WAM), FIDO2 security keys, Edge/Chrome WebAuthn support, and Microsoft Identity/Azure AD (Entra). Proxense alleged willfulness with notice dating to at least 2016-07-29.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to transfer (venue). Microsoft moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer to the W.D. Wash. (Dkt. 29). Note a sourcing discrepancy: the document header for Dkt. 29 reads "Filed 08/21/23," while Microsoft's separate stay motion describes the transfer motion as "timely filed on October 10, 2023" — likely a refiled/amended motion. Venue discovery closed 2023-10-30; opposition filed 2023-11-13 (ECF 35); reply 2023-11-27 (ECF 40). Microsoft also moved to stay all case activity pending resolution of the transfer motion.

Transfer denied — 2024-04-26. Judge Albright denied transfer, relying heavily on judicial economy from the earlier Proxense v. Samsung case (6:21-cv-00210-ADA), in which he had conducted claim construction and decided summary judgment before it settled on the eve of trial, plus a co-pending Google case (6:23-cv-00320) on the same patents (Law360, 2024-04-26; order reproduced as PTAB Ex. 2012 in IPR2024-00232). The court rejected Microsoft's "sources of proof" argument, noting Microsoft's source code would be reviewed in Washington, D.C. and that a cleared Microsoft employee (Barrera Isla) resided in WDTX.

Google's mandamus denied. In the parallel Google case, the Federal Circuit denied mandamus (In re Google LLC, No. 2024-117, nonprecedential), deferring to the district court's judicial-economy rationale. No Microsoft mandamus petition is reflected in the sources I reached.

Stay pending IPR. Microsoft filed an opposed motion to stay the case pending IPR (Dkt. 76), and supplemented it as PTAB rulings came down (e.g., Dkt. 97, 2025-05-27, submitting the Examiner's rejection of Proxense's amended '730 claims).

Motion to dismiss the '730 patent with prejudice — 2025-05-09 (Dkt. 95). After the PTAB cancelled every claim of the '730 patent, Microsoft moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Proxense opposed 2025-05-23 (Dkt. 103), arguing dismissal should be limited to the previously asserted claims because the '730 might "reemerge" from reexam with new claims; Microsoft replied 2025-05-30 (Dkt. 105). No ruling is reflected in the docket as of the last entry I could confirm (2025-06-04).

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The parties waived an oral Markman hearing and rested on the briefs.

• Microsoft Opening Claim Construction Brief — 2023-11-11 (ECF 31; the document header reads 11/06/23)
• Proxense Responsive Brief — 2023-11-27 (ECF 42)
• Microsoft Reply — 2023-12-11 (ECF 46)
• Proxense Sur-reply — 2023-12-27 (ECF 49)
• Joint Claim Construction Statement — 2024-01-10 (ECF 51)
• Claim Construction Order — 2024-05-24 (ECF 66, signed May 24, 2024**)**, reciting "W-23-CV-00319-ADA."

Four terms were disputed: "access message" ('730 cl. 1, 15; '954 cl. 1; '905 cl. 1); "wherein the biometric data and the scan data are both based on a fingerprint scan by the user" ('730 cl. 5); "personal digital key"/"PDK" ('042 cl. 10); "receiver-decoder circuit"/"RDC" ('042 cl. 10; '289 cl. 14, 16). Microsoft sought narrow constructions (e.g., "a message enabling access"; "a circuit that wirelessly receives encrypted data from the PDK and decodes it"); Proxense asked the court to adopt the Proxense v. Samsung constructions. The court largely adopted plain-and-ordinary-meaning constructions rather than Microsoft's narrowing proposals (for "access message," the final construction was "no construction necessary") and adopted the parties' agreed constructions. The specific PDK/RDC constructions are only partially legible in the reproduced order; treat any finer characterization as unverified.

---

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• Venue discovery closed 2023-10-30 (useful to Microsoft's transfer bid, which failed).
• Infringement contentions: Proxense's original contentions and amended contentions (Microsoft's invalidity contentions reference service dates of 2022-07-24 and 2023-08-10 — the 2022 date appears to be a carry-over error from the Samsung case). Microsoft served Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions asserting §§ 101, 102, 103 and 112.
• Final Infringement Contentions — 2024-07-24, adding claim charts across '730, '905, '954, '042, '289, and '960.
• Expert/damages phase (2025): On 2025-06-03 Microsoft filed a sealed Daubert motion to exclude the damages-related opinions of Dr. Cole and Dr. VanDerHart (Dkt. 106) — indicating expert reports were exchanged and the case had advanced well into merits discovery.
• Case narrowing: Joint Notice of Case Narrowing filed 2025-05-16.
• Proxense counsel change: Unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney (Conor McDonough) filed 2025-05-21 (Dkt. 99); Microsoft added Jeanel N. Sunga pro hac vice 2025-05-20/22 (Dkt. 100/102).

---

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

Ex parte reexam 90/015,052 ('730) was filed 2022-06-08, stayed 2025-03-27 pending IPR2024-00232, then lifted 2025-04-28. Proxense cancelled claims 1–17 and added claims 18–34; the Examiner rejected claims 18–34 (non-final Office Actions 2025-05-20 and 2025-07-29), applying PTAB estoppel and adopting the IPR2024-00846 institution rationale.

Practical effect on the litigation: The PTAB cancellations hollowed out Proxense's case. Proxense nonetheless filed an Amended Complaint on 2025-05-06 (Dkt. 93) that continued to assert the '730 patent — asserting "at least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 16, and 17" — which triggered Microsoft's dismissal motion. Law360 (2025-07-21) reported the PTAB had invalidated "all the claims across two patents" (the '289 FWD of July 17, 2025 being the headline event).

---

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date was reached, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. The case was still in the pre-trial/expert phase when the '730 dismissal motion and the PTAB rulings converged in mid-2025. Because Proxense does not make products and sought no injunction, Microsoft framed the stay arguments around lack of irreparable harm.

---

7. Final disposition / present posture

• District court: Still pending before Judge Albright. The last docket activity I could confirm is 2025-06-04 (RPX Insight listed the latest docket entry as 06/04/2025); the '730 motion to dismiss with prejudice (Dkt. 95) was fully briefed but no order is publicly reflected in my sources. There is no judgment, settlement, or dismissal on the docket that I could verify.
• Appeal: The PTAB docket for IPR2024-00407 is listed as "Final Written Decision – Appealed," and an ipfray-hosted "Proxense v. Apple, Microsoft" appellate opening brief dated 2026-04-03 argues the '954/'730 reexam and IPR2024-00846 issues — consistent with a pending Federal Circuit appeal (2026). I could not independently verify the appeal number, the appellant identity, or which FWDs are consolidated; this should be treated as a lead to confirm rather than an established fact.

---

Caveats

• A few dates in the record conflict (complaint 4/28 vs. 5/2/2023; transfer motion 8/21 vs. 10/10/2023; Markman brief 11/6 vs. 11/11/2023). I've flagged each.
• I did not reach the underlying Answer/counterclaims text, the order resolving Microsoft's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, or any 2025–2026 dismissal/settlement order. Those items remain unverified and should be confirmed against the PACER docket (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA) and the Federal Circuit docket.

I'll research press coverage of this case, starting with the specific articles provided and then searching broader angles.

Good start. Now let me verify the specific IPWatchdog articles provided and search for additional coverage.

The January 2024 IPWatchdog piece checks out. Now let me verify the other provided articles and look for additional coverage.

Press coverage of Proxense v. Microsoft

Coverage is thin and almost entirely roundup-driven. The most substantive press mention of the case's PTAB front is IPWatchdog's "Patent Filings Roundup" of 2024-01-25, which reported that "[e]ight IPRs were filed against eight of inventor-controlled Proxense, LLC's biometric authentication patents (three by Google and two by Microsoft), which target the provision of universal platform password-less architecture." That single sentence — framed as part of a weekly filing-statistics column rather than as case analysis — is the fullest description of the Microsoft/Google/Apple IPR wave I could locate in the press. Notably, the roundup's own figures are internally imprecise (it says eight IPRs, then attributes only five to Google and Microsoft), and it characterizes Proxense as "inventor-controlled," a framing consistent with the founder/inventor-led picture in the case overview but at odds with how other outlets describe the company.

Law360 is the only outlet with sustained, docket-level coverage, maintained through its case page for Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation. Law360 reported on 2024-04-26 that "U.S. District Judge Alan Albright rejected efforts by Microsoft to send an infringement lawsuit over its cloud software to its home in Washington state, citing on Friday his own 'experience and effort' dealing with patents covering 'a pint-sized virtual wallet' in other suits" — the only press account I found of the venue ruling that frames it through the judicial-economy rationale discussed in the earlier sections. Later, on 2025-07-21, Law360 headlined "Microsoft Gets PTAB To Knock Out 2 Proxense Patents," reporting that "[t]he Patent Trial and Appeal Board has found that Microsoft was able to prove that all the claims across two patents owned by an Oregon startup that has sued the technology giant for infringement were invalid." Two caveats: Law360 calls Proxense "an Oregon startup," which understates its 2001 founding and its non-practicing posture (and is a descriptor the prior sections' "former operating company" framing corrects); and the "two patents" are not identified in the accessible portion of the article, though the timing is consistent with the '289 final written decision of 2025-07-17 described earlier plus the '730 adverse judgment. Law360's parallel PTAB tracker for IPR2024-00407 lists the proceeding as "Final Written Decision – Appealed," which is the closest thing to press confirmation of the appeal flagged as unverified in the prior sections.

Several of the supplied articles do not actually cover this case. The IPWatchdog roundup of 2023-03-03 predates the Microsoft complaint (filed 2023-04-28/05-02) and mentions Proxense only in its PTAB table, recording the settlement of Samsung's IPR2021-01438 and IPR2021-01439 against Proxense — i.e., the Samsung track referenced in the case overview, not Microsoft. The "Other Barks & Bites" of 2023-01-20 likewise predates the suit, and I could not verify via search that it mentions Proxense at all. The 2022-03-17 and 2021-09-01 roundups predate the Microsoft filing by more than a year and, by date, cannot discuss it; I did not successfully retrieve either to confirm whether Proxense appears in them. Anyone citing these five links as "coverage of Proxense v. Microsoft" would be mis-citing at least two of them.

What the press has not reported. I found no coverage in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, JD Supra, or EFF Deeplinks, and no mainstream technology-press treatment of the passwordless-authentication/FIDO2 angle that makes the case significant. No outlet has reported a damages figure, a royalty rate, or a settlement number; the only 2025 damages-related event in the record — Microsoft's sealed Daubert motion targeting Dr. Cole and Dr. Vanderhart (ECF 106, 2025-06-03) — is sealed and drew no press account I could locate. The Proxense–Google parallel case's termination is captured only in litigation databases rather than press: PatSnap records No. 6:23-cv-00320 as dismissed with prejudice on 2025-09-23, and notably lists the accused products there as "a universal platform password-less architecture · Microsoft's universal platform password-less architecture" — apparently a data artifact from the shared patent family, worth flagging as a database error rather than a factual link between the two suits. Absent dedicated trade-press coverage, the substantive record of this case remains the docket and the PTAB papers rather than journalism.

Sources

• Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 6:23-cv-00319 - CourtListener.com - Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (6:23-cv-00319)
• 6:23-cv-00319 | Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation | RPX Insight
• Amended Complaint – #93 in Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (W.D. Tex., 6:23-cv-00319) – CourtListener.com
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
• IPR2024-00232, No. 2016 Exhibit - Claim Construction Order (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2024) - Exhibits:
• Search court records on patent:(8886954)
• Proxense v. Google et al. | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00320 - Proxense, LLC v. Google, LLC et al.
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• AO 120 (Rev

I'll research Proxense's counsel of record using the docket and firm/coverage sources.

Good initial hits. Now let me pin down the full plaintiff-side team, local counsel, and any withdrawals.

Now let me verify the full roster, PHV status, and any withdrawals.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Proxense, LLC — Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line. Proxense is represented by a two-firm team: Hecht Partners LLP (New York, NY — the firm that has run the entire Proxense campaign and the PTAB work, with founder David L. Hecht as lead/co-lead) and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston, TX, with a Los Angeles-based Proxense team member), which served as Texas-based co-counsel. The complaint designated Hecht and Susman Godfrey's Brian D. Melton as co-lead counsel. No in-house counsel for Proxense appears on the docket.

Builds on the prior sections: this confirms and fills in the "Proxense … led by founder/CEO John J. Giobbi" point — Giobbi is the inventor/principal, not counsel; and it supplies the names behind the "claim construction largely adopting Proxense's proposals" and the Daubert/expert activity described in the case overview.

---

Plaintiff's counsel — Hecht Partners LLP (125 Park Ave., 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017)

Not confirmed for this docket: Tremayne Norris (Hecht Partners) appears alongside Hecht, Price and Wu in the related Proxense v. Intel complaint signature block (Sept. 2, 2024) but I found no appearance by him in the Microsoft case.

---

Plaintiff's counsel — Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Texas-based co-counsel)

---

Admission status, changes over time, and where the team now stands

• Pro hac vice admissions. The three Hecht Partners attorneys (Price, Wu, McDonough) were admitted PHV in May 2023 via motions filed by David Hecht (ECF 9–11; orders ECF 13–15). Hecht himself is Texas-barred (TX Bar No. 24136516 appears in the related Proxense v. Intel complaint), which is why he signs district-court filings directly.
• Team shrinkage in 2025. McDonough moved to withdraw (ECF 99, May 21, 2025). In the 2025 filings I retrieved, Proxense's papers are signed by Hecht (e.g., the ADR-deadline stipulation, June 10, 2025), and the May 2025 meet-and-confer was attended only by Hecht and Price. I found no withdrawal entry for Susman Godfrey, and the Aug. 20, 2024 Microsoft Sotera stipulation was still addressed to "Hecht Partners LLP" and "Susman Godfrey LLP," so Susman Godfrey appears to have remained of record into 2025 — but I could not confirm this from the most recent 2025 entries. Flagging as unverified.
• PTAB/appellate counsel mirrors the district-court team. In every Microsoft IPR mandatory notice, Proxense listed David L. Hecht (lead) and James Zak (back-up), both Hecht Partners (IPR2024-00405, -00407, -00573, etc.), with service e-mail proxense@hechtpartners.com. Hecht Partners is therefore also the likely firm on the pending Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26-1025) from the IPR2024-00407 final written decision; I could not confirm the appellate appearance from the sources retrieved.
• No W.D. Tex.-only "local counsel" firm identified. Unlike the Samsung matter — where Proxense used Erick Robinson of Porter Hedges LLP (Houston) as Texas counsel — for the Microsoft case the Texas-based role was filled by Susman Godfrey's Houston office, not a separate Waco/Austin firm. I found no separate local-counsel appearance.

Contradiction / correction flags

1. Prior section's premise: "Proxense … led by founder/CEO John J. Giobbi" — accurate as corporate fact, but note Giobbi is not counsel of record; the litigation is run by Hecht Partners (with Susman Godfrey).
2. Microsoft's counsel (out of scope but for completeness): Desmarais LLP (Betty H. Chen, Benjamin C. Elacqua, Claire Chang, Jeanel N. Sunga; San Francisco) with Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX) as Texas-based counsel. This confirms the earlier section's "Microsoft's Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions" attributions.
3. Docket status update (beyond the June 2025 cutoff noted in the earlier section): the CourtListener docket shows a "STIPULATION to Stay Proceedings by Proxense, LLC" and an "ORDER GRANTING [ECF] 121 JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS," consistent with the case pausing around the Federal Circuit appeal. I flag this as newer than the prior section's "latest activity June 2025" line, but could not pin the exact entry date.

What I could not verify

• Whether a formal order granted McDonough's withdrawal (ECF 99).
• Whether Susman Godfrey remains of record in late 2025 (no withdrawal found, but no 2025 Susman Godfrey-signed filings surfaced either).
• The signature block of the Amended Complaint (ECF 93, May 6, 2025).
• Whether Lear Jiang appeared under a PHV grant or as a member of the W.D. Tex. bar (the docket shows a notice of appearance, not a PHV motion).
• Any in-house counsel for Proxense — none appears.

---

Primary sources for these identifications: Complaint (ECF 1) signature blocks (Hecht: "David L. Hecht (Co-Lead Counsel)"; Susman Godfrey: "Brian D. Melton (Co-Lead Counsel)"); Joint Claim Construction Statement, Jan. 10, 2024, in Proxense v. Microsoft, No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (excerpted as Ex. 2011 in IPR2024-00573) listing Melton, Harrison, Xi, Barcelo and Lear Jiang as "Counsel for Plaintiff Proxense, LLC"; docket entries 9–15, 12 and 99 on CourtListener and Justia Dockets; Microsoft's May 9, 2025 motion (ECF 95) certificate of conference naming Hecht and Price; PTAB mandatory notices in IPR2024-00405/-00407/-00573 naming Hecht and Zak; Microsoft Sotera stipulations dated June 21 and Aug. 20, 2024 addressed to Hecht Partners and Susman Godfrey; Susman Godfrey's Lear Jiang bio; and ip fray (firm attributions).

I'll research Microsoft's defense team, starting with the docket and firm sources.

Key finding: the Reply signature block suggests both Desmarais LLP and Fish & Richardson. Let me pull the actual document and the docket appearances.

Let me verify the firm affiliations of each attorney (Desmarais vs. Fish & Richardson) and pull the actual signature block.

I hit the research-step limit before I could pull every firm bio, so I'll give you what the docket and filings actually show and flag the gaps explicitly.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Microsoft Corporation

Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

Bottom line. Microsoft is defended by a Texas local-counsel firm (Gillam & Smith LLP) paired with a national patent trial team. The docket evidence points to two principal national firms appearing for Microsoft in this case — Desmarais LLP (San Francisco) and Fish & Richardson P.C. — and the signature blocks suggest they appeared jointly rather than sequentially. Betty H. Chen (Desmarais) is the de facto lead: she signed the Sotera stipulations, drafted the stay papers, and filed the sealed Daubert motion. Benjamin C. Elacqua is the other principal filer (the '730 dismissal motion and its reply, plus the pro hac vice motions). Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith, Marshall, TX) is the Texas-based counsel of record. No Microsoft in-house lawyer appears on the docket.

This builds on (and partially corrects) the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section, which grouped Elacqua with Desmarais and identified only Smith for the defense side.

---

1. Counsel table

PTAB/appellate parallel (Microsoft side), for context. Microsoft's IPR petitions were handled by two different firms: Desmarais LLP on IPR2024-00407 (the '289 patent — Chen signed the related Sotera stipulation), and Fish & Richardson P.C. on at least IPR2024-00846 (the '954 patent), whose updated exhibit list is signed by W. Karl Renner (Reg. No. 41,265), Roberto J. Devito (Reg. No. 55,108) and Usman Khan (Reg. No. 70,439), Minneapolis. This dual-firm PTAB split is the strongest circumstantial support for the two-firm district-court team.

---

2. What the docket shows about each firm's work

Desmarais LLP (Betty Chen):

• Sotera Wireless stipulations, June 21, 2024 and Aug. 20, 2024, addressed to Hecht Partners and Susman Godfrey and signed "Betty Chen, Attorney for Microsoft" (Ex. 1018 in IPR2024-00407; Ex. 1024 in IPR2024-01326).
• Reply ISO motion to stay pending transfer (Mar. 22, 2024) and the opposed motion to stay pending IPR (ECF 76, Nov. 22, 2024, with "Declaration of B. Chen") — the docket reflects "(Chen, Betty)" as the filer, as does the joint motion to amend the scheduling order (Sept./Oct. 2024).
• Sealed Daubert motion to exclude the damages opinions of Dr. Cole and Dr. Vanderhart (ECF 106, June 3, 2025) — sealed, with a public docket entry and "Affidavit of Betty Chen" listed.

Fish & Richardson / Elacqua track:

• Opening brief ISO motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF 21, July 10, 2023) and reply (ECF 26, Aug. 10, 2023) — these are the divided-infringement/plausibility papers; the reply in that series was filed by the same team.
• Opposed motion to dismiss the '730 patent with prejudice (ECF 95, May 9, 2025) + reply (ECF 105, May 30, 2025), both filed by Elacqua, and both now mooted/paused by the stay.
• All four pro hac vice motions for Microsoft's out-of-state team (Chang 2024; Dorris 2025; Sunga 2025).
• Microsoft's opening claim construction brief (ECF 31, filed 11/06/2023 per the document header; the Court's Markman order recites 11/11/2023) and reply claim construction brief (ECF 46, Dec. 11, 2023) — the briefs themselves don't reveal the signing attorney in the text I retrieved, so I can't assign them to a firm.

Gillam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith): appearance (July 10, 2023) and Microsoft's Rule 7.1 disclosure statement — the classic local-counsel role (service, local matters, and Texas-presence filings).

---

3. Posture caveat (affects "counsel of record" today)

A joint stipulation to stay the proceedings and an "ORDER GRANTING [ECF] 121 JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS" appear on the CourtListener docket — consistent with the case pausing around the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26-1025) from the IPR2024-00407 final written decision. I could not confirm the exact entry date or whether any counsel withdrew in connection with the stay. No withdrawal of any Microsoft attorney appears in the entries I retrieved (in contrast to Proxense's McDonough withdrawal, ECF 99).

---

4. Contradictions and verification flags

1. Elacqua's firm. The only place I found his firm identified in a primary document is the signature block of Dkt. 105, where the text reads (in the merged extraction): "... bchen@desmaraisllp.com DESMARAIS LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3070 San Francisco, CA 94111 ... wolff@fr.com James Yang ... Benjamin C. Elacqua Texas Bar No. 24055443 elacqua@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. ... COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, MICROSOFT CORPORATION." The clean reading is a joint signature block listing both firms, with Elacqua's email domain (fr.com) indicating Fish & Richardson. This contradicts the prior section, which listed Elacqua among Desmarais LLP attorneys. I could not retrieve the PDF directly to lay the block out cleanly, so treat "Elacqua = Fish & Richardson" as likely but not fully confirmed, and the "Desmarais-only defense team" framing as likely incomplete.
2. "Jason W. [Wolff]" (wolff@fr.com) appears in the same block. Because the name is truncated in the retrieved text, I am not naming him as counsel of record for this case; I flag the Fish & Richardson connection only as corroborating the two-firm theory.
3. Betty Chen / Texas bar number. Dkt. 105's block appears to pair "Betty Chen" with "TX Bar No. 24056720." I could not verify a Texas bar number for her (her known office is San Francisco, and Desmarais' letterhead gives only her CA direct line). Possible extraction/attribution error — flagged, not asserted.
4. CourtListener shows a "MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Betty H..." in the docket index (title truncated). If that is a Chen PHV motion, it would tend to confirm she is not Texas-admitted; I could not open the entry to confirm it is hers rather than a same-surname attorney's.
5. Prior section's defense-side line ("Desmarais LLP (Betty H. Chen, Benjamin C. Elacqua, Claire Chang, Jeanel N. Sunga; San Francisco) with Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX) as Texas-based counsel") is partially confirmed: Chen → Desmarais ✓; Smith → Gillam & Smith ✓; Elacqua → probably Fish & Richardson ✗; Chang and Sunga firm placement unverified.

---

5. What I could not verify

• Firm affiliations for Claire Chang, Jeanel N. Sunga, Joseph R. Dorris, and James Yang (all appear on the docket as Microsoft counsel, but their firms aren't stated in the docket text I retrieved).
• Whether Fish & Richardson and Desmarais LLP appeared simultaneously throughout, or whether Microsoft shifted its district-court representation at some point (the pattern — Desmarais on the 2024 stay/venue papers, Elacqua/Fish on the 2025 '730 motion — is consistent with a division of labor or a mid-case transition, and I can't rule either out).
• Whether Microsoft has additional counsel of record added after June 2025, since the docket text I could reach thins out after the stay stipulation.
• Any in-house Microsoft attorney — none appears of record.

---

Sources relied on

• CourtListener docket, Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319 (W.D. Tex.) — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67312721/proxense-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/ (appearances, ECF 67/81 PHV orders, ECF 95/105/106 entries, Oct. 9, 2024 Yang appearance, July 10, 2023 Smith appearance).
• Dkt. 105 PDF (Microsoft's reply ISO '730 dismissal) — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.[1217252](/patent/1217252)/gov.uscourts.txwd.1217252.105.0.pdf.
• Sotera stipulations dated June 21, 2024 (Ex. 1018, IPR2024-00407) and Aug. 20, 2024 (Ex. 1024, IPR2024-01326), Docket Alarm — signed "Betty Chen, Attorney for Microsoft."
• Microsoft's Motion to Transfer, ECF 29 (Aug. 21, 2023), reproduced as an exhibit in IPR2024-01485 (Apple) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01485/Apple_Inc/...
• Microsoft's Opening Brief ISO Rule 12(b)(6) motion, ECF 21 (July 10, 2023), reproduced as Ex. 1014 in IPR2024-00407; Petitioner's Updated Exhibit List, IPR2024-00846 (Fish & Richardson: Renner, Devito, Khan) — Docket Alarm.
• LookSmart Group, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 91 — "/s/ Betty Chen ... Attorneys for Defendant MICROSOFT CORPORATION."
• Justia/other dockets for prior Melissa Richards Smith Microsoft representations (Gillam & Smith signature block, Marshall, TX).