Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C. et al.

I'll research this case and the surrounding litigation family before drafting.

Good material. Now let me pin down the specific docket details, the plaintiff's corporate identity, and the appellate citations.

Now let me nail down the assigned judge, counsel, and the appellate citations.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The plaintiff, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“RAS”), is a Tyler, Texas patent-licensing vehicle — a non-practicing entity, not an operating company or university. Its patents name the same inventor group (James J. Fallon, Stephen J. McErlain) and the same Tyler, Texas address associated with Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO, the long-running data-compression assertion entity whose campaigns against Blue Coat, Citrix, Packeteer and others date to 2008. RAS was the vehicle created for the video/audio "asymmetric compression" continuation family; in the parallel Colorado case RAS was literally substituted in as plaintiff for Realtime Data in October 2017. DISH's own SEC disclosures describe RAS as "an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein." (EchoStar 10-Q, Mar. 31, 2025; patent face, U.S. 9,769,477) The defendants are DISH Network L.L.C., the operating pay-TV/satellite and Sling TV entity, and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., the DISH-owned set-top-box and uplink subsidiary (incorporated in Texas, with facilities in Aledo and New Braunfels) that was later renamed DISH Technologies L.L.C. The docket also named Arris Group, Inc., the CPE/set-top-box supplier, although the case metadata above lists only the two DISH entities. (Complaint, Dkt. 1, 6:17-cv-00567; PlainSite docket)

Accused technology and patents. The accused instrumentalities were DISH/EchoStar/Arris streaming video products and services compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard — i.e., DISH set-top boxes and video distribution/transcoding infrastructure and the Sling TV / Slingbox streaming services, alleged to infringe both directly and indirectly. (DISH 10-Q disclosure) Two patents were asserted in this action (the earlier Texas complaints in the same family had also asserted U.S. 8,275,897, which was dropped in October 2017):

• U.S. 8,934,535, "Systems and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and Distribution" (issued Jan. 13, 2015; App. No. 14/033,245, filed Sept. 20, 2013) — claims a controller that determines a parameter of a data block (data type, access profile, throughput) and selects among two or more "asymmetric" compressors with different speed/ratio tradeoffs to accelerate storage and retrieval. (DISH IPR2018-01342 petition)
• U.S. 8,867,610, "System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution" (issued Oct. 21, 2014) — drawn from a virtually identical specification, claiming distribution of video and audio data by selecting a compression routine based on characteristics of the data and the communication channel. (Markman Order, Dkt. 151, No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2019))

Procedural posture and significance. RAS filed this suit on October 10, 2017, in the Tyler Division of the E.D. Tex. (6:17-cv-00567), with District Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding and Magistrate Judge John D. Love referred. Barely a month later — joint motion filed November 6, final judgment entered November 8, 2017 — the case was dismissed without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs. (PlainSite docket) The dismissal was part of a coordinated consolidation: on the same October 10 date RAS amended into the District of Colorado action (No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ, Judge R. Brooke Jackson), and on November 6 it filed a second amended complaint there adding DISH Network, EchoStar/DISH Technologies and Arris. (One clarification to the prior summary: the record shows it was Realtime, not DISH, that moved and consolidated the dispute in Colorado — DISH never filed a declaratory-judgment action there.) The Texas filing is best read as post-TC Heartland venue hedging: a short-lived placeholder filed the same day RAS repositioned the case in a forum where the DISH/Sling defendants were plainly amenable to suit.

The case is notable for three reasons. First, it is a case study in NPE mass-assertion economics — the '535 and '610 patents were pressed in roughly two dozen 2017–18 suits by RAS against Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, Google, Apple, Sony, Samsung, Intel, AMD, Comcast, Cox, Charter, Cisco, Adobe, Brightcove, Haivision, Polycom, Wowza, LG, Broadcom and others. Second, the IPR linkage is unusually fateful for so short a case: DISH/Sling filed petitions on July 3, 2018 (e.g., IPR2018-01342), which were instituted January 31, 2019 but then terminated as time-barred on January 17, 2020 — a § 315(b) consequence traceable to service in the earlier, dismissed Texas actions — while third parties that had timely joined (and Unified Patents' IPR2018-00883, Hulu/Amazon/Netflix's IPR2018-01170) obtained final written decisions invalidating the '535 claims. RAS withdrew its '535 claims on January 12, 2021. Third, the campaign ended badly for RAS: the '610 was held ineligible under § 101 on summary judgment (July 30, 2021), affirmed (May 11, 2023), and its claims were separately cancelled in ex parte reexamination (PTAB affirmed April 19, 2023); a $3.9 million § 285 fee award was then vacated by the Federal Circuit on August 23, 2024 (No. 23-1035, Judge Albright writing by designation), and on remand the district court denied exceptionality on February 5, 2025, ending the fee fight when DISH dismissed its appeal on July 3, 2025 (No. 25-1529). (EchoStar 10-Q; Fed. Cir. 23-1035 analysis; IPR related-matters listing, IPR2018-01170)

Sourcing notes / open items. The docket facts (filing date, defendants, Gilstrap/Love assignment, Nov. 6 joint motion, Nov

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with parallel searches.

Now let me pin down the actual E.D. Tex. docket (6:17-cv-00567) and the PTAB/Federal Circuit specifics.

Scope note before the chronology

The docket you've asked about — E.D. Tex. No. 6:17-cv-00567 — was on the court's docket for 29 days. There is no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no judgment on the merits in that case. The substantive war over U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 (the "'535 patent") was fought in the successor Colorado action, No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ (D. Colo.), and in six-plus PTAB proceedings. Because you asked for "the litigation" and its outcome, I've organized the answer as:

• Part I — 6:17-cv-00567 itself (chronological, complete).
• Part II — the Colorado successor case, which is where claim construction, stay, summary judgment, fees and appeals occurred.
• Part III — parallel PTAB proceedings on the '535 (and the '610) patent.
• Part IV — appeals and present posture.
• Part V — sourcing caveats and what I could not confirm.

Case-metadata conventions in the sources differ from your caption: the E.D. Tex. docket is referred to in USPTO and Federal Circuit filings as Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. EchoStar Technologies LLC et al., No. 6:17-cv-00567, and EchoStar/DISH's own SEC disclosures call it the "Third Texas Action." I use your caption but flag the alias.

---

Part I — E.D. Tex. No. 6:17-cv-00567 (the case in your metadata)

2017-10-10 — Complaint filed (29 pages). Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC ("RAS," a Realtime Data/IXO affiliate) sued in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, naming DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (later renamed DISH Technologies L.L.C.), and — per EchoStar's own description of the filing — Arris Group, Inc. The complaint asserted the '610 patent and the '535 patent against H.264-compliant streaming video products and services. It was one of a wave of nearly simultaneous RAS filings: Amazon (6:17-cv-00549), Cisco (6:17-cv-00591), Hulu (C.D. Cal. 2:17-cv-07611), Brightcove and HaiVision (D. Del.), all in October 2017. Sources: EchoStar/DISH DBS 10-Q/10-K litigation footnotes (SEC EDGAR); the complaint is cited as an exhibit in multiple PTAB proceedings (e.g., Sling TV IPR2018-01332, Exhibit 1031; Comcast IPR2019-00760, Exhibit 1027).

Context that explains the 29-day lifespan. 6:17-cv-00567 was not the first suit over these patents against the DISH family. It was carved out of a pre-existing web:

• Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp., No. 6:17-cv-00084 (E.D. Tex.) — the "Original Texas Action" (filed 2017-02-14 against EchoStar and Hughes Network Systems; amended 2017-06-06 to add the DISH/Sling/Arris entities and eight patents including the '535).
• On 2017-07-19, the court severed the '897/'610/'535 claims against DISH Network, DISH Network L.L.C., Sling TV, Sling Media and Arris into the "Second Texas Action," No. 6:17-cv-00421 (E.D. Tex.).
• On 2017-08-31, RAS dismissed DISH Network, Sling TV, Sling Media Inc. and Sling Media L.L.C. from the Second Texas Action and refiled those claims in Colorado (No. 1:17-cv-02097), then on 2017-11-06 jointly moved to dismiss the Second Texas Action (entered 2017-11-08).

So 6:17-cv-00567 was the third Texas filing — a re-set against DISH/EchoStar/Arris after the severance, filed on the same day the Colorado action was amended to substitute RAS as plaintiff and drop the '897 patent.

2017-11-06 — Joint motion to dismiss without prejudice. Filed by RAS; the record does not disclose the negotiated terms. Its practical function is transparent: RAS simultaneously (a) filed a second amended complaint in Colorado adding DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Arris as defendants to No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ, and (b) cleared the Texas docket, moving the '610/'535 dispute into a single Colorado forum before Judge R. Brooke Jackson.

2017-11-08 — Dismissal entered; case terminated. Referenced in subsequent patent-file and Federal Circuit appendix materials as a "Final Judgement" filed 2017-11-08 in Case No. 6:17-cv-00567.

I'll search for press coverage from several angles.

Let me search additional angles, including trade press and the broader litigation campaign.

Press coverage: essentially none on the E.D. Tex. case itself; trade coverage exists on the companion Colorado action and appeal

I searched the caption, the party names, the patent numbers (8,934,535; 8,867,610), and the docket number 6:17-cv-00567, and found no news article — from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or any trade outlet — that reports on this specific Eastern District of Texas suit. That is unsurprising given the record: the case was filed 2017-10-10 and jointly dismissed without prejudice on 2017-11-08, roughly a month later, after Realtime refiled against DISH/EchoStar and Arris in Colorado (USPTO AO 120 filing for 6:17cv567; EchoStar's 10-Q litigation note describes the same sequence). Even EchoStar's own disclosures treat the Texas filing as a procedural way station and describe the Colorado action as the live dispute. No damages figure, settlement term, or verdict was ever reported for the Texas case because none occurred; the dismissal was without prejudice and the dispute simply moved.

The coverage that does exist concerns the companion Colorado case (1:17-cv-02097) and its Federal Circuit appeal (No. 23-1035) — same plaintiff, same DISH/Sling defendants, and the same '535 and '610 patents. The hook for that coverage was the fee fight, not infringement. Alston & Bird summarized the 2024-08-23 precedential decision (opinion by Judge Albright sitting by designation, joined by Moore and Lourie), explaining that the Federal Circuit vacated a district court fee award because the court "relied on the six red flags without explaining the weight for each flag," agreeing only that the Google and Netflix § 101 rulings on a related patent were a legitimate red flag while finding the Board obviousness decisions, the '610 reexam office actions, DISH's notice letter, and DISH's expert declaration were not. Knobbe Martens (2024-09-03) characterized the holding more sharply, saying five of the district court's six "red flags" should not have been given weight. National Law Review (Timothy Bianchi) ran a longer practitioner analysis walking through each red flag and the notice-letter reasoning. On the money, Patently-O's Dennis Crouch — as summarized by the Fed Circuit Blog on 2024-08-27 — described the decision as vacating a $3.9 million fee award and read the court as signaling that "a yellow flag (or even series of yellow flags) is insufficient to justify an exceptional case finding."

IPWatchdog likewise headlined that the "CAFC Says District Court Must Redo Analysis of Attorneys' Fees Award for DISH," reporting that the court "vacated and remanded a Colorado district court's award of attorney's fees to Sling T.V. and DISH Networks" and that the district court "erred in finding the case exceptional." IPWatchdog has separately covered the same plaintiff's litigation conduct in the Netflix matter, describing a precedential Federal Circuit ruling affirming fees against Realtime for forum-shopping that amounted to "gamesmanship" — context that colors how the trade press frames Realtime generally.

Where reporting goes beyond the court record: the "yellow flag" framing above is Crouch's gloss, not language from the opinion; the $3.9 million figure reflects the amount awarded rather than the $5,075,519 DISH requested (per the district court's 2022-01-20 fee order, which also noted Realtime was "seeking damages in the range of $42 million"). And the press appears to have stopped at the 2024 vacatur — the actual ending is not in any article I found. EchoStar's later SEC filings state that the Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc on 2024-11-26, that the district court on remand denied the exceptional-case motion on 2025-02-05, and that DISH's ensuing appeal was dismissed on 2025-07-03, with "[t]his matter … now concluded." Those are corporate disclosures, not press. Caveats: Law360 and Bloomberg Law are paywalled and my searches surfaced only their PTAB case-tracker pages (e.g., Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, Comcast v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC) rather than any article on this litigation, so I cannot rule out paywalled coverage; and no outlet reported any settlement figure for the Texas or Colorado actions. Multidistrict centralization was refused in In re Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litig., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2018), but I found no press write-up of that ruling.

Sources

• On April 15, 2025, Peninsula Technologies, LLC filed two lawsuits against our wholly- owned subsidiary DISH Wireless L
• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C. - This case was last updated from U
• The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S
• EchoStar Corporation_JUNE 30, 2025 - As a result, neither DISH Network nor any of its subsidiaries is a defendant in the Original Texas Action; the Court has dismiss...
• DISH DBS Corporation_MARCH 31, 2025 - On October 10, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime Adaptive Streaming”) filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidi...
• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C.
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
• EchoStar Corporation_MARCH 31, 2025 - We intend to vigorously defend this case
• Case: 23-1035 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2024 (1 of 40)

• DOCKET NO

• On June 5, 2024, Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr...
• Final Written Decision, filed in Hewlett- Packard Enterprise Co

I'll research the docket and related sources for plaintiff's counsel in this case.

Let me pull the docket and complaint documents.

Bottom line

This case had an unusually short life — complaint filed Oct. 10, 2017, final judgment of dismissal without prejudice entered Nov. 8, 2017 (29 days), so the appearance list is thin. Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC was represented by a two-firm team: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles) as national patent counsel and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX) as local counsel. The docket itself (per PlainSite's index of No. 6:17-cv-00567) shows only three attorneys actually filing papers: Claire A. Henry, Thomas John Ward, Jr., and C. Jay Chung.

Counsel of record — plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Sourcing and caveats

• Docket-grounded entries (PlainSite index for Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C. et al., No. 6:17-cv-00567, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Mag. J. John D. Love): "COMPLAINT … filed by Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC … (Henry, Claire)"; "CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Henry, Claire)"; "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas John Ward, Jr on behalf of Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC"; "Joint MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice by Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC … (Chung, C.)"; "FINAL JUDGMENT … DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE … Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 11/08/17." — https://www.plainsite.law/courts/texas-eastern-district-court/realtime-adaptive-streaming-llc-v-echostar-technologies-llc-et-al/36pqqkq28/
• RAK signature block / practice profile: RAK complaint signature block listing Fenster, Mirzaie, Ledahl, Chung, Wang as plaintiff's counsel in the Realtime matter (E.D. Tex. 2015 complaint, Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar/HNS); RAK's Marc Fenster bio (https://www.raklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Marc_Fenster_9-18-25.pdf); RAK counsel listing in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Apple (D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02869, Dkt. 42).
• PTAB corroboration of the RAK team on the same patent family: Sling TV L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01331/01332 — Patent Owner's counsel listed as Philip X. Wang, C. Jay Chung, Kent N. Shum, Reza Mirzaie, Neil A. Rubin (Russ August & Kabat); exhibit DISH1024 is the Oct. 10, 2017 complaint from No. 6:17-cv-00567. See also RAS's updated mandatory notices in IPR2018-01187 (Aug. 23, 2019).
• Caveats: No pro hac vice motions or appearances by Fenster, Mirzaie, Ledahl, or Wang appear in this case's docket index — unsurprising given the case was dismissed 29 days after filing. Their inclusion above rests on the Realtime account signature blocks and PTAB filings, not on a confirmed docket appearance in No. 6:17-cv-00567; treat those four as "counsel on the matter" rather than verified appearances. Nothing in the docket appears sealed that would affect this list.
• Later substitution (context, not this case): by 2019, RAS had replaced RAK with Noroozi PC (Joel P.N. Stonedale as lead, Kayvan B. Noroozi as first backup) in the PTAB proceedings — that change postdates and does not apply to this Texas docket.
• Related-case note: this caption corresponds to what EchoStar's SEC filings call the "Third Texas Action," severed/refiled out of Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar (6:17-cv-00084) and itself dismissed Nov. 8, 2017, after RAS moved the dispute to D. Colo. (1:17-cv-02097). The '535 patent listed for this case was one of two asserted patents ('610 and '535); I could not confirm from a public source that only the '535 was asserted here — the SEC disclosure states both were pleaded.

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

Let me pull the actual docket sheet and look for any defense-side appearances.

Let me check the Justia docket page (which lists "Represented By" for each party) and try to locate the joint motion to dismiss signature blocks.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for the defendants in E.D. Tex. No. 6:17-cv-00567. The case lived only 29 days (filed Oct. 10, 2017; dismissed Nov. 8, 2017), and the docket contains no notice of appearance, answer, motion, or any other filing by DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., or ARRIS Group, Inc. Every substantive entry was filed by plaintiff's counsel. So the honest answer to "who represented the defendants of record" is: nobody appeared, and the docket does not name defense counsel.

I am flagging this rather than populating the section with names, because naming Fish & Richardson as "counsel of record" here would be inaccurate (§ III below explains who actually ran the defense on the same patents, and why that matters).

I. What the docket actually shows

Complete docket (per the PlainSite docket sheet for 6:17-cv-00567, which reproduces all ten ECF entries):

Sources: https://www.plainsite.law/courts/texas-eastern-district-court/realtime-adaptive-streaming-llc-v-echostar-technologies-llc-et-al/36pqqkq28/ ; EchoStar/DISH public disclosures describing the "Third Texas Action" and the Nov. 6, 2017 joint motion to dismiss entered Nov. 8, 2017 (https://ir.echostar.com/static-files/e80c8041-8049-4b7d-9c5a-57e8fc48bc8a).

Note the docket's only defense-side trace is the word "Joint" in Dkt. 7 and the recital in Dkt. 8 that "all counterclaims asserted by Defendants" were dismissed — boilerplate, since no counterclaim was ever filed in this case. Two caveats I want to be explicit about:

• Dkt. 7's signature pages were not retrievable from the free sources I searched. It is entirely possible defense counsel signed that joint stipulation (in the companion Colorado case, a stipulated caption amendment was signed by all sides). If you need certainty, the signature block of Dkt. 7 is the one document in this case most likely to name defense counsel, and it should be pulled from PACER directly.
• Nothing is sealed here — the file is simply thin. Counsel "hasn't appeared" is the correct characterization, not "filings are sealed."

II. Roles and firms — defendants in this case

III. Who actually ran this defense (context, not of record here)

Because the same '535 patent (and '610 patent) were litigated to judgment against these same entities in D. Colo. No. 1:17-cv-02097 (Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C.), the defense team is well documented there — but that team was never entered in the Texas case. Setting it out so the record isn't misread:

• Ruffin B. Cordell — lead counsel in the Colorado action. Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C. Served as lead in 3+ dozen trials and argued 2+ dozen Federal Circuit appeals; Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers (2012). Per the Fish fee affidavit, he "defended DISH's sister company EchoStar Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas against a case filed by Realtime Adaptive Streaming's parent company, Realtime Data LLC." Source: Affidavit ISO Defendants' Motion for § 285 Fees, Dkt. 308 in 1:17-cv-02097 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Colorado_District_Court/1--17-cv-02097/Realtime_Adaptive_Streaming_LLC_v._Sling_TV_L.L.C._et_al/docs/308/1.pdf).
• Adam Ryan Shartzer — Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.; managed the day-to-day case and the IPR/reexam strategy (65+ post-grant matters); former law clerk to Chief Judge Sharon Prost (Fed. Cir.); later entered appearance for ARRIS Group in the Colorado action. Same affidavit, ¶¶ 10–12.
• Hugh Q. Gottschalk — Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Denver — local/regional counsel in the Colorado action only ($103,986.50 in fees). Source: Fed. Cir. No. 23-1035 Appellees' brief (https://tmsnrt.rs/48t3piC) and the district court fee opinion (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9626809](/patent/9626809)/realtime-adaptive-streaming-llc-v-sling-tv-llc/).
• Other Fish personnel listed in the Federal Circuit Rule 26.1/response disclosures: Timothy W. Riffe, Daniel Tishman, Matthew Mosteller, Caitlin M. Dean, Michael R. Ellis, Min Woo Park, Raj Utreja, Ryan M. Teel, Andrew L. Schrader.

That team ultimately lost the fee award on appeal — Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 23-1035 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024) (Albright, J., by designation, vacating the $3.9M § 285 award), rehearing en banc denied Nov. 26, 2024, and the district court then denied exceptionality on remand (Feb. 5, 2025), with DISH appealing (Mar. 6, 2025).

IV. Why the Texas case was empty of defense appearances

This was a shell-filing, not a defended case. Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed the Texas suit on Oct. 10, 2017 — the same day it amended the Colorado complaint to add DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. as defendants there. On Nov. 6, 2017 it filed the joint motion to dismiss the Texas action, and the Colorado second amended complaint naming the same defendants followed the same day. The docket and EchoStar's and DISH's own 10-K disclosures describe exactly this sequence, and DISH's disclosure characterizes the Texas suit as the case it abandoned in favor of Colorado. That is consistent with the existing case summary: DISH moved its dispute to Colorado.

V. Confidence and verification path

• High confidence: no defense counsel of record in 6:17-cv-00567 (complete 10-entry docket, no defense filings; no sealing).
• Medium confidence: whether defense counsel signed the joint stipulation at Dkt. 7 — unverified, because the signature pages weren't in any free source.
• Not established at all: any in-house DISH/EchoStar attorney associated with this specific case.

To close the gap definitively: pull Dkt. 7 from PACER (E.D. Tex., 6:17-cv-00567, filed 11/6/2017) and check the signature blocks; and if a firm-level confirmation matters, Fish & Richardson's engagement letter or the Colorado fee affidavit's staffing exhibit (Exhibit A to Dkt. 308) is the closest documented link between Fish and these defendants on the '535 patent. I did not find any source affirmatively stating that Fish entered an appearance in the Texas action, and I would not assert it.