Litigation

Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Teradata Corporation et al.

transferred

6:15-cv-00470

Terminated
2016-01-19

Patents at issue (1)

6597812

Summary

Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO sued Teradata Corporation and Teradata Operations, Inc. in E.D. Tex. The court granted a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the case was transferred to N.D. Cal., where it was docketed as 3:16-cv-01836. The narrative lists it as '812 family litigation but could not confirm that the '812 patent itself was asserted.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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

Key facts are emerging. Let me dig into the specific patents asserted and the broader campaign.

Excellent — the '812 patent was indeed asserted, and Teradata appears in an IPR. Let me verify the IPR linkage and the C.D. Cal. refiling.

Case Overview: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Teradata Corp. et al., No. 6:15-cv-00470 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Realtime Data LLC, which does business as IXO, is a patent-holding entity — not an operating company, university, or research institution. It is a New York LLC with a principal place of business in Katonah, New York, and (significantly for venue) an office in Tyler, Texas, where it claimed to keep relevant documents; the asserted patents trace to a single inventor, James Fallon, and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies Realtime in the "individual-inventor-started" asserter category. Its related affiliate Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC later ran a parallel streaming-media campaign. Defendants are Teradata Corporation and its subsidiary Teradata Operations, Inc. — the enterprise data-warehouse and analytics vendor (Delaware corporations) that sells the Teradata Database and associated appliances. Teradata Corporation was dismissed by stipulation, leaving Teradata Operations as the sole defendant.

The accused technology. Realtime targeted Teradata's data-compression features, principally Teradata Columnar / "autocompression" in Teradata Database releases 14.00, 14.10, 15.00 and 15.10, plus appliance and platform variants (Active Enterprise Data Warehouse, IntelliFlex, Data Mart Appliance, Integrated Big Data Platform, Virtual Machine Edition, Express, RainStor). The infringement theory was that Teradata's automatic, per-container selection among compression methods — including run-length encoding and local-value-list (dictionary) encoding — practices the claimed compression methods; Realtime alleged direct infringement through Teradata's own internal use and testing and induced infringement through user manuals, training and marketing materials that teach customers to run the accused features in the ordinary way. This matters commercially because compression is a headline cost-of-storage selling point for columnar/MPP warehouses, not an incidental feature. Realtime's pleading asserted several patents from its portfolio (the '812 appears as Count IV, with the '513 patent as the adjacent count), and its later amended contentions in the refiled California action charted eight patents — the '506, '728, '867, '992, '530, '513, '812 and '908. The dataset's single-patent designation of the '812 is consistent with the record: U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812, "System and Method for Lossless Data Compression and Decompression" (issued July 22, 2003, James Fallon), claims a hybrid codec that detects run-length sequences, encodes them, and otherwise builds data-block strings and matches/outputs dictionary code words — a one-line sketch being "run-length encoding combined with a dynamically maintained parametric dictionary, plus bit packing."

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed May 8, 2015 in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas — one of roughly eight substantively identical suits Realtime lodged the same day against Actian, BMC, Dropbox, EchoStar/Hughes, Oracle, Riverbed, SAP/Sybase and Teradata — the case was assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, with discovery and pretrial matters referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Love. Teradata moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. 25, filed Aug. 26, 2015), seeking the Central District of California or, alternatively, the Northern District of California. On January 19, 2016, Judge Love denied the C.D. Cal. request but granted the N.D. Cal. alternative (Dkt. 35), reasoning that sources of proof and witness costs favored California and that judicial economy favored consolidating with Realtime's Dropbox case, which the court had already sent to N.D. Cal.; Judge Schroeder overruled Realtime's objections and adopted the order on March 29, 2016 (Dkt. 43). The case was docketed in N.D. Cal. as No. 3:16-cv-01836 (some records show 5:16

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and transfer order, then the N.D. Cal. proceedings.

Good — key facts are emerging. Let me dig into the pleadings, the counterclaims, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Now let me pin down the full E.D. Tex. docket and the follow-on C.D. Cal. case.

Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata — Legal Developments & Outcome

Important correction to the prior case summary. The '812 patent was asserted in this case. The May 8, 2015 complaint attached it as Exhibit D — U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812, alongside Ex. A ('992), Ex. B ('530), and Ex. C ('513). So the earlier narrative's doubt ("could not confirm that the '812 patent itself was asserted") can be resolved: it was pleaded, but the case never reached a merits ruling and was dismissed without prejudice, which is why no '812 infringement adjudication exists in this docket. The '812 was instead invalidated at the PTAB in a parallel IPR in which Teradata was a co-petitioner.

Also note a structural feature that shapes everything below: E.D. Tex. case 6:15-cv-00470 was consolidated into lead case 6:15-cv-463 (Realtime Data v. Actian Corp. et al.) for all pretrial purposes except venue, and remained separately active for the venue determination and trial. Many docket entries and the January 2016 transfer opinion therefore appear under the 6:15-cv-463 caption.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Date Event
2015-05-08 Realtime (Russ August & Kabat: Marc Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, Brian Ledahl, Adam Hoffman, Claire Henry; Thomas J. Ward Jr. as local counsel) files complaint in E.D. Tex., Tyler Division, against Teradata Corporation and Teradata Operations, Inc., asserting '992, '530, '513, and '812; jury demand; corporate disclosure filed same day.
2015-05-11 Summonses issued and emailed to plaintiff for service.
2015-05-12 Additional appearances (Hoffman, Ledahl).
2015 (date unconfirmed) Realtime files a stipulation dismissing Teradata Corporation as a defendant, leaving Teradata Operations, Inc. as the sole defendant. The stipulation appears on the docket but I could not confirm the exact filing date from available sources.
2015-06-03 A Teradata motion for extension of time to answer is docketed but filed in error and disregarded.

Teradata's response to the complaint was, in substance, a § 1404(a) transfer motion rather than an answer — the docket reflects the transfer motion as the operative first defensive filing. I found no Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this docket. I could not verify from available sources whether Teradata filed an answer and counterclaims in E.D. Tex. before transfer; the counterclaim activity I can confirm occurred later, in N.D. Cal. and C.D. Cal. (below).

2. Pre-trial motion of substance: the § 1404(a) transfer fight

Date Event
2015-08-26 Teradata Operations moves to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), seeking the Central District of California (Southern Division) or, alternatively, N.D. Cal. Supported by the Morris Declaration, amended witness list, and exhibits including a prior transfer opinion. Baker Botts (Mark L. Whitaker) and Jamie R. Lynn for Teradata.
2015-09-21 Realtime opposes, with six declarations (Steven Bo, James Fallon, Stephen McErlain, Gerald Padian, Reza Mirzaie) and Exhibits A–F.
2015-10-02 Realtime moves to substitute corrected Mirzaie declaration and corrected Exhibit F.
2015-10-19 Teradata files a sealed reply with Exhibits 7–10 (Morris and Tashjian deposition transcripts, Muller and Fraz declarations).
2016-01-19 Magistrate Judge John D. Love grants transfer to N.D. Cal. and denies transfer to C.D. Cal. Reported as Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata Operations, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-463, 2016 WL 235183 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016). Reasoning: the private-interest factors (access to sources of proof; cost of attendance for willing witnesses) favored California because ten of Teradata's fourteen material witnesses sat in Los Angeles or San Diego, while Realtime's witnesses all reside in New York and "will be required to travel a significant distance no matter where they testify." Judicial-economy concerns counseled against C.D. Cal. but not against N.D. Cal. Realtime's Tyler, Texas office and documents did not tip the balance. This opinion is the most-cited merits ruling to come out of the case and was later relied on by Judge Love in Realtime Data v. Barracuda (6:17-cv-00120).
2016-01-19 Same day, Realtime files a Notice of Supplemental Facts (Mirzaie declaration with excerpts of Teradata's invalidity contentions and an email chain).
2016-02-05 to 2016-02-19 Post-order skirmishing: Realtime's objections to Judge Love's order, Teradata's response (Lynn declaration), Realtime's reply, Teradata's unopposed motion for leave (granted 2016-02-23).
2016-03-29 Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III overrules all objections and adopts Judge Love's opinion and order (Doc. 43). Transfer to N.D. Cal. GRANTED; transfer to C.D. Cal. DENIED. This is the effective terminal ruling in E.D. Tex.

No motion to dismiss, no summary judgment motion, no stay motion, and no Markman proceeding occurred in E.D. Tex. in this case.

3. N.D. Cal. proceedings — and a strategic surprise

Date Event
2016-04-08 Case docketed in N.D. Cal. as 3:16-cv-01836, Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Teradata US Inc. et al.; assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal (San Jose).
2016-04-12 Doc. 44 (transfer-in) and Doc. 45 (initial case management scheduling order; ADR deadlines; CMC set for 2016-07-12).
2016-04-14 CMC advanced to 2016-05-24; magistrate-consent deadline 2016-04-28.
2016-04-28 Clerk's notice of impending reassignment because a party declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction; all Grewal hearing dates vacated. Case reassigned to Judge James Donato.

The pivotal move: on 2016-04-21 — two weeks after the N.D. Cal. docketing, and while the transferred case was still live — Realtime filed a brand-new complaint in C.D. Cal., No. 2:16-cv-02743-AG-FFM, Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata Operations, Inc. It dropped Teradata Corporation and expressly pleaded Teradata's own transfer motion as the venue hook: "Teradata has previously moved to transfer to this District a patent infringement case involving the same parties, arguing that all or nearly all of its relevant domestic documents and witnesses are in this District." That is a direct use of Teradata's § 1404(a) win as a judicial estoppel/venue argument in the new forum.

Date Event (N.D. Cal. 3:16-cv-01836)
2016-05-18 Case dismissed without prejudice. "Pursuant to the parties' [Doc. 57] Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Without Prejudice, the case is dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and (c). Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/18/2016." No counterclaim was ever litigated to judgment in N.D. Cal.; the docket shows Teradata Operations appearing as counter-claimant in the transferred file, but the case ended before any counterclaim was resolved.
2016 (post-dismissal) Realtime's patent prosecution filings consistently recite the disposition of this case as "Case dismissed May 18, 2016," confirming this is the final disposition of 3:16-cv-01836.

The practical read: Realtime converted a forum loss in Texas into a new case in the very district Teradata had asked for (C.D. Cal.), then extinguished the N.D. Cal. case — the forum Teradata had won as a fallback — by stipulation. No claim preclusion attached because the dismissal was without prejudice.

4. The operative case: C.D. Cal. 2:16-cv-02743 (Judge Andrew J. Guilford)

This is where the actual infringement litigation proceeded, so it is the real backbone of the dispute:

Date Event
2016-04-21 Complaint filed (Ex. 1013 to Teradata's later IPR petition). Realtime pleads a 47-patent portfolio and multiple accused Teradata products.
2016-04-22 / 2016-05-03 / 2016-05-04 / 2016-05-10 / 2016-05-11 Ex parte sealing application (Doc. 7) denied 2016-05-03; amendment filed; certificate of interest sealing granted 2016-05-10.
2016-04-25 Case transferred into the Patent Pilot Program; reassigned from Judge Stephen V. Wilson to Judge Andrew J. Guilford, Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm.
2016-05-17 PTO form AO-120 / report on filing.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for Realtime Data in this case, starting with docket-level searches.

Good — the E.D. Tex. docket gives a clear list of plaintiff appearances. Let me verify each attorney's firm and role.

Now let me verify the individual firm affiliations and check the N.D. Cal. docket after transfer.

Bottom line

Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO appeared through a two-tier structure typical of E.D. Tex. practice: a Los Angeles patent boutique (Russ, August & Kabat) as lead/national counsel, and a Longview, Texas firm (Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC) as local counsel. Seven attorneys appeared for the plaintiff on the E.D. Tex. docket. No in‑house counsel appeared, and I found no sealed appearances or motions to appear pro hac vice under seal.

Also, a useful correction to the existing case summary: the '812 patent was asserted. Docket text for the complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 5/8/2015) lists "Exhibit D – U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812," alongside Ex. A ('992), Ex. B ('530), and Ex. C ('513). So this is a genuine '812 case, not merely '812-family.

Plaintiff's counsel of record (E.D. Tex. No. 6:15-cv-00470)

Attorney Role Firm / office Appearance Experience note
Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067) Lead counsel (national/lead) Russ, August & Kabat, 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl., Los Angeles, CA Notice of Appearance, 5/12/2015 Co‑founder/name partner of RAK; Realtime Data's lead patent litigator across its assertion campaign; docketed as "Lead Attorney" on Realtime filings in related N.D. Cal. matters. Also led VIA Technologies, Headwater Research, and Blue Forest matters.
Reza Mirzaie (SBN 246953) Lead / trial team (national) Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles Notice of Appearance, 5/12/2015 RAK partner; argued/drafted Realtime's opposition to Teradata's § 1404(a) transfer motion here (Dkt. 28, incl. his own declaration) and handled Realtime's PTAB papers (listed on Realtime's IPR filings along with Fenster and Ledahl). Later moved to Allen & Overy.
Brian D. Ledahl Trial team (national) Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles Notice of Appearance, 5/12/2015 RAK partner; part of the Realtime team in both district court and PTAB (e.g., Realtime's mandatory notices in IPR2018-00706 with Fenster/Mirzaie).
Paul Anthony Kroeger Trial team (national) Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles Notice of Appearance, 9/22/2015 RAK attorney; frequent signatory on Realtime's district‑court filings (signed Realtime's answer in the parallel Riverbed declaratory action, N.D. Cal. 3:17‑cv‑03157, Dkt. 36, as "/s/ Paul A. Kroeger").
Thomas John Ward, Jr. Local counsel Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, 1127 Judson Rd., Suite 220, Longview, TX Notice of Appearance, 5/8/2015 Name partner in a Longview firm heavily used for E.D. Tex. patent plaintiffs' work; the same firm appeared for Realtime in its later E.D. Tex. cases (e.g., 6:17‑cv‑00118, 6:16‑cv‑00086).
Claire Abernathy Henry (Tex. Bar 24053063) Local counsel — filer of record on the complaint Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX (claire@wsfirm.com) Filed Dkt. 1 (5/8/2015); also filed the corporate disclosure, jury demand, AO‑120, dismissal stipulation, and venue‑related filings Recognized in Best Lawyers for patent/IP litigation; ~15 years of E.D./W.D. Tex. patent practice representing both plaintiffs and defendants; Realtime's recurrent Texas local counsel.
Adam S. Hoffman Associate / trial team (national) Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles (firm affiliation per appearance; see caveat) Notice of Appearance, 5/12/2015 Appeared as part of the RAK group on the same date as Fenster, Mirzaie, and Ledahl. I could not independently verify his firm at the time of this search — treat as RAK per the docket clustering.
Jeffrey Zhi Yang Liao Associate / trial team (national) Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles (firm affiliation per appearance; see caveat) Notice of Appearance, 5/14/2015 Same caveat as Hoffman: appeared two days after the RAK block; firm not independently verified in this search.

Docket sourcing: appearance entries and dates are drawn from the E.D. Tex. docket as reproduced on Unified Patents' case page, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/6:15-cv-00470. Note that I have the entry numbers only for Dkt. 1 (complaint) and Dkt. 18 (stipulation of dismissal of Teradata Corp.); the appearance notices' individual ECF numbers were not exposed in the source and I have not guessed at them.

Procedural context that bears on the roster

  • Consolidation (7/23/2015): this case was consolidated for pretrial purposes into lead case 6:15‑cv‑00463 (Realtime v. Actian), with venue excepted; the order directed the Clerk to add only "each defendant's Lead and Local Counsel" to the lead case — which explains why the RAK/Ward Smith & Hill split is explicit on this docket.
  • Teradata Corporation dismissed 8/19/2015 (Dkt. 18 stipulation; Judge Schroeder order) — leaving Teradata Operations, Inc. as the sole defendant.
  • Transfer granted 1/19/2016 by Mag. J. John D. Love; objections overruled and transfer adopted by Judge Schroeder 3/29/2016; case transferred to N.D. Cal. and docketed as 3:16‑cv‑01836.
  • N.D. Cal. disposition: dismissed without prejudice on the parties' joint stipulation by Judge James Donato on 5/18/2016. Because the case was dismissed ~7 weeks after transfer, I found no indication that new N.D. Cal. counsel appeared on Realtime's behalf — but I could not pull the N.D. Cal. docket sheet itself in this session, so treat "no additional counsel" as an inference rather than a confirmed fact.

What I could not verify (do not treat as established)

  1. Hoffman's and Liao's firms at the time — docket clustering strongly suggests Russ, August & Kabat, but no source I retrieved confirmed it. Liao is known to have later been at Kirkland & Ellis, which makes his 2015 affiliation worth a direct check.
  2. Formal "lead counsel" designations in this case — E.D. Tex. does not always enter a formal lead-counsel order; the lead/local characterization above rests on the pattern of who signed the substantive venue briefing (RAK) versus who filed in E.D. Tex. (Ward, Smith & Hill), plus RAK's "Lead Attorney" designation in related Realtime dockets.
  3. Pro hac vice orders for the RAK attorneys — I did not locate the individual PHV orders; the appearances themselves are documented.
  4. Whether any Realtime in‑house or IXO personnel appeared — none appears on the docket text I reviewed.

Primary URLs used: Unified Patents docket (E.D. Tex. 6:15‑cv‑00470) and (N.D. Cal. 3:16‑cv‑01836); govinfo transfer opinion, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-6_15-cv-00463/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-6_15-cv-00463-1.pdf; CourtListener RAK filings (gov.uscourts.cand.312541, Dkt. 36 and 81); PTAB Realtime papers listing Fenster/Mirzaie/Ledahl of RAK at 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl., Los Angeles.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for Teradata in this case across the E.D. Tex. docket and the transferred N.D. Cal. action.

Good — I have the N.D. Cal. docket attorney list. Let me pin down firms and roles.

Bottom line

Teradata's defense was handled by Baker Botts LLP as lead counsel, with Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater/Longview, Texas) acting as E.D. Tex. local counsel. Three names are firmly attributable to the defense team from the docket and firm records; the docket's attorney list contains one additional, truncated name I could not verify, and I am flagging that rather than guessing.

Sourcing caveat: The E.D. Tex. docket (6:15-cv-00470) is not free-standing on CourtListener/RECAP in my searches, and PACER is paywalled, so the attorney roster below comes from the N.D. Cal. transferred docket's attorney-roll block (3:16-cv-01836, reproduced on UniCourt) cross-checked against Baker Botts' own attorney bios and the Patexia firm-case indexes. Firm affiliations are confirmed; individual roles (lead vs. of counsel) in some instances are inferred from who signed the substantive filings.

Counsel of record for Teradata Corporation / Teradata Operations, Inc.

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Jamie R. Lynn Lead counsel (substantive defense — venue/transfer briefing and discovery) Baker Botts L.L.P., Palo Alto, Calif. at the time (1001 Page Mill Rd.); now listed at the firm's Washington, D.C. office Practice expressly covers "databases, and data warehousing"; has represented Teradata Operations, Inc. in University of Tennessee Research Foundation v. Teradata Operations, Inc. (E.D. Tenn.) — i.e., a repeat Teradata client relationship. Also litigates E.D. Tex. patent cases (Blue Spike v. Dish; Sonus/Ribbon v. Metaswitch).
Elizabeth L. DeRieux Local counsel (Texas) Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater/Longview, Texas Career E.D. Tex. patent litigator; frequent local counsel and co-counsel in Marshall/Tyler cases (Fractus v. CommScope, Atlas Global $37.5M verdict, HiCon defense verdict). Texas Bar No. 05770585.
Mark Shiqian Zhai Defense team attorney (role not confirmed) Firm not confirmed from available sources Appears on the N.D. Cal. attorney roll for Teradata; I could not verify his firm, office, or specific filings, and I am not going to attribute him to a firm on inference alone.
"Mark L. [surname truncated]" / docket signature "Whitaker, Mark" Unverified Unverified The UniCourt attorney roll lists a "Mark L. …" for the Teradata side, and E.D. Tex. ECF No. 37 (Teradata's response to Realtime's objections to the transfer order, with the Lynn Declaration attached) is electronically signed "Whitaker, Mark." Whether this is a Baker Botts attorney, Teradata in-house counsel, or Capshaw DeRieux is not established by anything I found.

No in-house counsel appearance was identified. I found no notice of appearance by a Teradata legal-department attorney on either docket. I also found no indication that any filing in this case was sealed, and no Teradata-initiated PTAB proceeding — the IPR petitions that cite Realtime Data v. Teradata, Nos. 6:15-cv-00469/-00470 as related litigation are Oracle America's (e.g., the Oracle petition listing Monica Grewal and Donald Steinberg of WilmerHale as lead/back-up counsel), not Teradata's. That is a "did not find," not a verified negative.

Docket grounding (and two corrections to the existing case summary)

  1. The '812 patent was asserted. The E.D. Tex. complaint (filed May 8, 2015, by Claire Henry of Russ August & Kabat) attached Exhibit D = U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812, alongside the '992, '530, and '513 patents. So the prior summary's uncertainty on that point can be resolved affirmatively.
  2. Teradata Corporation was dismissed by stipulation, leaving Teradata Operations, Inc. as the § 1404(a) movant. A "STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendant Teradata Corporation" appears on the docket, and the transfer motion (with the Morris Declaration and amended witness list) was filed by Teradata Operations, Inc. only. Any counsel-of-record analysis for the entity Teradata Corporation therefore has a shorter horizon than for Teradata Operations.
  3. Transfer timeline is more layered than "transferred 2016-01-19." Magistrate Judge John D. Love's Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part Teradata's motion to transfer (§1404(a)) is dated Jan. 19, 2016 (ECF No. 35) — that is the source of the termination date. Realtime objected (ECF No. 36), Teradata responded (ECF Nos. 37, 41), and Judge Robert W. Schroeder III adopted the order on March 29, 2016 (ECF No. 43), granting transfer to N.D. Cal. but denying transfer to C.D. Cal. The case was docketed in N.D. Cal. as 3:16-cv-01836 on April 8, 2016 (transferred-in entry at ECF No. 44, April 12, 2016).
  4. N.D. Cal. outcome: initially before Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, randomly reassigned to Judge James Donato (April 28, 2016), and dismissed without prejudice on May 18, 2016 pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation (ECF No. 57) under Rule 41(a)(1) and (c). Realtime's N.D. Cal. counsel of record was Russ August & Kabat (Brian D. Ledahl, Reza Mirzaie, Paul A. Kroeger, Adam S. Hoffman, Jeffrey Z. Y. Liao, Nancy Claire Abernathy, Alan Fenster).

Sources: N.D. Cal. docket roll and entries via UniCourt, https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-realtime-data-llc-v-teradata-corporation-et-al-[116553](/patent/116553) ; Unified Patents litigation portal, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3:16-cv-01836 ; Baker Botts bio for Jamie R. Lynn, https://www.bakerbotts.com/people/l/lynn-jamie-r ; Patexia firm-case indexes for Baker Botts (defendant in 3:16-cv-01836 and 6:15-cv-00470) and Russ August & Kabat; Capshaw DeRieux attorney references, e.g. https://www.curtise.morelaw.com/lawyers/79282/elizabeth-derieux/ ; complaint exhibit list as reproduced at the N.D. Cal. docket and in the '477/'128 patent front-matter litigation histories.

What would close the gaps: a PACER pull of the E.D. Tex. docket sheet (6:15-cv-00470) filtered to "Notice of Attorney Appearance" entries, which would resolve the "Mark L. Whitaker" and "Mark Shiqian Zhai" firm affiliations and roles definitively.