Sam's West, Inc. et al. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and accused technology. This is a competitor-vs.-competitor patent fight between two membership warehouse retail chains, not an NPE assertion. Plaintiffs are Sam's West, Inc. (operator of the Sam's Club warehouse clubs) and Walmart Apollo, LLC (Walmart's IP-holding subsidiary that owns the patents), both under Walmart Inc. — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies the asserter as a "product company," not a patent-assertion entity. Defendant BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. is the publicly traded Delaware corporation (NASDAQ: BJ), headquartered in Westborough, Massachusetts, that operates the BJ's club chain in the eastern U.S. The suit (filed March 22, 2022, ECF No. 1) accuses the "Express Pay" feature of the BJ's Mobile App, which BJ's rolled out to most club locations in Q4 2021; Express Pay lets members scan barcode items as they shop and pay in-app to bypass checkout lines. Plaintiffs allege Express Pay is an "apparent copy" of Sam's Club's own Scan & Go feature (in the Sam's Club app since 2016), "merely changing the in-app colors and changing the name," and assert direct, induced, and contributory infringement across four patents (ECF No. 1; Business Insider, Mar. 2022; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Mar. 25, 2022). The asserted patents: (i) U.S. 10,121,133 ("Method for self-checkout with a mobile device," issued Nov. 2018) — using a mobile device with a server to complete a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal; (ii) U.S. 10,803,435 ("Method for self-checkout with a mobile device," issued Oct. 2020) — mobile self-checkout that dispenses with a traditional POS terminal; (iii) U.S. 10,368,187 and (iv) U.S. 10,368,188 (both issued July 2019, "Systems and methods for identifying available location-based services") — location-specific technology that identifies geographically customized services available to a shopper inside a retail store and integrates that framework into backend systems (patent titles per Bloomberg Law docket; technical descriptions per BJ's claim-construction brief at ECF No. 107, summarizing ECF No. 52).

Procedural posture and venue. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (6:22-cv-00587), before U.S. District Judge Wendy W. Berger, with a succession of magistrate judges (initially Gregory J. Kelly, then David A. Baker, then Robert M. Norway, reflected in the WWB-RMN caption). Venue is notable because BJ's is neither headquartered nor incorporated in Florida; patent venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) rests on BJ's regular and established places of business — its Florida club locations — while plaintiffs' complaint also pleaded Sam's Club retail presence in Orlando (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7). Early motion practice included BJ's motion to dismiss (raising § 101/Alice eligibility, divided infringement, and pleading challenges), which Judge Berger denied without prejudice on Feb. 2, 2023 while adopting the magistrate's report and administratively closing the case (ECF No. 114). The decisive development was BJ's filing seven IPR petitions in Aug.–Sept. 2022 (ECF Nos. 74, 76, 77, 86, 87, 89, 90); the court stayed the case on Nov. 21, 2022 pending PTAB institution (ECF No. 108), and after PTAB instituted review of the '187, '188, and '435 patents (but denied the '133 petition) the court kept the stay in place on July 31, 2023, declining plaintiffs' request for a partial lift as to '133/'435 (ECF No. 131; BJ's motion to lift stay, ECF No. 139, was pending as of the July 2024 joint status report, ECF No. 142). Five IPRs reached Final Written Decisions (April 2024): the PTAB found all challenged '435 claims unpatentable but no '187 or '188 claims unpatentable (ECF No. 138; ECF No. 142). Walmart appealed only the three '435 IPRs (IPR2022-01528, -01563, -01564) to the Federal Circuit (Appeal Nos. 2024-1952/53/54), which affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on April 13, 2026 (CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, Apr. 13, 2026, per curiam, Moore, C.J., Mayer and Lourie, JJ.). The latest available docket filing (Joint Status Report, ECF No. 168, filed June 22, 2026) states no further review was sought and the parties have agreed to lift the stay, with plaintiffs to amend to withdraw the '435 counts within 45 days and BJ's to answer within 45 days after that. One caveat: that June 2026 filing bears the caption 6:22-cv-00587-AGM-RMN, indicating the case was reassigned from Judge Berger to a district judge with initials "AGM" — I could not confirm that judge's identity from my sources and would verify it on PACER before relying on it.

Why the case matters. The dispute sits at the intersection of pandemic-era, contactless retail technology and rival "scan-and-go" store apps — a high-stakes fight between two direct competitors over the checkout UX that each offers its members, with Walmart accusing BJ's of wholesale copying (Business Insider, Mar. 2022; Retail TouchPoints, Mar. 2022). It is also a textbook demonstration of IPR strategy and its interplay with district-court stays: BJ's used seven petitions to cover every asserted patent, the PTAB invalidated the flagship '435 patent (now confirmed on appeal), the '133 patent escaped PTAB review only because institution was denied, and the '187/'188 patents survived the board — leaving the case to resume in mid-2026 on three surviving patent families after roughly four years of stay. The '133 and '435 patents share a specification, so the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the PTAB's '435 unpatentability findings (on Fletchall and Yong prior art, per Walmart's notice of appeal) could still shape claim-construction and validity arguments for the '133 patent as the lift-from-stay phase begins. Counsel of record include DLA Piper for plaintiffs (district court) and Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease for BJ's, with Jones Day handling Walmart's IPR appeals (ECF filings; CAFC Rule 36 judgment). For current post-June-2026 activity (e.g., the order lifting the stay and the amended complaint), PACER would need to be consulted; the available record ends with the June 22, 2026 status report.

I'll research the case's key legal developments through multiple searches, focusing on post-June-2026 activity and confirming earlier milestones.

I have good foundational material. Now let me dig into the full docket chronology, the IPR numbers, post-June-2026 activity, and the new judge's identity.

I've reached my research limit. Based on the extensive record gathered (CourtListener docket feed, PTAB-filed district-court docket sheets, the parties' own briefs on the public docket, USPTO/PTAB filings, and the M.D. Fla. judges' roster), here is the chronological key-developments and outcome summary. One important verification to report up front: the initials AGM in the current caption are now confirmed to be Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Orlando Division, M.D. Fla. (per the court's judges page and filings in her other cases), which resolves the open flag in the prior case summary.

---

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Sam's West, Inc. et al. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla., Orlando Div.)

I. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-03-22 — Complaint filed (ECF No. 1). Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC sued BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. for direct, induced, and contributory infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,803,435 ('435), 10,121,133 ('133), 10,368,187 ('187), and 10,368,188 ('188), all arising from the Express Pay feature of BJ's Mobile App. Jury demand; prayer for damages, injunctive relief, enhanced damages for alleged willfulness, and pre/post-judgment interest. Case assigned to Judge Wendy W. Berger, initially with Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly (6:22-cv-00587-WWB-GJK).
• 2022-03-23 — Summons issued (ECF No. 3); corporate disclosure statements (ECF Nos. 6–7) identifying Walmart, Inc. as parent of both plaintiffs.
• 2022-04 to 2022-06 — Early merits schedule. Plaintiffs served preliminary infringement contentions on 2022-06-20, asserting claims 1, 3, 5–8, 10, 12, 13–15, 17, 19–21 of the '187 patent; claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10–11, 14, 16–17 of the '188 patent; claims 1–4, 6–13, 15–17 of the '435 patent; and claims 1–4 of the '133 patent, with claim charts against BJ's servers, app, and source code (per BJ's claim-construction brief citing ECF No. 79-1).
• First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52) — filed after the initial motion-to-dismiss round (see below); it is the operative pleading through the stay period (asserting counts under each of the four patents).
• Answer and counterclaims: none in the record. BJ's first substantive response was a motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF No. 54), not an answer. Because the case was stayed and administratively closed before any answer deadline matured, no answer or counterclaims appear on the docket through June 2026; the parties' 2026 lift-stay agreement contemplates BJ's "answer or otherwise respond" within 45 days after plaintiffs' post-lift amended complaint.

II. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss (§ 101/Alice, divided infringement, pleading sufficiency) (ECF No. 54). BJ's moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the asserted claims are directed to ineligible abstract ideas, that direct and indirect infringement theories are duplicative, and that the method claims impermissibly divide infringement across multiple actors. Plaintiffs opposed (ECF No. 36 and later opposition), citing Aatrix v. Green Shades Software, 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and TecSec v. Adobe, 978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
• 2022-09-26 — BJ's motion to stay pending IPR (ECF No. 91). Filed after BJ's had submitted seven IPR petitions covering every asserted patent; heard before Magistrate Judge Baker on 2022-11-01 (transcript later filed at ECF No. 117).
• 2022-11-21 — Stay granted in part/denied in part (ECF No. 108, MJ Baker). The court stayed the case "until the determination whether to institute the IPR process is made by PTAB," weighing the early stage of discovery, the comprehensiveness of the IPR petitions, and judicial economy; it declined a broader indefinite stay at that point and directed that the pending claim-construction briefing proceed to completion on schedule. Plaintiffs' related motion to compel was opposed by BJ's (ECF No. 94, 2022-09-29), reflecting the early-discovery friction that the stay then mooted.
• 2023-02-02 — Motion to dismiss denied without prejudice; case administratively closed (ECF No. 114, Judge Berger). Adopting Magistrate Judge Baker's Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 109), the court denied the § 101/Alice dismissal motion without prejudice to renewal (preserving the eligibility fight for post-claim-construction, post-IPR posture) and directed administrative closure during the IPR phase.
• 2023-06-14 — Plaintiffs' motion to partially lift the stay (ECF No. 124) as to the '133 patent (whose IPR petition was denied institution) and the '435 patent; BJ's opposed (ECF No. 126).
• 2023-07-31 — Partial-lift motion denied (ECF No. 131, MJ Norway). The court held that, even with the '133 patent "free and clear of agency review," the pending IPR final decisions could "greatly simplify" the issues; bifurcation would not promote efficiency; and plaintiffs would not be unduly prejudiced by continued stay. The order directed periodic joint status reports (the 2026 ECF Nos. 163, 166, and 168 reports were filed under it).
• 2024-06-12 — BJ's motion to lift the stay in its entirety (ECF No. 139). Filed after the April 2024 PTAB Final Written Decisions, BJ's argued the IPR phase had fulfilled its purpose (all '435 claims invalidated; '187/'188 claims confirmed patentable), that further delay pending Walmart's Federal Circuit appeal would prejudice both parties, and that all surviving claims should be tried together. This motion was still pending as of the July 2024 joint status report (ECF No. 142).
• No motion to transfer venue and no summary-judgment motions were filed. Venue was never contested (BJ's Florida club locations supplied § 1400(b) venue), and the stay prevented any SJ practice.

III. Claim construction

• Briefing was substantially completed, but no Markman ruling issued. The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Statement (ECF No. 88, 2022-09-23); plaintiffs' claim-construction brief (ECF No. 102, 2022-10-21, with the Joel C. Lin declaration at ECF No. 101); and BJ's responsive brief (ECF No. 112, filed November 2022). Disputed terms included "ordered services" and location-based-services framework terms of the '187/'188 patents, with BJ's pressing plain-meaning constructions and an indefiniteness challenge and plaintiffs proposing constructions tied to the specification (per BJ's brief summarizing the record).
• No claim-construction (Markman) hearing or order has occurred. The stay order of 2022-11-21 (ECF No. 108) expressly permitted the claim-construction briefs to be completed, but the subsequent administrative closure and IPR stay halted the process before a hearing or ruling. The surviving '133/'187/'188 claims will require a fresh claim-construction round when the stay lifts.

IV. Discovery milestones

• 2022-06-20 — Preliminary infringement contentions served (detailed above) with charts mapping each asserted claim element to Express Pay's app/source code/server architecture (ECF No. 79-1).
• September 2022 — Discovery dispute. Plaintiffs filed a short-form motion to compel (opposed by BJ's at ECF No. 94 on 2022-09-29), the last significant discovery event before the stay.
• Discovery never matured. The stay order itself observed discovery was "still at early stage"; no fact-discovery completion, expert discovery, or depositions of substance occurred before the stay, and the case has remained administratively closed through the IPR and appeal period. No discovery order or sanctions of strategic significance appears in the record.

V. Trial events

• None. No trial was held. The pre-stay scheduling order (ECF No. 51) contemplated trial no earlier than May 2024, but the November 2022 stay and subsequent administrative closure superseded it. There are no verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions — and given the current posture (see Part VII), none are expected until the resumed litigation runs its course.

VI. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and their effect

• 2022-08/09 — Seven IPR petitions (ECF Nos. 74, 76, 77, 86, 87, 89, 90). BJ's petitioned against all four asserted patents: four petitions against the '435 patent, one against each of the '187, '188, and '133 patents. These triggered the stay.
• 2023-04-11/12 — PTAB institution decisions. The Board instituted review of the '187 and '188 patents and of three of the four '435 petitions (IPR2022-01528, IPR2022-01563, IPR2022-01564 among the '435 group); it denied institution on the '133 patent (per BJ's lift-stay brief, ECF No. 139, citing ECF No. 119).
• 2024-04 — Final Written Decisions in all five instituted IPRs (noticed at ECF No. 138). The PTAB found all challenged '435 claims unpatentable (primarily on Fletchall/Yong prior-art grounds, per Walmart's later notice of appeal) but found no '187 or '188 claims unpatentable.
• 2024 — Federal Circuit appeals. Walmart Apollo appealed only the three '435 IPR decisions — Appeal Nos. 2024-1952, 2024-1953, and 2024-1954 (argued 2026-04-10 before Chief Judge Moore and Judges Mayer and Lourie).
• 2026-04-13 — Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance (per curiam). The CAFC summarily affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability findings in all three '435 IPRs. Plaintiffs sought no further review (certiorari or rehearing), as the parties confirmed in the 2026-06-22 status report (ECF No. 168).
• Effect on the litigation: The '435 patent — the flagship "no-POS-terminal" self-checkout patent — is gone from the case. The '133 patent remains (it never faced IPR trial), and the '187/'188 location-based-services patents remain with validity confirmed by the PTAB and no appeal pending. Because the '133 and '435 patents share a specification, BJ's will likely deploy the PTAB/CAFC '435 record (e.g., Fletchall/Yong) in validity and claim-construction arguments against the '133 patent as the case resumes.

VII. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

• No settlement, merits judgment, or dismissal has occurred. The case is active but stayed; there is no trial verdict, damages award, or fee award.
• 2026 counsel/roster changes (context for resumption): attorney withdrawals were granted on 2026-03-02 (motion ECF No. 161, filed 2026-02-27) and 2026-04-16 (motion ECF No. 164, filed 2026-04-15); a new Notice of Appearance was filed 2026-05-28 (ECF No. 167). I could not retrieve the substance of those entries to identify which counsel left and who appeared.
• Case reassignment. At some point before May 2026 the case was reassigned from Judge Wendy W. Berger to Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe (initials AGM), with Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway continuing — the caption became 6:22-cv-00587-AGM-RMN (per ECF Nos. 166–168). The exact reassignment date is not in my sources.
• 2026-06-22 — Joint Status Report (ECF No. 168): the operative roadmap. The parties reported: (1) no pending appeals or further review of the CAFC affirmance; (2) agreement that the stay should be lifted; (3) plaintiffs' commitment to amend the complaint within 45 days of the lift order to withdraw the '435 counts; (4) BJ's to answer or otherwise respond within 45 days after that amendment; and (5) a forthcoming joint proposal for a new scheduling order.
• Present posture (as of 2026-09-10): The most recent entry in the available record is the 2026-06-22 status report (ECF No. 168). I could not verify from public sources the court's order lifting the stay, the amended complaint dropping the '435 counts, or BJ's answer — which, on the parties' agreed timetable, would likely have been filed in July–September 2026. PACER review of the M.D. Fla. docket is needed to confirm the current, post-June-2026 status. (One database — Ex Parte — labels the case "closed," but that conflicts with the parties' own June 2026 representation that litigation will resume; I would not credit it without PACER confirmation.)

Bottom-line outcome to date

BJ's achieved a decisive strategic victory through the IPR channel: the PTAB invalidated every asserted claim of the '435 patent, and the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 on 2026-04-13, ending that patent's life. The '187 and '188 patents survived IPR, and the '133 patent never entered IPR — so those three patent families return to Judge Moe's court in a resumed infringement action against the same accused instrumentality (BJ's Express Pay). The case is positioned to move forward on the '133/'187/'188 counts only, with no Markman ruling yet rendered and no trial having occurred, roughly 4.5 years after filing. The most significant unresolved litigation risks are claim construction on the surviving patents (likely influenced by the shared '133/'435 specification and the '435 invalidity record) and the eventual infringement/validity trial, if the parties do not settle first.

Based on the docket records I could retrieve (the PACER-generated "Parties and Attorneys" text embedded in the PTAB petition filings, Bloomberg Law docket text, CourtListener party records, and signed ECF filings on archive.org), here is the counsel of record picture for the plaintiffs. One caveat up front: my searches hit their limit before I could pull the substance of the May 28, 2026 Notice of Appearance (ECF No. 167) or the 2026 withdrawal motions (ECF Nos. 161, 164), so the roster below is authoritative through roughly early 2024, with known-but-unverified 2026 changes flagged.

Plaintiffs' district-court counsel of record — DLA Piper LLP (US)

Per the M.D. Fla. docket text (reproduced in PTAB filings and Bloomberg Law, current as of Sept. 19, 2022) and signed filings (e.g., First Joint Status Report, ECF No. 56, and the joint claim-construction filings), the following DLA Piper attorneys appeared for Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC:

Counsel in the parallel IPRs and the Federal Circuit appeal

In the PTAB proceedings (where Walmart Apollo, LLC was patent owner) and on Walmart's appeal of the '435 IPR final decisions (CAFC Appeal Nos. 2024-1952/53/54), representation was by Jones Day, not DLA Piper — per Walmart Apollo's Patent Owner Power of Attorney filed Sept. 19, 2022 (IPR2022-01471):

• Matthew W. Johnson — Jones Day, 500 Grant St., Ste. 4500, Pittsburgh, PA
• Joseph M. Beauchamp — Jones Day, 717 Texas, Ste. 3300, Houston, TX
• Stephanie M. Mishaga — Jones Day, 4655 Executive Dr., Ste. 1500, San Diego, CA
• Hannah E. Mehrle — Jones Day, 901 Lakeside Ave., Cleveland, OH

The CAFC docket confirms the appeal resulted in a Rule 36 judgment on April 13, 2026 (per curiam; oral argument heard April 10, 2026), consistent with the prior case summary that Jones Day handled the appellate briefing.

Notes on experience and notable cases

I did not reach firm-bio or Law360 sources before my search limit, so I will not fabricate "notable cases" for these attorneys. From the record itself, the DLA Piper team's relevant experience is evidenced by their handling of this entire four-patent, stay-and-IPR saga — including the § 101/Alice dismissal fight (opposition at ECF No. 36, citing Aatrix v. Green Shades Software, 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and TecSec v. Adobe, 978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)), the claim-construction briefing, and the lift-stay motion (ECF No. 139). If you need biographical detail (e.g., Grasso's and Lin's prior trial/appellate patent matters), that would require a separate round of firm-website and Law360 verification.

Flags and gaps

• 2026 roster changes unverified. The CourtListener feed shows: a motion to withdraw as attorney (ECF No. 161, filed 2026-02-27; granted by order around 2026-03-02), a second withdrawal (ECF No. 164, filed 2026-04-15; order 2026-04-16), and a Notice of Appearance (ECF No. 167, filed 2026-05-28) — the substance of which I could not retrieve. It is plausible that one or more DLA attorneys withdrew and/or Walmart in-house counsel or new counsel appeared as the case lifts from stay, but I could not confirm who.
• Judge reassignment. The June 22, 2026 status report caption reads 6:22-cv-00587-AGM-RMN, indicating a new district judge since Judge Berger; I could not confirm the AGM judge's identity.
• No in-house counsel confirmed. No Walmart/Sam's in-house attorney appeared as counsel of record in any source I reviewed; all district-court appearances were DLA Piper.
• No filings appear sealed on the plaintiffs' side; the complaint and amended complaints are public (ECF Nos. 1, 52, 83).

For a fully current roster (post-ECF No. 167), PACER access to the M.D. Fla. docket for 6:22-cv-00587 would be the definitive check.

I have a solid defense roster from the docket. Let me now verify the later docket entries (2025–2026 defense appearances/withdrawals) and gather experience details.

I have enough to compile the defendant's counsel-of-record picture from the M.D. Fla. docket text (PACER-generated party/attorney lists reproduced in the PTAB filings, Bloomberg Law, CourtListener's party page for docket 63179289, and signed filings on archive.org). Note: I hit my search limit before I could pull the substance of the 2025–2026 appearance/withdrawal docket entries, so anything post-mid-2024 is flagged below as unverified.

Defendant's district-court counsel of record — Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. has been represented throughout by Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP — the firm is disclosed in BJ's Certificate of Interested Persons (ECF No. 24, filed Apr. 11, 2022) and appears as signatory on every defense filing through at least the July 2024 Joint Status Report (ECF No. 142) and the lift-stay briefing (ECF No. 139). The docket's party-and-attorney list (current as of the Sept. 19, 2022 Bloomberg Law printout and mirrored in CourtListener) designates William H. Oldach III as the lead attorney (pro hac vice) for the defendant, with a Florida-admitted local counsel (Liana R. Hollingsworth) and a team of pro hac vice attorneys across Vorys' Cleveland, Columbus, and Washington, DC offices.

Key corroborating filings

• ECF No. 24 (Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement, filed Apr. 11, 2022): signed by Liana R. Hollingsworth for Vorys; lists Hollingsworth, Broz, Garvin, Oldach, Messinger, Miller, Tobias, Williams, and Taft as counsel, and discloses that BlackRock, Inc. beneficially owns 10%+ of BJ's stock.
• ECF No. 56 (First Joint Status Report, June 2022), ECF No. 139 (lift-stay motion), and ECF No. 142 (July 29, 2024 Joint Status Report): all signed by the same Vorys three-office lineup — Hollingsworth, Garvin, and Williams (Cleveland); Broz, Miller, Tobias, and Taft (Columbus); Oldach and Messinger (DC) — confirming roster continuity from 2022 through mid-2024.
• CourtListener party page (docket 63179289) currently lists all nine Vorys attorneys above as "Represented by" counsel for BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.

In-house counsel

None appeared as counsel of record. No BJ's in-house attorney (general counsel, deputy GC, or otherwise) appears on the docket's party/attorney lists, the Certificate of Interested Persons, or any signed filing I reviewed; all defense appearances were through Vorys. I could not verify from my sources who BJ's current GC is or whether in-house counsel is attending strategy meetings off-docket — that would require a separate check of BJ's SEC filings or proxy statement. I did not identify any other outside firm on the defense side in the district court.

Parallel IPR / Federal Circuit representation

The docket text reflects that the same Vorys team (Oldach as lead) represented BJ's as petitioner in the PTAB IPRs against Walmart Apollo's patents (the IPR petitions and the district-court roster are cross-referenced in the PTAB filings), consistent with Vorys' stated IPR-and-co-pending-litigation practice. BJ's did not appear to change counsel for the Federal Circuit phase (Walmart's appeal of the '435 IPRs, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2024-1952/53/54, ended in BJ's favor by Rule 36 judgment on Apr. 13, 2026) — but I did not independently pull the CAFC docket to confirm BJ's appellate counsel of record, so treat that as inference, not verified fact.

Flags and gaps (unverified 2025–2026 changes)

• Nov. 2025 activity unverified. The CourtListener feed shows a Notice of Appearance (ECF No. 152, filed Nov. 21, 2025) and two pro hac vice appearance motions (ECF Nos. 153–154, filed Nov. 21–25, 2025), following an Oct. 8, 2025 order (ECF No. 150) on miscellaneous relief/oral argument. I could not retrieve the substance of those entries, so I cannot say whether they are defense-side additions (e.g., new Vorys attorneys or a second firm preparing for the post-IPR merits phase) or plaintiff-side. No new defense attorneys appear on the CourtListener party page as of my search, which suggests any Nov. 2025 additions may not yet be reflected in the party roster.
• Jan. 2026 withdrawal (ECF No. 160) — content unverified; could be a defense or plaintiff attorney departing.
• Post-June 2026 entries (ECF Nos. 169–170, Aug. 21, 2026) — present on the docket but content unverified; may include the order lifting the stay and/or the amended complaint withdrawing the '435 counts referenced in the June 22, 2026 Joint Status Report (ECF No. 168).
• Judge reassignment (caption now reads 6:22-cv-00587-AGM-RMN) is confirmed by the ECF No. 168 caption, but I could not identify the "AGM" district judge from my sources.

For a fully current defense roster (post-2025 appearances and any withdrawals), PACER access to the M.D. Fla. docket for 6:22-cv-00587 — specifically ECF Nos. 152–155, 160, and 169–170 — is the definitive check. As of the last docket text I could retrieve in substance (mid-2024), the answer to "who represents BJ's" is unambiguous: lead counsel William H. Oldach III (Vorys, DC), Florida local counsel Liana R. Hollingsworth (Vorys, Cleveland), and pro hac vice colleagues Garvin and Williams (Cleveland), Broz, Miller, Tobias, and Taft (Columbus), and Messinger (DC).