Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC

Case Overview & Background

Parties and accused technology. Sandpiper CDN, LLC is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware, and is a classic non-practicing entity (NPE): its corporate disclosure identifies parent Theseus IP, LLC (Dkt. 2), it was formed in March 2024, and it acquired 80+ U.S. patents from Level 3 Communications (now Lumen) in a deal recorded with the USPTO in April 2024 — the same Level 3 portfolio that traces back to Sandpiper Networks (founded 1996 by Andrew Swart and David Farber, the CDN pioneer that delivered the Starr Report in 1998), its merger with Digital Island (1999), and Savvis. The defendants are [Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity](/litigations/by-defendant/Comcast%20Cable%20Communications%2C%20LLC%20d%2Fb%2Fa%20Xfinity) and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC d/b/a Comcast Technology Solutions (Comcast Corporation was named initially but the operative caption in later orders lists only the two LLCs), both Delaware LLCs with principal places of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The accused instrumentalities are Comcast's CDN products and services (Xfinity/Comcast Technology Solutions), which Sandpiper alleges are built on open-source Apache Traffic Control (ATC), including the Traffic Router and Apache Traffic Server with its plugin/"continuation" request-processing architecture, and — for the '876 patent — Apache Kafka event streaming (Compl. ¶¶ 27–31; Fed. Cir. mandamus record, Appx56, Appx773–74).

Patents and procedural posture. The complaint (filed Nov. 1, 2024, E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, No. 2:24-cv-00886-JRG-RSP, before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne) asserts only method claims of five patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,628,347 (CDN request processing through a fixed number of sequentially executed, configurable layers operating on a modifiable runtime/control environment — mapped to Apache Traffic Server plugins), 9,660,876 (a collector system ingesting timestamped event streams from CD services, producing state data, and asynchronously answering queries — mapped to Apache Kafka), 8,478,903 (Farber/Swart "repeater server" that associates different alias names with origin servers to route resource requests; claims 28 and 37 at issue), 7,013,322 (an earlier CDN content-delivery patent from the same portfolio; technical details not independently verified from available sources), and 9,762,692 ("Method and Framework for Content Delivery" — a multi-tier CDN where a first-tier edge server serves popular content itself and redirects clients to a distinct second-tier server for less popular content). Note a metadata discrepancy: U.S. Patent No. 11,218,566 is listed in the case metadata as a patent at issue, but it was not in the original complaint — the docket shows only Exhibits A–E (the five patents above) and RPX lists five patents-in-suit, so the '566 does not appear to be asserted here on the available record. The case is in a venue fight that has defined the litigation: Comcast moved to dismiss or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (Dkt. 18), Magistrate Payne recommended denial (Dkt. 67), and Judge Gilstrap adopted the R&R and denied the motion on September 24, 2025 (Dkt. 77), applying the "one-step rule" — venue is proper if even one step of a multi-step method claim is performed in the district. Comcast petitioned the Federal Circuit for mandamus (In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2026-104), which was denied on December 9, 2025 (nonprecedential), the panel finding Comcast has an adequate post-judgment remedy without reaching the merits. The case has since moved into claim construction (Comcast's opening CC brief at Dkt. 88; Markman order at Dkt. 113, referenced in the IPR record), with trial still pending.

Why the case is notable. This is the flagship of Sandpiper's NPE campaign: after Level 3 exited the CDN market in 2023 and sold its legacy portfolio, newly formed Sandpiper CDN filed suit against Google (C.D. Cal., May 2024), Comcast (E.D. Tex., Nov. 2024), and Microsoft (E.D. Tex., June 2025) within about a year, asserting the same foundational CDN patents against each company's self-built CDN infrastructure — here, accusing Comcast's use of open-source Apache Traffic Control/Traffic Server/Kafka components. The venue dispute is the headline issue: it crystallizes the district-court split over whether § 1400(b)'s "acts of infringement" for method claims requires all steps (Judge Jordan's "all-steps" rule, following NTP) or just one step (the Gilstrap/Albright "one-step" rule), with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filing an amicus brief urging the Federal Circuit to adopt the all-steps rule and noting that NPEs file roughly 43% of their cases in E.D. Tex.; the Federal Circuit's mandamus denial leaves that split unresolved for now, with significant implications for venue in software, cloud, and CDN cases. The case is also embedded in parallel PTAB activity: Microsoft filed IPR2026-00174 challenging the '692 patent (institution denied May 26, 2026) and IPR2026-00095 challenging the '903 patent (with a joinder motion tied to a Google IPR on the same patent), Google separately challenged other portfolio patents (e.g., IPR2025-00826 and IPR2025-00952), and Unified Patents announced in August 2026 that it is actively investigating Sandpiper's portfolio — a clear sign that the "Sandpiper" CDN patents, which Sandpiper itself touts as "fundamental" to the CDN industry, are now a coordinated IPR target.

Key sources: Dkt. 1 (complaint) and Dkt. 2 (disclosure, Theseus IP) via UniCourt/Justia/PACER mirrors; Dkt. 77 (Sept. 24, 2025 venue order, govinfo.gov); In re Comcast, No. 2026-104 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025, cafc.uscourts.gov and CourtListener); Comcast's claim-construction and venue filings via ptacts.uspto.gov (IPR2026-00174 exhibits); RPX Insight (case profile and IPR2026-00174); RPX Empower (portfolio history, Level 3 assignment, Google complaint); Baker Botts thought leadership (Nov. 2025, "Patent Venue for Method Claims: The 'One-Step Rule' at a Crossroads"); Microsoft v. Sandpiper IPR dockets via Docket Alarm; Unified Patents blog (Aug. 11, 2026). Attorney appearances: plaintiff-side Melissa Richards Smith and Robert H. Reckers; defendant-side Deron R. Dacus (per docket).

Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Status: Active/pending as of the latest available docket entries (mid-March 2026). No trial, verdict, or final judgment has occurred.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-11-01 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Sandpiper CDN, LLC sued Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC d/b/a Comcast Technology Solutions, and Comcast Corporation. The complaint asserts five method patents (Exhibits A–E): U.S. Patent Nos. 9,628,347 (CDN request-processing layers/plugins), 9,660,876 (event-stream collection, Apache Kafka), 8,478,903 (repeater server alias names), 7,013,322 (CDN tiers/popularity routing), and 9,762,692. The accused technology centers on Comcast's CDN built around open-source Apache Traffic Control, Apache Traffic Server, and Apache Kafka. Note: U.S. Patent No. 11,218,566 (the '566 patent listed in the case metadata) does not appear in the complaint or publicly visible docket; the Federal Circuit's mandamus opinion likewise describes "five method patents." The '566 patent appears to be metadata error or a patent from a related Sandpiper CDN case.
• 2024-11-04 to 2024-11-13 — Service. Summonses issued 2024-11-04; Comcast Management served 2024-11-06, Comcast Cable served 2024-11-07, Comcast Corporation served 2024-11-12 (Dkts. 6–8).
• 2024-11-15 — Extensions of time to answer filed for all three defendants (Dkts. 9–11) by Deron R. Dacus.
• 2024-12-09/10 — Scheduling/Case Management Conference set for 2025-01-21 before Judge Gilstrap (Dkt. 12).
• 2025-02-12 — Comcast Corporation terminated as a party (dismissed; PACER Monitor shows "Terminated: 02/12/2025"), leaving the two Comcast operating LLCs as defendants. I could not confirm from public sources whether this was by stipulation or order.
• Answer/counterclaims: I did not locate a publicly available substantive answer or counterclaim docket text. Given the early venue fight and the 2025-02-12 termination of Comcast Corporation, the LLC defendants' answers appear to have been filed after the venue motion was resolved or contemporaneously with it, but this is not well-sourced from the public record.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Venue: Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Dkt. 18)

• January 2025 — Comcast moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Comcast (a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in E.D. Pa.) conceded it does not "reside" in EDTX and argued no "acts of infringement" occurred there: its CDN servers — including all ATC/Traffic Server equipment and the Kafka-based logging — are located outside the district, per unrefuted declarations from Comcast's CDN operations manager (which survived venue discovery).
• Magistrate Judge Payne's Report & Recommendation (Dkt. 67): Recommended denial, applying the "one-step" rule from SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 315 F. Supp. 3d 933 (E.D. Tex. 2018) — i.e., performing a single step of a claimed method in the district satisfies § 1400(b)'s "acts of infringement" requirement.
• Comcast's Objections (Dkt. 68); Sandpiper's Response (Dkt. 72).
• 2025-09-24 — Judge Gilstrap's Order (Dkt. 77): Overruled Comcast's objections, adopted the R&R in full, and DENIED the motion to dismiss or transfer. (GovInfo: Dkt. 77, filed 09/24/25.)

Federal Circuit Mandamus (In re Comcast, No. 2026-104)

• October/November 2025 — Comcast petitioned for a writ of mandamus, asking the Federal Circuit to set aside the venue denial and adopt an "all-steps" rule (per NTP, Inc. v. RIM). Sandpiper opposed (response dated 2025-11-05); the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief supporting Comcast, framing the "one-step vs. all-steps" question as a recurring forum-shopping issue.
• 2025-12-09 — Federal Circuit (Prost, Chen, Hughes) DENIED the petition in a nonprecedential order. The panel held that Comcast failed the first mandamus prong: a post-judgment appeal is an adequate remedy for a denied improper-venue motion (In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), and no "basic, unsettled, recurring" issue justified immediate intervention. (Citation: In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2026-104 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025); CourtListener opinion 10749778.)
• January 2026 — Comcast sought en banc rehearing of the mandamus denial (per a Patently-O-posted petition, "Comcast-En-Banc-Mandamus.pdf"). Status: pending as of the latest available information; this is a key part of the case's present posture.

Stays / Summary Judgment / Other

• No motion to stay pending IPR, no substantive summary-judgment motion, and no § 101 motion had publicly surfaced as of the March 2026 docket. The litigation has been dominated by venue and claim construction.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• Briefing: Comcast's claim construction brief (filed in the district court; also submitted to the USPTO in a related PTACTS filing) identified eight disputed terms, arguing for constructions over Sandpiper's "plain and ordinary meaning" positions — e.g., "first alias name"/"second alias name" ('903 patent, proposed: "the first alias name is different than the second alias name"). Comcast's brief also attacked Sandpiper as an NPE that "did not invent anything," having bought the patents (originally from 1990s Sandpiper Networks → Digital Island → Level 3) the prior year via parent Theseus IP, LLC.
• Claim Construction Order issued (early 2026, referenced as Dkt. 120 and related filings). I could not access the order's substance from public sources.
• Post-order objections: Both sides objected. As of 2026-03-18: Sandpiper filed its response to Comcast's objections to the claim construction order (Dkt. 128), and Comcast filed its response to Sandpiper's objections (Dkt. 127). New counsel appearances were entered on 2026-03-11 (Jordan T. Bergsten for Sandpiper, Dkt. 125; Thomas Glenn Saunders for Comcast, Dkt. 126). The parties' claim-construction objections were fully briefed and pending before Judge Gilstrap as of the latest docket entries.

---

4. Discovery Milestones (Strategic Significance)

• Venue discovery (winter/spring 2025): Comcast produced sworn declarations identifying the locations of all of its CDN servers — none in EDTX — and confirming that the accused ATC/Traffic Server/Kafka software runs only on equipment outside the district. Sandpiper did not rebut these declarations. Strategically, this set up the venue battle that produced the denied motion, the mandamus petition, and the pending en banc request.
• Invalidity contentions: Comcast served invalidity claim charts/contentions that were later incorporated by reference by Microsoft in a parallel Sandpiper CDN case (per USPTO PTACTS filings), indicating substantial invalidity contentions were served in this case (including prior-art systems for the '692 patent). The contentions themselves are not public.
• Scheduling: The 2025-01-21 CMC produced the case-management/scheduling order (Dkt. 12); the case has proceeded through claim construction with discovery continuing around it. Specific deposition and document-production milestones are not publicly documented in accessible sources.

---

5. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• None. The case has not gone to trial. No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion exists. The case remains in the pretrial/claim-construction phase as of March 2026.

---

6. Disposition / Present Posture

• No final disposition. The case is pending and active.
• Current posture (as of 2026-03-18 docket entries):
  1. Comcast's en banc rehearing petition on the mandamus venue question is pending at the Federal Circuit (No. 2026-104);
  2. Claim-construction objections from both sides are fully briefed and awaiting Judge Gilstrap's ruling;
  3. The district court case (2:24-cv-00886) continues before Judge Gilstrap/MPJ Payne, with Comcast's venue defense preserved for post-judgment appeal if the en banc petition fails.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• No IPR or PGR petitions by Comcast against the asserted patents were found in public searches of PTAB records as of the search date. There is also no stay pending IPR on the district court docket.
• The only related PTAB-adjacent material located was a USPTO PTACTS filing in which Microsoft (in a separate Sandpiper CDN litigation) incorporated by reference the invalidity claim charts served by Comcast in this case — evidence of coordinated invalidity theories across Sandpiper's enforcement campaign, but not an IPR.
• Sandpiper's related filings against other defendants (e.g., the Microsoft matter; a terminated duplicate E.D. Tex. filing, 2:24-cv-00885, opened and closed on 2024-11-01 as a "case opening error") suggest a broader assertion campaign over the Level 3-origin CDN patent portfolio, but no PTAB proceedings tied to this case were identified.

---

Key Citations

• Complaint, Dkt. 1 (filed 2024-11-01), with Exs. A–E (the five asserted patents).
• Order Adopting R&R and Denying Motion to Dismiss/Transfer, Dkt. 77 (E.D. Tex. 2025-09-24) (GovInfo/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00886).
• In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2026-104, nonprecedential order (Fed. Cir. 2025-12-09) (denying mandamus; Prost, Chen, Hughes).
• Comcast's Mandamus Opening Brief (fedcircuitblog.com, Nov. 2025); Sandpiper's Opposition (2025-11-05); Comcast en banc petition (PatentlyO, Jan. 2026).
• PACER Monitor public docket for 2:24-cv-00886 (Dkts. 120, 125–128, claim-construction objections, March 2026).
• Comcast's Claim Construction Opening Brief (E.D. Tex., filed via USPTO PTACTS).
• Baker Botts, "Patent Venue for Method Claims: The 'One-Step Rule' at a Crossroads" (Nov. 2025) (summarizing the venue dispute and amicus support).

Caveat on sourcing: Docket entries 14–66, 69–76, 78–119 (including the parties' answer(s), discovery motions, and the claim construction order itself) are not publicly accessible without PACER, so the specific dates and contents of those filings are not independently verified here. The analysis above relies on the public court orders, Federal Circuit filings, and docket summaries that are available.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case using multiple sources.

I have initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the docket and the Federal Circuit filings to get the complete plaintiff counsel list.

Let me get the full counsel list from the Federal Circuit brief and verify the Shook Hardy & Bacon team members.

Based on my research across the E.D. Tex. docket (Justia/PacerMonitor/Unicourt), the Federal Circuit mandamus docket (No. 2026-104, In re Comcast), and the response brief filed on the Fed Circuit blog, here is the plaintiff-side counsel picture. Note: I could not pull the full PACER attorney docket or the complete service list (the Fed. Cir. brief excerpt I found was truncated), so this list reflects what is affirmatively documented in the sources below; I flag the two gaps.

District court counsel of record for Sandpiper CDN, LLC

1. Robert H. Reckers — Lead counsel (district court)

• Firm/office: Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Houston, TX (per PacerMonitor party/counsel listing).
• Basis: Signed the Complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 11/1/2024) and the executed summons returns (Dkts. 6–8) as attorney for Sandpiper CDN, LLC; listed on PacerMonitor as plaintiff counsel (Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP – Houston). Also appears in the Fed. Cir. response-brief service list as "Robert H. [Reckers]" under Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
• Experience: Patent litigator at Shook Hardy's Houston office; beyond the docket filings I did not retrieve a detailed bio, so I won't embellish past-case history.

2. Melissa Richards Smith — Local counsel (E.D. Tex.)

• Firm/office: Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, TX 75670 (partner).
• Basis: Dkt. 13 — Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Sandpiper CDN, LLC (12/17/2024); listed as plaintiff counsel on PacerMonitor/Unicourt; appears in the Fed. Cir. brief's service list under "Gilliam & Smith, LLP."
• Experience: Veteran E.D. Tex. patent litigator and go-to local counsel in Marshall/Tyler; Martindale peer reviews describe her as a top trial lawyer and "first choice as local counsel for patent cases in Marshall and Tyler," with 5.0/5.0 ratings in IP litigation. Admitted to the E.D. Tex. bar since 1997.

3. Jordan T. Bergsten — Counsel of record (appeared 2025)

• Firm/office: Dkt. 125 (3/11/2025) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jordan T. Bergsten on behalf of Sandpiper CDN, LLC." The docket entry does not state his firm, and I could not confirm it from the available sources. Given the co-counsel pattern (Reckers/Shook Hardy; Smith/Gillam & Smith), he is most likely Shook Hardy & Bacon, but I flag this as unconfirmed rather than assert it.

Additional Shook Hardy & Bacon attorneys identified via the Fed. Cir. mandamus service list

The response brief in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2026-104 (Fed. Cir.), opposing Comcast's venue mandamus, lists "Counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC" and a service list that includes, under Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.: Andrew M. Long; Cesar A. Udave I; Maxwell C. McGraw; Robert H. [Reckers] and under Gilliam & Smith, LLP (Melissa Richards Smith). This indicates the broader district-court plaintiff team includes:

• Andrew M. Long (Shook Hardy & Bacon)
• Cesar A. Udave I (Shook Hardy & Bacon)
• Maxwell C. McGraw (Shook Hardy & Bacon)

Caveat: The PDF snippet was truncated, so I could not see whether the list continues with additional Shook Hardy or Gillam & Smith attorneys, or the exact caption roles. These three have not (in my sources) filed separate notices of appearance in the E.D. Tex. docket, so they may function as the firm's working team behind Reckers rather than formally appearing attorneys.

Federal Circuit (mandamus) counsel for Sandpiper

In the related appellate proceeding In re Comcast, No. 2026-104 (petition for mandamus from this case, denied 12/9/2025), counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC were:

• Richard L. Rainey — Covington & Burling LLP, 850 Tenth Street NW, Washington, DC (appellate/IP partner).
• Abby Wright — Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC (noted appellate litigator; former Assistant to the Solicitor General — widely known in appellate practice, though I did not verify this specific case role beyond the brief's signature block).
• Nathan Pinnell — Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC.
• Ali Mojibi — Covington & Burling LLP, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA (IP litigator).

Role note: These Covington attorneys are counsel of record for Sandpiper in the Federal Circuit mandamus arising from this district case; they are not (per the district docket entries I saw) appearing attorneys in the E.D. Tex. action itself.

Points of caution

• '566 patent: The complaint as filed (Dkt. 1) asserted only the five patents (9,628,347; 9,660,876; 8,478,903; 7,013,322; 9,762,692) — consistent with the existing case summary noting U.S. Patent No. 11,218,566 was "not identified." I found no docket entry confirming an amendment adding the '566 patent, and my searches were cut off before I could verify; I do not want to speculate on the plaintiff-side counsel list based on that patent either way.
• Comcast Corporation was terminated as a defendant on 2/12/2025 (PacerMonitor), so the active defendants are the two Comcast LLC entities.
• Defense counsel (for context only): Deron R. Dacus (Dacus Firm, E.D. Tex. local counsel), with Davis Polk & Wardwell (David Lisson, Xueyao Chen, Thomas Glenn Saunders) as national counsel for Comcast.

Bottom line: The documented plaintiff counsel of record are Robert H. Reckers (Shook Hardy & Bacon, Houston — lead), Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith, Marshall — local), and Jordan T. Bergsten (appeared 3/11/2025; firm unconfirmed in available sources), with Covington & Burling (Rainey, Wright, Pinnell, Mojibi) handling the related Federal Circuit mandamus, and Shook Hardy teammates Long, Udave, and McGraw on the case team per the Fed. Cir. service list.

Counsel of Record for the Defendants — Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00886-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Based on the public docket (PACER Monitor, Justia Dockets, UniCourt), the Federal Circuit mandamus record (No. 2026-104), and firm-published materials, the Comcast entities — Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC d/b/a Comcast Technology Solutions (Comcast Corporation was also named initially but was dismissed/not part of the operative defense posture per the Federal Circuit's order) — are represented by the following attorneys:

1. Deron R. Dacus

• Role: Local counsel (Texas Eastern District)
• Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC — Tyler, Texas
• Source/activity: Filed the unopposed extensions of time to answer on behalf of all three Comcast entities (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10, 11, filed 11/15/2024); identified as the defendant attorney on the UniCourt docket and as local counsel in the related Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00664 (E.D. Tex.), where he is also local counsel.
• Experience note: A veteran EDTX patent litigator who routinely serves as local/lead counsel in Marshall and Tyler patent cases; frequently appears in Gilstrap/Payne-managed cases.

2. David Lisson

• Role: Lead/wrongful-counsel (defense lead, Davis Polk)
• Firm: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP — California (Menlo Park office per firm materials)
• Source/activity: Signed Comcast's Response to Sandpiper's Objections to the Claim Construction Order (docketed as "(Lisson, David)" per PACER Monitor); Davis Polk's own attorney bio confirms he represents "Comcast in ... [p]atent litigation filed by Sandpiper CDN concerning five patents related to content delivery networks."
• Experience note: Partner and head of Davis Polk's GenAI litigation initiative; tried nine cases in federal courts and the ITC; long-standing Comcast IP counsel in the Rovi (37-patent), Entropic (22-patent), Sprint (30+ patent), and WhereverTV litigations, including venue transfers out of EDTX and Federal Circuit affirmances.

3. Xueyao Chen

• Role: Defense counsel (Davis Polk)
• Firm: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (office location not confirmed in the public snippets)
• Source/activity: Listed on PACER Monitor as counsel "Represented By" for Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC d/b/a Comcast Technology Solutions.
• Experience note: (No specific case history captured in available sources; Davis Polk IP associate/counsel-level litigator on the Comcast team.)

4. Thomas Glenn Saunders

• Role: Defense counsel (appearance entered)
• Firm: Likely Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP — firm affiliation not directly confirmed in the public docket snippet; he filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance for both Comcast entities on March 11, 2025 (Dkt. No. 126 per PACER Monitor).
• Experience note: (No independent case history captured; appearance filed mid-litigation, consistent with Davis Polk team staffing.)

5. Other Davis Polk team members (likely, but not independently confirmed)

The Federal Circuit mandamus petition in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2026-104 (filed by Comcast from this same district case) would carry Comcast's counsel list; I was unable to retrieve the petition's signature block from public sources within my search limits. Given the Davis Polk representation pattern in the district court, additional Davis Polk attorneys (e.g., from the Menlo Park/LA offices) are almost certainly on the notice of appearance, but I could not confirm their names from the public docket excerpts.

---

Notes and caveats

• In-house counsel: No Comcast in-house attorney appears of record in the public docket excerpts reviewed. If any in-house counsel filed appearances, they are not reflected in the accessible docket pages.
• The '566 patent: The '566 patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,218,566) mentioned in your case metadata is not among the five patents asserted in the operative complaint (the '347, '876, '903, '322, and '692 patents); it may belong to a related Sandpiper campaign (e.g., against other CDN defendants), not this case.
• Caveat on roles: The docket does not formally label "lead" versus "of counsel." The lead/role labels above are inferences from filing patterns (Dacus handling local filings and extensions; Lisson signing substantive claim-construction briefing; Chen and Saunders appearing on behalf of the Comcast entities).
• Verification path: For a definitive attorney-of-record list, the most reliable sources are Docket Nos. 9–11, 126 (and any other notices of appearance) on PACER, plus the signature blocks of Comcast's motion-to-dismiss/transfer briefing (Dkt. 18), objections (Dkt. 68), and the Federal Circuit mandamus petition (Fed. Cir. No. 2026-104).