Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

Sandpiper CDN, LLC, a recently formed Delaware entity, has initiated patent infringement litigation against Microsoft Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas. Sandpiper CDN operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), having acquired a portfolio of content delivery network (CDN) patents from Level 3 Communications (which later became Lumen Technologies). The original Sandpiper Networks pioneered commercial CDN technology in the 1990s. Microsoft, a global technology conglomerate, is accused of infringing these patents through its Azure platform, specifically its "content delivery infrastructure and services," including Azure CDN Standard from Microsoft, Azure CDN Standard from Edgio, Azure CDN Premium from Edgio, and Azure Front Door Standard and Premium.

The sole patent asserted in this case, according to the provided metadata, is U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903, titled "Shared content delivery infrastructure." This patent generally describes methods for servers in a computer network to off-load requests for specific resources by dynamically determining and utilizing a different server, or "repeater," to process those requests, thereby facilitating the efficient replication and delivery of content in computer networks. The lawsuit is before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for a "rocket docket" with fast adjudication times and plaintiff-friendly verdicts, although recent Supreme Court rulings have aimed to refine venue rules.

This case is notable as part of a broader assertion campaign by Sandpiper CDN against major players in the content delivery industry, including parallel lawsuits against Google and Comcast, targeting their respective CDN offerings. The '903 patent is also the subject of an ongoing Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00969) filed by Google LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Sandpiper CDN's motion for discretionary denial was rejected. This extensive litigation underscores the value and contested nature of foundational CDN technologies in the current digital landscape, where efficient content delivery is critical for cloud services and streaming media.

The case "Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp." (2:25-cv-664) was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Sandpiper CDN, LLC asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903, among other patents, against Microsoft, alleging infringement related to Microsoft's Azure platform and its content delivery infrastructure and services, including "Azure CDN Standard from Microsoft," "Azure CDN Standard from Edgio," "Azure CDN Premium from Edgio," and "Azure Front Door Standard and Premium".

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

• Initial Filing (2025-06-26): Sandpiper CDN, LLC filed its complaint against Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. This case is part of a broader campaign by Sandpiper CDN asserting patents formerly owned by Level 3 Communications.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • IPR2025-00969 (Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC): U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903, also asserted in this case, is the subject of a pending IPR petition filed by Google LLC. On October 10, 2025, the Director denied Sandpiper CDN's motion for discretionary denial in this IPR.
  • IPR2026-00180 (Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC): Microsoft Corporation filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2026-00180) against Sandpiper CDN, LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,701,173. The IPR petition was filed on December 24, 2025, and challenges claims 1-14 of the '173 patent. This IPR concerns a patent titled "Content Delivery Network Caching Methods," which describes a "late-binding" approach for CDN nodes to serve cached content. The grounds for unpatentability primarily involve obviousness over prior art like O'Rourke (Patent 7,912,921) and other references.

The case against Microsoft (2:25-cv-664) is currently pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The search results indicate that Sandpiper CDN has also filed similar lawsuits against other companies, including Comcast and Google, asserting the '903 patent in those actions as well. While there's information about the filing and related IPRs, details on subsequent pleadings (answer, counterclaims), substantive pre-trial motions (other than IPR-related stays/motions to dismiss in other cases), claim construction, discovery, or trial events specifically for this Microsoft case are not yet publicly available or detailed in the provided search results. Given the recent filing date (June 2025), the case is likely still in its early litigation stages.

Here is the counsel of record representing Sandpiper CDN, LLC in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-664 in the Eastern District of Texas:

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

• Mark D. Schafer

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the plaintiff's litigation team.
  • Firm Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Mark Schafer is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner and co-chairs the firm's Intellectual Property practice. His experience includes a wide range of intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright disputes, often involving complex technologies in federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Ryan D. Dykal

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the plaintiff's litigation team.
  • Firm Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Ryan Dykal is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, focusing on high-stakes intellectual property and commercial litigation. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement cases across various technologies.

• Philip Eckert

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Philip Eckert is an attorney at Boies Schiller Flexner with experience in complex litigation, including patent disputes. He has appeared in filings for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in this case.

• Connor Coupe

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Connor Coupe is an attorney at Boies Schiller Flexner who works on intellectual property and other complex commercial litigation matters.

• Carolyn E. Drell

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Carolyn Drell is an attorney at Boies Schiller Flexner with experience in various litigation areas, including intellectual property.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC

• Garrett C. Parish

  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm Office Location: Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Garrett Parish is a partner at Miller Fair Henry PLLC, a firm based in Tyler, Texas, known for its intellectual property litigation practice in the Eastern District of Texas. His practice focuses on patent litigation, and he frequently serves as local counsel in the district.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm Office Location: Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Andrea Leigh Fair is a partner at Miller Fair Henry PLLC, a Tyler, Texas-based firm. Her practice often involves intellectual property litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, where she likely serves as local counsel.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. 2:25-cv-664 counsel", "Microsoft Corp patent litigation counsel Eastern District of Texas", "lead counsel Microsoft patent litigation 2:25-cv-664", "of counsel Microsoft patent litigation 2:25-cv-664", "local counsel Microsoft patent litigation Eastern District of Texas", "in-house counsel Microsoft patent litigation", "Michael J. Warnecke patent litigation experience", "Joseph A. Loy patent litigation experience", "Eric W. Schweitzer patent litigation experience", "D. Brian Kacedon patent litigation experience", "Elizabeth L. Stroebe patent litigation experience"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Microsoft Corp. in the case Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2:25-cv-664.
I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney.
I will use web search with specific queries to find this information, looking for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Here's a plan:

1. Search for "Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. 2:25-cv-664 counsel" to find initial appearances on the docket.
2. For each identified attorney, search for their firm, office location, and patent litigation experience.
3. Distinguish between lead, local, of counsel, and in-house roles if the information is available.
4. If no counsel is immediately apparent, explicitly state that.I was unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing Microsoft Corp. in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-664, based on the provided search results. Docket filings for this particular case were not directly accessible through the search, and no specific attorney appearances for Microsoft in this case were found.

However, historical patent litigation records in the Eastern District of Texas indicate that Microsoft is frequently represented by prominent intellectual property law firms. These firms often include:

• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Finnegan): This firm has a long history of representing clients like Microsoft in complex patent disputes, including cases in the Eastern District of Texas, and is known for its extensive IP practice.
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP: Morgan Lewis possesses a deep bench of IP litigators who represent both plaintiffs and defendants across various patent litigation hotspots, including the Eastern District of Texas. They have secured trial victories for clients like LG Electronics in smart TV patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC): This Longview, Texas-based trial boutique is well-regarded for its intellectual property litigation work and frequently assists in high-stakes claims, including patent cases in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. Former members of the firm, such as Johnny Ward and Judge T. John Ward (of counsel), have extensive experience in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

Without access to the specific docket for 2:25-cv-664, the exact legal team and their roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) for Microsoft in this particular case cannot be definitively stated.