Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Case Overview: Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-00681 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and the accused technology. Sandpiper CDN, LLC is the plaintiff—a patent-assertion entity that owns the legacy CDN patent portfolio originally developed by Sandpiper Networks Inc., the pioneering content-delivery company founded in 1996 by Andrew Swart and David Farber. Sandpiper Networks hosted the Starr Report for the L.A. Times in 1998, merged with Digital Island in a $1.1B deal (1999), and its assets passed through Savvis (2004) and Level 3 (2007) before assignment to Sandpiper CDN (DocketAlarm IPR2026-00095, EX1021, assignment from Level 3 Communications to Sandpiper CDN). Its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies corporate parents Theseus IP, LLC and Sandpiper Consulting, LLC (PacerMonitor). Although one aggregator tags it an "Operating Company," its litigation pattern—suits against Google (2:24-cv-03951 C.D. Cal.), Comcast (2:24-cv-00886-JRG E.D. Tex.), and now two Microsoft cases—is characteristic of a non-practicing/patent-assertion entity. Defendant Microsoft is an operating company; the accused functionality is Microsoft's Azure Content Delivery Network (Azure CDN Standard from Microsoft, Azure CDN Standard/Premium from Edgio) and Azure Front Door, including its CDN POPs, edge/repeater servers, caching, and DNS/rendezvous-based request routing used both commercially and to deliver Microsoft's own content (Complaint ¶¶ 91-92, 2:25-cv-00664, CourtListener; venue allegations place an Azure CDN POP in Plano, TX at the Aligned Data Center, plus Microsoft property in Collin/Denton Counties and CoreWeave's Plano datacenter).

Patents asserted and procedural posture. The August 11, 2026 complaint (89 pp., filed by Ryan Dykal; NOS 830, 35 U.S.C. § 271) attaches eight patents by exhibit: '112 (9,021,112) — content request routing/load balancing using CDN DNS servers sharing a common anycast address to resolve hostnames and route users to nearby servers (per Google's IPR2025-00826 overview); '871 (7,822,871) — "Configurable Adaptive Global Traffic Control and Management," covering adaptive global traffic control/rendezvous in a CDN (title per patents-review.com listing in related publication US20250310417A1); '964 (7,860,964), '876 (9,660,876), '899 (9,647,899), '738 (10,116,738), '066 (8,156,066), and '517 (8,645,517) — additional portfolio patents in the same CDN family whose individual titles I could not independently verify before the search limit; and the case metadata also lists 11,218,566, though it does not appear among the complaint's exhibits A–H, a discrepancy already flagged in prior analysis. The case is in its earliest stage (initial AO 120 filing) in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas ("2:" prefix). The judge for this new case is not yet confirmed in public sources; the companion case, Sandpiper CDN v. Microsoft, No. 2:25-cv-00664-JRG-RSP (filed June 26, 2025, asserting '903, '466, '053, '883, '692, and '173 patents), is before Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy Payne, and this follow-on is likely to land in the same docket. Venue matters because Sandpiper has already won the venue fight once in this district against Comcast before Judge Gilstrap, and Microsoft's Azure CDN POPs/data centers in Plano supply the "regular and established place of business" hook post-TC Heartland.

Why the case is notable. This is a serial second suit against Microsoft—a second tranche of the same legacy CDN portfolio asserted over the same Azure CDN products, after Sandpiper amended its first complaint in October 2025 and litigated (among other things) Microsoft's motion to dismiss the willfulness allegations, which rested on claims that Microsoft bid on the Sandpiper assets in 2006, hired former Savvis personnel, and receives RPX litigation alerts (2:25-cv-00664, Dkt. 43; R&R Jan. 12, 2026). The new case is tightly linked to the PTAB: Microsoft has filed IPRs on the first tranche—IPR2026-00095 ('903, filed Nov. 3, 2025), IPR2026-00174 ('692, filed Dec. 17, 2025), and IPR2026-00190 ('053, denied on discretionary grounds with a May 15, 2026 institution decision), each with Sotera-style estoppel stipulations—while Google's IPR2025-00826 already challenges the '112 patent now asserted in this new case, and related Google IPRs (IPR2025-00806, -00860, -00969, -01010) have been instituted on sibling patents. Industry impact: the case continues a broader pattern of monetizing foundational 1990s–2000s CDN patents against the major cloud/CDN providers (Google, Microsoft, Comcast), and the aggressive willfulness theories (RPX membership as notice) are being contested head-on. Sourcing caveat: beyond the confirmed items above, the accused-product allegations in the new complaint are presumed to mirror the first case's complaint (CourtListener/PacerMonitor), the individual titles of six asserted patents and the new case's judge assignment are unverified, and the '566 patent's role is unresolved.

Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-00681 (E.D. Tex.)

Top-line posture

This case is days old. It was filed on 2026-08-11 and, as of the analysis date (2026-08-27), remains in the initial pleading/AO 120 filing stage. There are no answers, counterclaims, substantive motions, Markman proceedings, discovery rulings, trial events, or any disposition — and there is not yet any public docket evidence of a settlement or judgment. The substantive action in this dispute is currently unfolding in parallel PTAB IPRs (detailed below), most of which were filed against other Sandpiper patents in a companion Microsoft case and in Google's separate litigation against Sandpiper.

---

Chronological developments in 2:26-cv-00681

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2026-08-11 — Complaint filed. Sandpiper CDN, LLC sued Microsoft Corporation for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Nature of Suit 830). The complaint is 89 pages, filed by Ryan Dykal (fee receipt ATXEDC-11725241). The same day's filing included a Rule 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement identifying Sandpiper's corporate parents as Theseus IP, LLC and Sandpiper Consulting, LLC — consistent with Sandpiper being a Delaware entity formed in 2024 to acquire CDN patents from Level 3 Communications (per Microsoft's later IPR briefing).
• Patents at issue (per case metadata): U.S. Patent Nos. 11,218,566; 9,021,112; 7,822,871; 7,860,964; 9,660,876; 9,647,899; 10,116,738; 8,156,066; 8,645,517.
• Complaint exhibits: The complaint attaches eight exhibits (A–H). Confirmed exhibit assignments include Exhibit A = 9,021,112 ("Content Request Routing and Load Balancing for Content Distribution Networks"), Exhibit G = 8,156,066, and Exhibit H = 8,645,517 ("Policy-Based Domain Name Service"). As the existing case summary notes, U.S. Patent No. 11,218,566 is listed in the case metadata but does not appear among the complaint exhibits — a discrepancy worth flagging (it may be included by reference or the metadata may be broader than the initial pleading).
• AO 120 filing: The case is at the initial "Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120)" stage — the same point the companion case was at on its filing day.
• Answer / counterclaims: None filed as of 2026-08-27. Microsoft's response deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) would run ~21 days after service; no waiver of service or answer entry appears on the public docket.
• Assignment of judge: The ex parte docket shows the case assigned to the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall/Tyler division docket prefix 2:26); the presiding judge assignment is not yet confirmed in the sources I found. (For reference, the companion case, 2:25-cv-00664, was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment have been filed in this case as of the search date. Given the pattern in the companion case (see below) and the pending Google IPRs on two of the asserted patents, a Microsoft motion to dismiss (willfulness pleading), and/or a motion to stay pending IPR, is foreseeable but has not yet occurred.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, patent-disclosure deadlines, or Markman briefing exists in the public docket yet.

4. Discovery milestones

None. No discovery requests, orders, or disputes have been docketed. The case has been open roughly two weeks.

5. Trial events / verdict / post-trial motions

None. No trial date has been set.

6. Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal

None. The case is open and pending; the present posture is purely the initial-pleadings stage.

---

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents (and their effect)

This is where the real strategic action is, because two of the nine patents in this new suit — the '517 (8,645,517) and '112 (9,021,112) patents — are already the subject of instituted IPRs filed by Google in a parallel C.D. Cal. case, and those IPRs will likely drive early motion practice here.

A. Google IPRs on patents asserted in this case

• IPR2025-00806 (U.S. 8,645,517 "Policy-Based Domain Name Service") — Google petition filed 2025-04-14; challenges claims 1–20 (all claims) on obviousness grounds (Beaumont/Hasan, Ben-Shaul, et al.).
• IPR2025-00826 (U.S. 9,021,112 "Content Request Routing and Load Balancing") — Google petition filed 2025-04-15; challenges claims 1–23 on obviousness grounds (Glines, Gupta, Chung, Chiou).
• 2025-09-12 — Director referral. Acting Chief APJ Kalyan Deshpande denied Sandpiper's requests for discretionary denial (Paper 13 in IPR2025-00806/-00826), referring the petitions to the Board. Key findings: the parallel C.D. Cal. district case (Sandpiper v. Google, No. 2:24-cv-03951) was stayed pending institution decisions, and both patents are expired ('517 expired 2023; '112 expired 2021), undermining Sandpiper's "settled expectations" argument.
• 2025-10-10 — Director referral of three more Google petitions (IPR2025-00860, -00969, -01010) covering the other patents in the Google case.
• 2025-11-10 — Institution granted in IPR2025-00806 (Paper 14): the Board (APJs Weatherly, McShane, Cygan) instituted review of all challenged claims (1–20) of the '517 patent on all asserted grounds. Per Microsoft's later briefing, all five Google IPRs were instituted between November and December 2025 (EX1032–1036), and the Director rejected Sandpiper's Director-Review requests in four of them (EX1038).
• Status: IPR2025-00806 is in "Trial Instituted" status; final written decisions are due roughly one year after institution (i.e., ~November 2026 for the '517 IPR), with FWDs in the cohort expected during 2026.
• Effect on this case: Because the '517 and '112 patents are asserted again against Microsoft here, and because Google has already established a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability before the PTAB, Microsoft has a ready-made basis to seek a stay pending IPR (or joinder) once it answers — though no such motion has been filed yet in 2:26-cv-00681. Sandpiper, conversely, has a track record of aggressively opposing institution (discretionary-denial briefing, Director Review petitions), which it will likely deploy again.

B. Microsoft's own IPRs (in the companion case — not yet on the new case's patents)

Microsoft has already shown its IPR playbook against Sandpiper in the companion E.D. Tex. case, Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00664 (filed 2025-06-26, Judge Gilstrap):

• IPR2026-00095 (U.S. 8,478,903) — filed 2025-11-03; pending. Sandpiper filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Response on 2026-02-13 and sought discretionary denial; Microsoft opposed (also 2026-02-13) and moved for joinder with Google's IPR2025-00969. On 2026-03-17, the Director issued a Discretionary Decision referring the petition to the Board (DocketAlarm entry "Board Director Discretionary Decision: Refer"). Microsoft also executed a Sotera stipulation (letter dated 2025-12-12) agreeing to full 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel if instituted.
• IPR2026-00174 (U.S. 9,762,692) — filed 2025-12-17; pending.
• IPR2026-00180 (U.S. 10,701,173) — filed 2025-12-24; pending (challenges claims 1–14 on obviousness over O'Rourke, Middleton/Blumofe, etc.).

Caveat: None of these three Microsoft IPRs is directed to the nine patents in this case (2:26-cv-00681) — they challenge patents from the 2025 Microsoft suit ('903, '692, '173). They are strategically relevant only as evidence of Microsoft's template: petition IPRs early, offer Sotera stipulations, seek joinder with Google's IPRs, and press discretionary-denial opposition.

C. No IPRs yet on the remaining asserted patents

As of the search date, I found no PTAB proceedings on the other patents in this case: 11,218,566; 7,822,871; 7,860,964; 9,660,876; 9,647,899; 10,116,738; 8,156,066. Given the timing (case filed 2026-08-11), a Microsoft petition wave on these patents would not yet be due/visible in public sources (IPR petitions must be filed within one year of service of the complaint, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), so deadlines run into mid-2027).

---

Companion-case context (brief)

The earlier Microsoft case (2:25-cv-00664) shows the trajectory this new case may follow: original complaint 2025-06-26; Second Amended Complaint 2025-10-30 adding patents (8,478,903; 8,924,466; 9,456,053; 9,228,?; 9,762,692; 10,701,173); Microsoft's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43, ~2025-11-13) attacking Sandpiper's willful-infringement pleading (arguing no plausible pre-suit knowledge under Halo/Global-Tech, citing Touchstream and Signode); Magistrate Judge Report & Recommendation (2026-01-12) and objections (2026-01-26); motion-to-compel activity (Feb–Mar 2026); and a motion to amend (ruled 2026-04-22). Microsoft's accused conduct in both cases is the Azure Content Delivery Network / Azure CDN POP infrastructure (the 2025 complaint alleges Microsoft CDN POPs and data centers in the E.D. Tex. district, including Plano).

---

Bottom line

• 2:26-cv-00681 has no "outcome" yet — it is an open, newborn case (filed 2026-08-11) with only the complaint, exhibits, and Rule 7.1 disclosure on the docket.
• The only live legal developments bearing on the asserted patents are at the PTAB: the Google IPRs on the '517 and '112 patents (instituted Nov–Dec 2025, FWDs expected 2026), plus Microsoft's three pending IPRs in the companion 2025 case (IPR2026-00095, -00174, -00180), which establish the parties' likely litigation playbook (stay/joinder motions, Sotera stipulations, discretionary-denial fights).
• Watch items for the next 60–120 days: Microsoft's answer or Rule 12 motion (with likely attacks on willfulness and a possible motion to stay pending the Google IPRs on '517/'112), the PTAB institution decisions in IPR2026-00095/-00174/-00180, and whether Microsoft petitions IPR on the remaining seven patents.

Sources: PACER Monitor public docket for 2:26-cv-00681 (complaint, exhibits A–H, Rule 7.1 disclosure); Ex Parte docket tracker (2:26-cv-00681, filed 2026-08-11, status open); USPTO PTACTS Director Decision of 2025-09-12 (IPR2025-00806/-00826 referral); IPR2025-00806 Institution Decision, Paper 14 (2025-11-10); DocketAlarm IPR2026-00095 docket (POPR 2026-02-13; Director discretionary decision 2026-03-17; Sotera stipulation EX2002 dated 2025-12-12); Microsoft's Opposition to Discretionary Denial, IPR2026-00095 Paper 11 (2026-02-13) and exhibits (EX1030–1039); CourtListener docket for 2:25-cv-00664; RPX Insight. Where specific docket entries were not publicly retrievable (e.g., judge assignment, service return, answer deadline), that is noted above rather than assumed.

Press coverage: essentially none found

Exhaustive searches across Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, and JD Supra turned up no standalone news or analysis articles about Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation — in either the earlier companion case (2:25-cv-00664, filed June 26, 2025) or the case at issue here (2:26-cv-00681, filed August 11, 2026 per the Ex Parte docket page). The case has not drawn mainstream or trade-press attention to date. What exists is confined to specialized litigation-intelligence databases and docket aggregators, not journalism.

What the available sources actually report

The closest thing to coverage is RPX Insight, which tracks the case as a willful-patent-infringement suit in the E.D. Tex. "E-commerce and Software" sector before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne), and PacerMonitor, whose docket for 2:26-cv-00681 confirms the complaint's exhibits cover eight patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 9,021,112; 7,822,871; 7,860,964; 9,660,876; 9,647,899; 10,116,738; 8,156,066; and 8,645,517 (and notably not the '566 patent listed in the case metadata) — plus a Rule 7.1 disclosure naming Theseus IP, LLC and Sandpiper Consulting, LLC as corporate parents. CourtListener shows the companion 2:25-cv-00664 docket advanced through amended complaints (adding patents 8,478,903; 8,924,466; 9,456,053; 9,762,692; 10,701,173, among others), and a govinfo-published order dated July 13, 2026 shows Judge Gilstrap adopted Magistrate Payne's report and recommendation and denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss the willfulness claims. On the PTAB side, RPX Insight and DocketAlarm document Microsoft-filed IPRs (e.g., IPR2026-00095 against the '903 patent, IPR2026-00174 against the '692 patent, IPR2026-00180 against the '173 patent) accompanied by Sotera estoppel stipulations tied to the E.D. Tex. litigation.

Where accounts differ or go beyond the court record

No outlet has reported damages figures, settlement terms, market impact, or executive statements, and there are no verdicts — both cases remain pending. The only "analysis" layer comes from litigation-analytics services rather than the press: an Ex Parte complaint analysis flags likely claim-construction battlegrounds (e.g., "shared repeater server" and "table" in the '903 patent), and Microsoft's own PTAB filings dispute Sandpiper's willfulness theory as resting on attenuated facts. One notable internal contradiction: the amended complaint itself asserts that Sandpiper's related suits against Google and Comcast "have received significant press coverage, including through press releases and articles from RPX" (per the CourtListener-filed amended complaint), but that assertion concerns other cases in the campaign — and the Federal Circuit mandamus opening brief in the related Comcast venue dispute frames Sandpiper CDN as a Delaware LLC that bought the former Sandpiper Networks/Digital Island/Level 3 CDN patent portfolio, which is the factual backdrop that would likely drive any future press interest in the Microsoft suits. Bottom line: if mainstream coverage exists, it is not indexed under the case caption, party names, or asserted patent numbers in any outlet I could locate.

Sources

• Amended Complaint – #41 in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00664) – CourtListener.com - Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
• 2:25-cv-00664 | Sandpiper CDN LLC v. Microsoft Corp
• Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:25-cv-00664 - CourtListener.com - Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (2:25-cv-00664)
• Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
• January 26, 2026
• Cases
• Complaint – #1 in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00664) – CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Complaint – #1 in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00664) – CourtListener.com - Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
• This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, trans...
• Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Patent Litigation Intelligence

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:26-cv-00681 (E.D. Tex.)

Based on the public docket information available (PacerMonitor and related-case dockets), the case is at the earliest filing stage — as of the available docket data, only the Complaint (Dkt. 1) and the Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 2) have been filed, both on August 11, 2026. No separate notices of appearance or pro hac vice motions are visible in the public docket snippets for this new case yet.

Confirmed counsel of record

Ryan Dykal — the filing attorney on the Complaint and Rule 7.1 disclosure

• Firm/office: Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (co-leader of the firm's patent litigation practice); primary offices in New York (55 Hudson Yards) and Washington, D.C. (1401 New York Ave., NW); also maintains a Kansas City presence. He joined BSF in May 2024 from Shook Hardy & Bacon, where he had been a litigation partner.
• Role: Appears to be lead plaintiff's counsel — he was likewise the filing attorney in Sandpiper's earlier E.D. Tex. suit against Microsoft (No. 2:25-cv-00664, filed June 26, 2025, Dkt. 1 & 2) and in this new case (Dkt. 1, "(Dykal, Ryan)" per PacerMonitor). He is admitted to the E.D. Tex. bar per his firm bio.
• Experience: Registered patent attorney and trial lawyer with a deep patent docket, including the Sprint v. Time Warner Cable VoIP case (jury verdict of ~$139.5M, affirmed by the Federal Circuit), Sprint v. Comcast (settlement of at least $350M on the eve of trial), and multiple high-stakes tech patent disputes for plaintiffs and defendants (e.g., Rimini Street, GE Lighting v. Feit Electric, Twilio v. TeleSign). BSF touts that his team has secured well over $1B in plaintiff-side verdicts/settlements.

Likely but unconfirmed additional team members

• Jordan Bergsten and Mark Schafer — BSF partners who moved with Dykal from Shook Hardy in May 2024 and have litigated with him for over a decade on the same types of high-tech patent cases. They may appear in this case, but I found no public docket entry in 2:26-cv-00681 confirming their appearance. In the related case 2:25-cv-00664, a pro hac vice appearance notice was filed (Nov. 4, 2025, Dkt. 42), but the docket text I could access does not identify the attorney(s) by name.
• Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC attorneys (Jason D. Eisenberg, Daniel S. Block, Kristina Caggiano Kelly, Timothy L. Tang, Todd C. Thurheimer) — these attorneys represent Sandpiper as Patent Owner in the parallel PTAB proceedings (e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC, IPR2026-00095, -00174, -00190), per PTAB mandatory notices and correspondence. They are not confirmed as district-court counsel of record in 2:26-cv-00681; they are likely handling only the IPR side.

Caveats

• The public docket sources (PacerMonitor case page for 2:26-cv-00681; Justia docket for the sister case 2:25-cv-00664) confirm only Dykal as the filer to date. Because the case is in its initial AO 120 stage, the full plaintiff-side team (including any Texas local counsel, required by LR CV-4(a) in E.D. Tex.) may not yet have entered appearances in this specific case.
• Nothing indicates the filings are sealed; rather, the docket simply hasn't yet populated with additional appearance entries. I did not access PACER directly (paywall), so if you need the definitive current counsel list, the most reliable next step is a PACER query of 2:26-cv-00681 for the attorney roster.

Sources: PacerMonitor docket for 2:26-cv-00681 (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66191669); Justia docket for 2:25-cv-00664 (dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00664/238813); Boies Schiller Flexner attorney bio for Ryan Dykal (bsfllp.com/people/ryan-dykal.html); BSF press release on the Dykal/Bergsten/Schafer lateral hires (May 2024); PTAB mandatory notices in IPR2026-00174 and related IPRs (ptacts.uspto.gov / docketalarm.com).

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-00681 (E.D. Tex.)

Short answer: As of the public docket, Microsoft has not yet appeared in No. 2:26-cv-00681, so there is no defendant counsel of record to list in that case yet. What I can confirm is below, with the caveat that the case is only ~2 weeks old (filed Aug. 11, 2026) and PACER is paywalled.

Docket status of 2:26-cv-00681 (E.D. Tex.)

• Public docket sources (PACER Monitor case page, Ex Parte) show only the opening filings: the complaint (Dkt. 1, filed Aug. 11, 2026, 89 pages, by plaintiff's counsel Ryan Dykal) and the attached patent exhibits (Nos. 9,021,112; 7,822,871; 7,860,964; 9,660,876; 9,647,899; 10,116,738; 8,156,066; 8,645,517), plus the corporate disclosure statement.
• No notice of appearance, motion for extension, waiver of service, or answer by Microsoft is visible in the public docket as of Aug. 27, 2026. Microsoft's responsive pleading deadline (21 days from service, or 60 days if a waiver was requested) has not yet run, so an appearance is expected imminently but is not yet on the record.

Counsel Microsoft has used in the parallel related case (2:25-cv-00664) — the likely incoming team

The related, earlier-filed case Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00664 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap / Mag. Judge Payne) involves the same plaintiff and overlapping Sandpiper CDN patent portfolio, and Microsoft is represented there by Perkins Coie LLP, with Jessica C. Kaiser acting as lead:

• Jessica C. Kaiser — Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, CO (1900 Sixteenth St., Suite 1400). She signed Microsoft's Sotera stipulation (Dec. 12, 2025) in IPR2026-00095 referencing the E.D. Tex. case, and is designated lead counsel for Microsoft in the parallel PTAB IPRs (IPR2026-00095, -00174, -00190, etc.). Patent litigation / PTAB lead for Microsoft against Sandpiper.
• Christopher Marando — Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC (back-up PTAB counsel on Microsoft's Sandpiper IPR powers of attorney).
• Matthew A. Lembo — Perkins Coie LLP, New York, NY (back-up PTAB counsel).
• Steven Beigelmacher — Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA (back-up PTAB counsel).
• Sarah Fowler — Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA (back-up PTAB counsel).
• In-house: Lucky Vidmar, Associate General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation, executed Microsoft's Dec. 12, 2025 PTAB power of attorney for the Sandpiper IPRs.

Note: those PTAB designations are from the IPR powers of attorney (Perkins Coie Customer No. 189558); the district-court appearance list in 2:25-cv-00664 (entries 11–19, 42 on the CourtListener docket) includes pro hac vice and local-counsel notices that I could not fully extract from public sources, so I will not name specific local counsel without a citable docket entry.

Caveats

• I found no evidence that Perkins Coie (or anyone) has filed an appearance in 2:26-cv-00681 specifically. If filings are not yet in the public feeds (PACER Monitor/Ex Parte often lag), an appearance may have been filed but not yet indexed — verify against the live PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00681 before relying on this.
• Fish & Richardson attorneys (e.g., Bailey K. Benedict, Claire Chang) appear in Law360's case listings for "Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, Texas Eastern," but that listing corresponds to the June 2025 case and appears to be plaintiff-side representation of Sandpiper (consistent with plaintiff's counsel Ryan Dykal, who filed both complaints); I did not find a citable source tying Fish & Richardson to Microsoft in this dispute.
• The "11218566" patent in the case metadata is not among the complaint exhibits in 2:26-cv-00681 (exhibits list eight other family patents), which matches the case summary's note — it may be asserted via a later amendment or referenced in the complaint body.

Bottom line: No defendant counsel of record yet for Microsoft in 2:26-cv-00681 as of Aug. 27, 2026; the anticipated team is Perkins Coie (Jessica C. Kaiser leading), based on Microsoft's representation in the parallel 2:25-cv-00664 case and the related IPRs, but that appearance must be confirmed on the live docket.