Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

Case Overview & Background: Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting v. Feit Electric Company, Inc., IPR2025-00260 (PTAB)

Parties and their roles. Although the caption reads "Savant v. Feit," this is not a district-court infringement suit — it is an inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in which Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting is the petitioner and Feit Electric Company, Inc. is the patent owner. Savant is the operating company that acquired GE's consumer lighting business (GE Lighting) in 2020; it sells LED filament bulbs under the GE brand. Feit is a privately held, California-based lighting manufacturer and smart-home brand (products sold at The Home Depot and Ace Hardware) that pioneered "white filament" LED bulbs in August 2022. Two co-petitioners join Savant: Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co. Ltd. — a U.S. importer/distributor and its Chinese LED-filament manufacturing affiliate, both separately sued by Feit in Texas. Both sides are operating companies; neither is an NPE. Petitioner is represented by Radulescu LLP (David C. Radulescu, Andrew S. Brown); Feit by Carter Arnett PLLC (Michael Pomeroy, lead; Alexis L. Ritzer; Scott Breedlove).

Accused technology and patent. The IPR targets U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 B2, "Wavelength Conversion Component With a Diffusing Layer" (Feit's patent, app. 13/273,212). The patent claims an LED wavelength-conversion component (the coating on an LED filament) with a phosphor-based conversion layer plus a light-diffusing layer of scattering particles (e.g., TiO₂) sized so the filament appears white — not yellow — in the off state, while blue excitation light (≥440 nm) passes through to contribute to the output when on. In the parallel district court litigation, Feit accused GE-brand LED Pearl Filament bulbs (e.g., Model Nos. LED6DBC/DL9GCQWF-3T and LED5DST19M/DL9GCQWF-2T) of infringing the '678 patent — Feit's infringement contentions map claim 1 to the Pearl filament's silicone/phosphor layer and white TiO₂-containing diffusing layer. (Feit's N.D. Ohio complaint also asserts a second patent, the '539 patent, but the PTAB proceeding is limited to the '678.) The petition challenges claims 1 and 11–14 on obviousness grounds over Basin-2007 (US 2009/0057699) + Basin-2005 (US 2007/0045761) + Stokes (US 6,791,259), and Krummacher (US 2008/0079015) + Shimizu (US 6,069,440) + Stokes, supported by Prof. Alan Doolittle's declaration.

Procedural posture and venue. The petition was filed December 9, 2024; the Board instituted trial on June 23, 2025, and the proceeding is consolidated with the earlier IPR2024-01357 (filed by Savant and LEDVANCE on Aug. 26, 2024, instituting Mar. 5, 2025, on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, 29). The panel is APJs Kevin W. Cherry, Andrew L. Nalven, and Scott B. Howard (Howard replaced Thomas L. Giannetti by panel-change order). Notably, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart personally denied Feit's request for discretionary denial (Paper 13; Director's Decision of June 23, 2025), rejecting Gen. Plastic/Fintiv arguments because the petition was filed diligently — under three months after Feit added claims 11/12 in district court — and because the N.D. Ohio case against Savant was already stayed. Venue context: the underlying infringement cases are Feit (plaintiff) v. Savant, No. 1:24-cv-473 (N.D. Ohio, filed Mar. 13, 2024, stayed Apr. 1, 2025); Feit v. LEDVANCE, No. 5:24-cv-31 (E.D. Ky., stayed); and Feit v. Elong, No. 3:24-cv-1089 (N.D. Tex., not stayed — that court refused a stay and a jury could reach validity before the Board's final written decision). The patent owner's response was filed July 25, 2025; no final written decision has issued (status: instituted-pending). I could not verify the presiding district judges' names from the sources accessed.

Why it matters. This is the core of Feit's white-filament LED enforcement campaign against GE/Savant, LEDVANCE, and Chinese filament makers — a crowded, fast-growing decorative-lighting category where off-state aesthetics drive sales. The IPR is a textbook example of the claim-sequencing dynamic in IPR practice: Feit's late assertion of claims 11/12 (Sept. 20, 2024) forced a follow-on petition that the Director declined to block, preserving a consolidated PTAB trial even while one parallel district case (N.D. Tex.) races ahead to a jury verdict on the same claim 1 validity issues. A finding of unpatentability would gut Feit's principal assertion against all three defendants and reshape the white-filament market, which is why the case has drawn trade-press coverage (Inside Lighting, IPWatchdog) and why Unified Patents/RPX track it closely.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Savant v. Feit, IPR2025-00260 (PTAB) and the Underlying White-Filament LED Litigation

Scope note. The captioned "litigation" is a PTAB inter partes review, but the substantive infringement litigation is Feit Electric Co. v. Savant Techs. LLC d/b/a GE Lighting, No. 1:24-cv-473-BMB (N.D. Ohio, Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan), which is stayed pending these IPRs. Developments below cover both tracks chronologically, plus the related Feit actions against LEDVANCE (E.D. Ky.) and Elong/Xiamen Longstar (N.D. Tex.) that drove the IPR strategy.

---

Phase 1 — District Court Filing, Pleadings, and Claim Construction (2024–early 2025)

• 2024-03-13 — Complaint filed. Feit sued Savant in N.D. Ohio for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,604,678 (Ex. A to complaint) and 8,614,539, seeking injunctive relief, damages, enhanced damages, and fees for willful infringement. (Dkt. 1; Justia docket for 1:2024cv00473; Feit press release, GlobeNewswire, 2024-03-13.) This was Feit's "second white LED filament patent enforcement action" — the first being against LEDVANCE.
• 2024-03-14 — Service. Savant served by personal service (Dkt. 6).
• 2024-05-03 — Answer and affirmative defenses. Savant filed an unopposed motion for leave to respond (Dkt. 7) and a motion to file its answer and affirmative defenses instanter (Dkt. 8), both granted.
• 2024-09-20 — Claims expanded mid-case. Feit additionally asserted claims 11 and 12 of the '678 patent against Savant in the district court — the trigger for the follow-on IPR (Acting Director decision, IPR2025-00260, Paper 16 at 3–4).
• 2024-10-08 — Amended infringement contentions. Feit served supplemental initial infringement contentions mapping the GE Pearl Filament bulbs to claim 1 (and claim 1 of the '539) (EX1038/EX2006; RPX insight document).
• 2024-12-10 — Feit's final claim constructions served under Local Patent Rule 4.2 (EX1035).
• 2024-12-12 — First stay motion denied without prejudice. Judge Brennan denied Savant's motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 25), expressly inviting rebriefing within seven business days of any Board institution decision (N.D. Ohio docket entry of 2024-12-12; ptacts exhibit EX1025).
• 2025-01-07 — Markman scheduling order entered (referenced in Savant's Feb. 2025 filing); parties moved jointly to amend the case management order (D.I. 42).
• 2025-02-25 — Savant's final proposed constructions for the '539 patent filed (Calfee Halter & Griswold and Radulescu LLP) (N.D. Ohio filing, Feb. 25, 2025, via ptacts). No substantive Markman opinion has been located — claim-construction briefing was complete when the case was stayed, and no construction order appears publicly; the N.D. Tex. court later noted the Ohio court's schedule as comparable.
• 2025-04-01 — Stay granted. Judge Brennan granted Savant's renewed motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 46), with Feit not opposing "to the extent the Court determines a stay is warranted"; Feit ordered to file a status report within five business days of the conclusion of the USPTO proceedings (NEF, 2025-04-01; EX2004). The parallel LEDVANCE case (5:24-cv-31, E.D. Ky.) was stayed the same day (Dkt. 63; EX2005). The district court litigation thus has no further substantive activity (no trial, verdict, judgment, or settlement to date).

Phase 2 — Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Joinder (2024–2025)

• 2024-08-26 — IPR2024-01357 filed by Savant and LEDVANCE challenging '678 claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, 29 on four grounds: (1) Basin-2007 + Basin-2005; (2) Hussell + Basin-2007 + Van Woudenberg; (3) Krummacher + Shimizu + Stokes; (4) Hussell + Krummacher + Van Woudenberg (IPR2024-01357, Paper 17, as reproduced in IPR2025-00260 briefing).
• 2024-12-09 — IPR2025-00260 petition filed by Savant, Elong International USA Inc., and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co. Ltd. — challenging claims 1 and 11–14 of the '678 patent (Paper 1; Patexia docket). Grounds: (1) Basin-2007 + Basin-2005 + Stokes (claims 11–14); (2) Krummacher + Shimizu + Stokes (claims 1, 11–14), supported by Prof. Alan Doolittle (Ex. 1002). Same-day, IPR2025-00258 (Elong/Longstar) was filed with a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01357 (Patexia docket for IPR2025-00258).
• 2025-03-05 — IPR2024-01357 instituted (Paper 17).
• 2025-04-24 — Feit sought discretionary denial in IPR2025-00260 (Paper 13), arguing all six Fintiv factors favored denial — chiefly because the N.D. Tex. case (3:24-cv-1089) was not stayed (amended scheduling order, Dkt. 51, 2025-04-07) and a jury would reach claim-1 validity before any final written decision, and because the petition duplicated claim 1 already at issue in IPR2024-01357 (Paper 13; Reply Paper 15).
• 2025-05-19 / 2025-06-09 — Opposition and reply on discretionary denial (Papers 14, 15), with briefing authorized via Board email (2025-06-05; Paper 3101).
• 2025-06-12 — Director's decision (Paper 16). Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied Feit's request for discretionary denial, holding the petition was filed diligently (<3 months after Feit added claims 11/12 on 2024-09-20) and that the Savant district case was stayed; directed consolidation with IPR2024-01357 absent extraordinary circumstances. This decision was later designated "informative" by the USPTO on 2026-01-09 (USPTO govdelivery bulletin; IPWatchdog-hosted decision).
• 2025-06-23 — Institution and consolidation. The Board instituted trial in IPR2025-00260 on claims 1 and 11–14 and consolidated the proceeding with IPR2024-01357 (Institution Decision; IPVerse/GreyB status "Trial Instituted"). Panel: APJs Kevin W. Cherry, Andrew L. Nalven, and Scott B. Howard (Howard having replaced Thomas L. Giannetti by panel change).
• 2025-06-25 — IPR2025-00258 Director decision; 2025-07-01 — fee refund request (Papers 16–17), indicating the Elong/Longstar joinder track was resolved in petitioners' favor with post-institution fees refunded (Patexia docket).

Phase 3 — Merits Phase and Present Posture (mid-2025 to date)

• 2025-07-25 — Patent Owner Response filed (per prior case summary), defending validity, attacking the motivation-to-combine showings (especially Stokes "teaching away" and structural incompatibility of Krummacher/Shimizu/Stokes), and asserting secondary considerations (long-felt need, commercial success, industry praise, including Home Depot's 2024 Innovation Award) (PO Response excerpts via ptacts).
• Motion to Amend. Feit filed a motion to amend proposing substitute claims (e.g., proposed claims 45, 46, 48), and the Board issued Preliminary Guidance under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(e), preliminarily agreeing with petitioners that the substitute claims (e.g., "three-dimensional elongated shape" and "luminous flux above 250 lumens" limitations) were obvious over the instituted grounds with Hussell (Preliminary Guidance, ptacts).
• Reply-stage dispute. Feit's post-response briefing objects that petitioners' reply impermissibly advanced new single-reference obviousness grounds not in the petitions or institution decisions (PO briefing, ptacts) — an issue the Board will resolve with the final written decision.
• Parallel '539 IPR. A separate proceeding, IPR2025-00698 (Savant/Elong/Longstar v. Feit), challenges the related '539 patent (Feit Amended Mandatory Notices, 2025-08-04), which remains asserted in the stayed N.D. Ohio case.

Outcome / Present Disposition

• No final resolution anywhere. The N.D. Ohio infringement action is stayed (since 2025-04-01) awaiting the PTAB; no claim-construction order, trial, verdict, judgment, or settlement has issued.
• The N.D. Tex. case (Feit v. Elong, 3:24-cv-1089) remains active and unstayed; the court refused a stay as the case was too far advanced, with a jury scheduled to reach claim-1 validity before the Board's final written decision (EX1040; EX2001) — though no verdict has been reported to date.
• IPR2025-00260 status: trial instituted, pending; final written decision due on a consolidated schedule with IPR2024-01357 (no FWD as of 2026-09-01). Outcome of the PTAB merits trial (unpatentability vs. validity of claims 1 and 11–14) is unresolved.
• Flagged uncertainty: (1) Unified Patents' litigation portal lists Feit v. Savant, 1:24-cv-473, with status "Closed" — that appears inconsistent with the 2025-04-01 stay order and likely reflects administrative closure or portal metadata rather than a merits disposition; no dismissal or settlement order was found. (2) No presiding-judge names for the E.D. Ky. and N.D. Tex. cases were verified. (3) The substantive claim-construction order, if any, was not located — the stay appears to have frozen the case before a Markman ruling.

Counsel of record for Feit Electric (the "plaintiff" party)

Threshold clarification. This is not an infringement case — it is an IPR, so there is no "plaintiff." Feit Electric Company, Inc. is the patent owner/respondent before the PTAB, and it is the plaintiff in the parallel district-court infringement actions (e.g., Feit Electric Co. v. Savant Technologies LLC, No. 1:24-cv-473, N.D. Ohio). I therefore cover both capacities. Note: this answer updates the earlier case summary, which listed only Carter Arnett for Feit — that lineup was superseded in mid-2025.

1. PTAB (IPR2025-00260) — Feit's counsel of record

Original designation (Jan. 7, 2025; Paper 7 mandatory notices):

• Michael C. Pomeroy — Lead counsel — Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC (Dallas, TX), Reg. No. 76,010. Patent litigation/IPR specialist; joined Cozen O'Connor's Dallas office in Feb. 2025 (his PTAB email address in the record is mpomeroy@cozen.com); known for G+ Communications' $67.5M jury verdict against Samsung (E.D. Tex.) and a >70% patent-owner institution-stage IPR record. (Sources: IPR2025-00260 Paper 7 mandatory notices; Cozen O'Connor press release, Feb. 26, 2025.)
• Alexis L. Ritzer — Back-up counsel — Carter Arnett (Dallas), Reg. No. 78,453.
• Scott Breedlove — Additional back-up counsel — Carter Arnett (Dallas), Reg. No. 46,577.

Substituted lineup (effective by Board order of Aug. 4, 2025, Paper 18):

• Charles M. McMahon — Lead counsel — Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP (Chicago, IL), Reg. No. 44,926; IP partner, cmcmahon@beneschlaw.com. Appointed as additional back-up in April–May 2025 (Paper 11), then elevated to lead on the July 15, 2025 motion to substitute; the Board granted withdrawal of Carter Arnett and substitution of McMahon/DaMario on Aug. 4, 2025 (Paper 18). (Sources: Feit's Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel, July 15, 2025; Apr. 22, 2025 § 42.10(e) request email; PTAB docket entries from Patexia/PTACTS.)
• Thomas DaMario — Back-up counsel — Benesch (Chicago), senior managing associate, IP. (Same sources.)

Later developments (2026, partially verified): On Feb. 23, 2026, the Board granted a patent-owner LEAP argument request for "Anthony S. ____" (docket entry 25 — surname truncated in the source I could access), and on Mar. 2, 2026 Feit filed an updated power of attorney (Paper 26). I could not confirm from available sources the full name/firm of the LEAP counsel or whether the March 2026 POA adds further counsel — flag as unverified.

2. District court — Feit as plaintiff

• N.D. Ohio (Feit v. Savant, No. 1:24-cv-473): Michael S. Weinstein of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP (Cleveland, OH) is the plaintiff's attorney of record — he signed the complaint, corporate disclosure, and AO-120 (Docket 1–3, filed Mar. 13, 2024), and later filings through at least Sept. 20, 2024. (Sources: Justia docket for 1:24-cv-473; RPX litigation document showing Weinstein's signature for Feit.) Note: Ronald M. McMillan on the same docket represents defendant Savant, not Feit. Presiding judge: Bridget Meehan Brennan.
• E.D. Ky. (Feit v. LEDVANCE, No. 5:24-cv-31) and N.D. Tex. (Feit v. Elong Int'l USA Inc./Xiamen Longstar, No. 3:24-cv-1089): Feit's local/lead counsel in those venues could not be verified from the sources retrieved. The PTAB record shows Benesch lawyers (McMahon, DaMario) describing themselves as "involved with the related district court litigation," and the April 2025 substitution email chains show Pomeroy at Cozen O'Connor — but I did not obtain the actual N.D. Tex./E.D. Ky. docket sheets, so do not rely on those firm associations as verified district-court appearances.
• ITC context: In a related ITC proceeding (email domain "FeitITC1220"), Benesch's Kal K. Shah and Simeon Papacostas signed as "Counsel for Respondent Feit Electric Company, Inc.," while Goodwin Procter represented GE/Savant — but that document does not establish Feit's district-court counsel. (Source: PTACTS exhibit from a related ITC filing.)

Bottom line

Feit's current PTAB lead counsel of record in IPR2025-00260 is Charles M. McMahon (Benesch, Chicago), with Thomas DaMario (Benesch) as back-up — replacing the Carter Arnett trio (Pomeroy/Ritzer/Breedlove) that appeared through early 2025; in the N.D. Ohio infringement suit where Feit is plaintiff, its attorney of record is Michael S. Weinstein (Benesch, Cleveland). The identity of the 2026 LEAP counsel and the E.D. Ky./N.D. Tex. plaintiff-side lineups remain unverified from open sources.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Savant Technologies LLC in the Underlying Infringement Case

Threshold clarification on "defendant." The case in the metadata (IPR2025-00260) is a PTAB inter partes review, where Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting is the petitioner and Feit Electric Company, Inc. is the patent owner/respondent — there are no "defendants" in an IPR. The "patent infringement case" referenced in the task is the parallel district-court suit from which this IPR springs: Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting, No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB (N.D. Ohio), assigned to Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan (stayed April 1, 2025, pending the PTAB proceedings; Dkt. 46 order, Doc. 47, entered 4/1/2025). The defendant there is Savant Technologies LLC, and its counsel of record are set out below. For completeness, the co-petitioners in the IPR — Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co. Ltd. — are co-defendants in a related N.D. Tex. case and are covered in a secondary block.

A. Counsel for Defendant Savant Technologies LLC (N.D. Ohio, 1:24-cv-473)

Local / district-court counsel — Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland)

1. Ronald M. McMillan — Attorney of record for Savant; appears to be the lead Ohio-licensed defense counsel. He filed Savant's first responsive pleadings: the unopposed motion for leave to respond (Dkt. 7) and motion for leave to file an instanter Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 8, May 3, 2024), and is named in Savant's claim-construction filings. Firm: Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, The Calfee Building, 1405 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 (Ohio Bar No. 0073247). Experience note: A Calfee IP litigator based in Cleveland handling patent and trade-secret litigation; co-counsel with Radulescu LLP in the Feit white-filament campaign. (Sources: Justia docket 1:2024cv00473, entries Dkt. 7–8; Feb. 25, 2025 "Final Proposed Constructions" signature block via PTACTS.)

2. Joshua A. Friedman — Attorney of record for Savant (Ohio Bar No. 0091409). Firm: Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, Cleveland (same address). Experience note: Partner in Calfee's IP practice group (per firm bio); litigates before district courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB; co-chair of the Cleveland IP Law Association Young Lawyers Committee; Best Lawyers "Ones to Watch" (Litigation–Patent). (Sources: Calfee firm bio; Feb. 25, 2025 filing signature block via PTACTS.)

IPR / pro hac vice co-counsel — Radulescu LLP (New York)

1. David C. Radulescu, Ph.D. — Pro hac vice district-court counsel and lead counsel for petitioners in IPR2025-00260 (and the consolidated IPR2024-01357); USPTO Reg. No. 36,250. Firm: Radulescu LLP, 5 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10001. Experience note: Named as lead petitioner counsel in the Board's June 23, 2025 Director's Decision instituting trial, and on all IPR § 42.8 designations and service certificates; the signature block on Savant's Feb. 25, 2025 claim-construction filing lists him (with Etai Lahav and Jonathan Auerbach) as pro hac vice counsel for the defendant. (Sources: PTACTS Director's Decision IPR2025-00260; IPR2025-00258 § 42.8 designation; N.D. Ohio Feb. 25, 2025 filing.)

2. Etai Lahav — Pro hac vice district-court counsel; IPR backup counsel (provisionally recognized PTAB attorney). Firm: Radulescu LLP, New York. Experience note: Listed on the Feb. 25, 2025 district-court filing and on IPR service lists (etai@radip.com). (Sources: Feb. 25, 2025 filing; IPR2025-00258 § 42.8 designation; IPR2025-00260 Paper 15 service certificate.)

3. Jonathan Auerbach — Pro hac vice district-court counsel (signed the Feb. 25, 2025 final proposed constructions filing). Firm: Radulescu LLP, New York. Experience note: Not otherwise prominent in the public IPR papers; appears as district-court-only counsel. (Source: Feb. 25, 2025 filing signature page via PTACTS.)

4. Andrew S. Brown — IPR backup counsel for petitioners only (Reg. No. 74,177); not confirmed as appearing in the district-court case (absent from the Feb. 25, 2025 signature block). Firm: Radulescu LLP, New York. (Source: IPR2025-00260 § 42.8 designation / service certificates.)

In-house: No Savant in-house attorney of record was identifiable from the public docket/sources searched. If Savant has in-house counsel, they are not on the CM/ECF service lists I could access.

B. Related Co-Defendants / Co-Petitioners (N.D. Tex. 3:24-cv-1089, Judge Brantley Starr)

The IPR's co-petitioners are defendants in Feit Electric v. Elong International USA, Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-1089 (N.D. Tex.). UniCourt's party summary lists their defense attorneys as Stevenson Moore V, Nicholas E. Najera, and Timothy Tiewei Wang (Najera filed the defendants' answer and counterclaim on Aug. 5, 2024). I could not verify their firm names or offices within the search budget, so treat that as uncorroborated. Note the case trajectory: the court initially denied a stay, then granted a renewed stay in late 2025 (trial had been set for January 2026), and the case ended in a joint dismissal without prejudice (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) in January 2026 — so those attorneys may no longer have active engagements there. (Sources: UniCourt party summary; Unified Patents docket 3:24-cv-01089; PatSnap case summary.)

C. The Other Side (for orientation only)

Because the caption is counterintuitive, it is worth restating the adverse counsel: Feit (patent owner/plaintiff) is represented in the IPR by Carter Arnett PLLC, Dallas — Michael Pomeroy (lead, Reg. No. 76,010), Alexis L. Ritzer (backup, Reg. No. 78,453), and Scott Breedlove (additional backup, Reg. No. 46,577) (Source: IPR2025-00260 § 42.8 designation, Paper 6 service certificate) — and in the district court by Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff (Charles McMahon, Michael S. Weinstein, who signed the N.D. Ohio complaint and appears as filer on Dkts. 1 and 6; the IPR service list uses FeitElectricIPR@beneschlaw.com). One flag: a June 5, 2025 email header shows mpomeroy@cozen.com alongside the Carter Arnett addresses, suggesting Pomeroy's email/affiliation transitioned during the proceeding — his § 42.8 designation of record is Carter Arnett.

Caveats

• Docket-entry descriptions for the N.D. Ohio case were drawn from Justia's May 2024 snapshot and PTACTS-hosted filings; the live PACER docket (post-stay) was not fully available to me, so there may be later pro hac vice admissions or substitutions I could not see.
• Attorney roles ("lead" vs. "local") for McMillan/Friedman are inferred from filing patterns, not from an explicit designation order.
• No filings are sealed that I identified, and all named counsel have appeared (or, for Brown, are designated IPR counsel); nothing suggests representation gaps.