Savant Technologies LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

A note on framing before the overview: although the docket style is "Savant Technologies LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.," this is not a district-court infringement suit — it is an inter partes review (IPR2024-01357) before the PTAB in which the "plaintiffs" in the caption are the petitioners (accused infringers in parallel litigation) and Feit is the patent owner asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678. The petitioners are all operating companies in the LED lighting supply chain: Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting (the former GE Lighting business; Patexia caption), LEDVANCE LLC (the former OSRAM general-lighting business in North America), Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. (a U.S. importer/distributor and a Chinese filament-bulb manufacturer, respectively; PatSnap case summary). The petition also identifies Korean LED-component maker Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. as a real party-in-interest (Institution Decision, IPR2024-01357, Paper 15 at 2, n.1). Feit Electric is a California-based, family-owned lighting and smart-home operating company (President Alan Feit) — not an NPE — that launched white-filament LED decorative bulbs in August 2022 and publicly announced a "white filament patents" enforcement campaign in September 2023, warning retailers and competitors that it had not licensed the family (Feit press releases, Sept. 19, 2023; Mar. 13, 2024).

Patent and accused technology. The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 B2, "Wavelength Conversion Component with a Diffusing Layer," issued Dec. 10, 2013 (app. 13/273,212, filed Oct. 14, 2011, claiming priority to prov. apps. 61/390,091 and 61/427,411; Unified Patents; greyb docket). In one line: it claims an LED wavelength-conversion component pairing a phosphor-containing wavelength-conversion layer with a light-diffusing layer of scattering particles (e.g., TiO₂) sized to scatter blue excitation light, which makes the bulb appear white in the off state (rather than yellow), improves angular color uniformity, and cuts phosphor usage (Institution Decision §II.A). The accused products are competitors' white-filament LED bulbs — e.g., GE's "LED Pearl Filament" lamps (model LED6DBC/DL9GCQWF-3T) and Elong models 5A19DG8.5WECL27K2P / 2A19DG5WECL50K2P (inside.lighting, Mar. 14, 2024; PatSnap). Procedural posture. Savant and LEDVANCE filed the IPR on Aug. 26, 2024; the Board (panel of APJs Daniel Kazhdan — lead and FWD author — Thomas L. Giannetti, and Kevin W. Cherry; Patexia) instituted review on March 5, 2025 on all 16 challenged claims (1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, 29) and all four obviousness grounds (Basin-2007/Basin-2005; Hussell/Basin-2007/van Woudenberg; Krummacher/Shimizu/Stokes; Hussell/Krummacher/van Woudenberg), rejecting Feit's Fintiv and claim-construction arguments (Institution Decision, Paper 15; inside.lighting, Mar. 10, 2025). The proceeding remains pending: Feit has filed contingent motions to amend (June 25 and July 25, 2025), petitioners opposed (Oct. 3, 2025), and the Board granted a good-cause extension of the one-year pendency on July 18, 2025, pushing the final written decision beyond the original ~March 2026 statutory date (greyb docket; 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)). Because this is a USPTO proceeding, "venue" is really about the parallel infringement cases Feit filed in early 2024 — E.D. Ky. (5:24-cv-31, Judge Danny C. Reeves) against LEDVANCE, N.D. Ohio (1:24-cv-473) against Savant (GE Lighting's traditional home district, since stayed after institution), and N.D. Tex. (3:24-cv-1089) against Elong/Longstar (where a stay was denied and trial was set for Jan. 20, 2026 before the case was jointly dismissed without prejudice in January 2026) — venues chosen around each defendant's place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (PTACTS exhibits EX1038/EX1039; PTAB Litigation Blog, May 2026; PatSnap).

Why the case matters. First, it is the centerpiece of Feit's aggressive, publicly telegraphed enforcement of a small family of "fundamental and dominant" white-filament patents (including 8,610,340; 8,610,341; 8,614,539; 8,957,585) against much larger incumbents in the fast-growing decorative LED-filament segment sold through Home Depot and Ace Hardware — a David-versus-Goliath dynamic with real retail shelf-space stakes. Second, the IPR ecosystem around the '678 patent is unusually dense: a follow-on Savant petition (IPR2025-00260) challenging claims 11–14 was instituted and joined on June 23, 2025, while Elong/Longstar's "copycat" petition (IPR2025-00258) was denied by the Director on June 25, 2025 and designated precedential on January 9, 2026, making this dispute a leading citation for Fintiv/joinder law on late, copycat petitions (USPTO precedential-designation bulletin, Jan. 9, 2026; Sterne Kessler client alert). Third, the district-court papers include a serious inequitable-conduct defense — LEDVANCE alleges the applicant copied TiO₂ technical content from DuPont references and withheld them during prosecution, which, if proven, would render the patent unenforceable (PTACTS, LEDVANCE counterclaim exhibits). Notably, the Board's institution decision itself flagged that the primary references "are essentially anticipatory." One caveat: I could not verify from public sources the current FWD due date after the good-cause extension, the identity of the N.D. Ohio/N.D. Tex. judges, or the outcome of the Nov. 19, 2025 panel-change order, so those details should be confirmed against the PTAB docket before reliance.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome: Feit Electric's '678 Patent Enforcement Campaign and the Parallel IPR

Preliminary clarification on the case frame

The case metadata (IPR2024-01357) is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement suit. In that proceeding the four "plaintiffs" listed in the metadata — Savant Technologies LLC (d/b/a GE Lighting), LEDVANCE LLC, Elong International USA, Inc., and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. — are petitioners (accused infringers), and Feit Electric Company, Inc. is the patent owner (the "defendant" in the IPR caption).

The underlying patent-infringement litigation is Feit Electric's own enforcement campaign on U.S. Patent No. 8,606,678 ("Wavelength conversion component with a diffusing layer," issued 2013-12-10; note that some press coverage misprints the number as 8,604,678). Feit filed three parallel district-court actions against the four IPR petitioners, all asserting the '678 patent:

These are confirmed by the IPR petition's own exhibit list ("PO has brought three actions asserting the '678 patent: Feit v. LEDVANCE, No. 5:24-cv-31 (E.D. Ky.), filed February 2, 2024; Feit v. Savant, No. 1:24-cv-473 (N.D. Ohio), filed March 13; and Feit v. Elong and Longstar, No. 3:24-cv-1089 (N.D. Tex.), filed May 6").

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings (Feb–Dec 2024)

• 2024-02-02 — Feit sued LEDVANCE in the E.D. Ky., asserting the '678 patent against twelve SYLVANIA "white filament" LED lamp models (e.g., Model LED3.5B10CDIM827FILWHRP40184). LEDVANCE waived service (2024-02-23), making its answer due 2024-04-23.
• 2024-03-13 — Feit sued Savant in the N.D. Ohio, targeting the GE LED Pearl Filament (Model LED6DBC/DL9GCQWF-3T). Feit publicly framed this as the second action in a "white LED filament" enforcement campaign, seeking injunctive relief, damages, enhanced damages for alleged willfulness, and fees.
• 2024-05-06 — Feit sued Elong International USA and Xiamen Longstar Lighting in the N.D. Tex., asserting the '678 patent against Elong's Model 5A19DG8.5WECL27K2P and Model 2A19DG5WECL50K2P bulbs.
• 2024-09-20 — In the N.D. Ohio case, Feit filed an Amended Complaint adding U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539 (a related filament patent). A contingent motion for leave was filed 2024-09-24, opposed by Savant on 2024-10-08; the court granted leave on 2024-12-12 (deeming the amended complaint timely and denying the leave motion as moot).
• 2024-12-17 — Savant filed its answer to the Amended Complaint in N.D. Ohio (per the parties' joint CMO-modification filing). The N.D. Tex. action likewise proceeded to answer/counterclaim stage — the defendants' later joint dismissal order disposed of "all claims and counterclaims," confirming invalidity-type counterclaims were on file, though I could not confirm the exact answer dates from public sources.

2. Discovery milestones (Aug 2024 – 2025)

• 2024-08-30 — Feit served initial infringement contentions in the E.D. Ky. case.
• 2024-10-08 — Feit served supplemental initial infringement contentions in the N.D. Ohio case.
• 2024-10-23 — Feit served preliminary infringement contentions in the N.D. Tex. case.
• 2024-11-06 — Feit served preliminary claim constructions in the E.D. Ky. case.
• 2025 (spring) — The N.D. Tex. case completed local-rule claim-construction briefing and the parties exchanged infringement/invalidity contentions; defendants' invalidity contentions identified a substantial prior-art chart (Basin-2007, Krummacher, Ohta, Koike, Chakraborty, Engl, Jagt, Hoelen, Basin-2005, Shimizu, Stokes, Tanda, Dudik, etc.). The E.D. Ky. and N.D. Ohio cases were at similar contention stages when the IPR stay hit.
• 2025 (IPR-side discovery) — In IPR2024-01357, Feit's experts were deposed: Dr. William A. Doolittle (2025-06-10 and 2025-07-18 transcripts) and E. Fred Schubert (notice of deposition 2025-09-03); Petitioners' objections to evidence were filed 2025-04-23 and 2025-07-02.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• N.D. Tex. (Elong/Longstar) — The court issued a substantive claim-construction and indefiniteness order (Doc. 81) in 2025. It adopted Feit's proposed person-of-ordinary-skill definition, construed the asserted terms (including "light diffusing layer" / "wavelength conversion layer" and the "improves an off-state white appearance" language), and rejected defendants' indefiniteness challenges, holding that "the claims plainly allow for any improvement" and that the baseline is "a similar device that does not include the claimed 'light diffusing layer.'" The stay order later confirms claim-construction briefing was complete and the hearing was imminent as of May 2025.
• N.D. Ohio (Savant) — Claim construction was scheduled for a 2025-03-11 hearing, with the '539-patent construction track added by a January 2025 amended CMO — but the case was stayed (below) before any Markman ruling.
• E.D. Ky. (LEDVANCE) — Constructions were exchanged (2024-11-06) and the case was proceeding toward its own Markman phase; I found no public Markman ruling in that action.

4. Pre-trial motions of substance — stays pending IPR

• N.D. Ohio — stay GRANTED (2025-04-01). After the PTAB instituted IPR2024-01357 (2025-03-05), Savant filed a renewed motion to stay (Doc. 46). Feit opposed certain grounds but "does not oppose" a stay if the court found one warranted. Judge Brennan granted the stay by text order on 2025-04-01, ordering Feit to file a status report within five business days of conclusion of the USPTO proceedings, "failure to comply ... may result in dismissal." The stay covers both the '678 and '539 patents (the latter also under IPR challenge in IPR2025-00698).
• N.D. Tex. — stay DENIED (2025-05-05). Elong/Longstar moved to stay pending IPR (Doc. 54). The court denied the motion in a written opinion: (1) the parties are competitors (slightly against a stay); (2) simplification was uncertain because the movants refused to stipulate to estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2); and (3) the stage-of-litigation factor weighed heavily against a stay — claim construction was complete, "trial is scheduled for January of 2026," and the joined Board proceeding could run until September 2026. This ruling is notable as a Fintiv-counterpart rejection in the district court.
• E.D. Ky. — As of the IPR reply briefing (early 2025), only Savant had moved to stay; the IPR petitioners argued E.D. Ky. time-to-trial was ~45 months. I found no later public order confirming whether the LEDVANCE action was stayed; its present status is unverified.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial events

• N.D. Tex. — The case was set for a January 2026 jury trial (per the 2025-05-05 stay order). It never reached trial. In January 2026, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the case was dismissed without prejudice (PatSnap's case summary: "May 2024 – Jan 2026"; "no damages amount was publicly disclosed, no injunction was entered"). No verdict, no JMOL, no fee award.
• N.D. Ohio and E.D. Ky. — No trial events; both remained stayed/pending as of the latest information located.

6. Settlement / dismissal / present posture

• N.D. Tex.: TERMINATED by joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice (Jan 2026) — all claims and counterclaims dismissed; Feit preserved its right to reassert the '678 patent; no merits ruling, no res judicata.
• N.D. Ohio: STAYED (since 2025-04-01) pending the IPRs of the '678 and '539 patents; awaiting USPTO conclusion.
• E.D. Ky.: Still listed as pending ("Pending – Other Pending") as of the last docket data I could verify (2024); no disposition found.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

• IPR2024-01357 (Savant + LEDVANCE, joined later by Elong/Longstar) — Petition filed 2024-08-26; Patent Owner Preliminary Response filed 2024-12-19 (raising Fintiv discretionary-denial arguments and a "light diffusing layer" construction argument); Petitioners' reply authorized. The Board instituted review on 2025-03-05 (panel: Judges Kazhdan, Giannetti, Cherry) on the challenged claims (petition challenged claims 1–3, 6–7, 9–14, 16–21, 25–26, 29). Primary ground: obviousness over Basin-2007 (US 2009/0057699) in view of Basin-2005 (US 2007/0045761), with the "blue light ≥ 440 nm" limitation supplied by Basin-2005. Scheduling order issued 2025-04-23; Patent Owner's Response (with Schubert and Doolittle declarations) filed late June 2025; Patent Owner filed a supplemental motion to amend (July 2025); the Board granted a good-cause extension of the one-year pendency on 2025-07-18 (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)), pushing the final written decision beyond the normal one-year date; Petitioners opposed the motion to amend (2025-10-03); counsel substitution was approved (2025-08-04); a panel change order was entered (2025-11-19). As of 2026-08-31 the proceeding remains pending — no final written decision has been located.
• IPR2025-00260 (Savant, Elong, Longstar) — A second '678-petition challenging claim 1. Patent Owner opposed institution under Fintiv, pointing to the N.D. Tex. case ("The jury ... will reach a verdict on the validity of claim 1 prior to any final written decision of the Board in IPR2024-01357," and the N.D. Tex. court "confirmed that it will not stay the case pending IPR"). The Board docket reflects an institution decision and grant of joinder with IPR2024-01357 on 2025-06-23, with Patent Owner's response filed 2025-07-25. (Note: a June 2025 industry summary stating "the Director ... denied institution of a second IPR on the same patent" conflicts with the Board docket and appears to refer to a different or confused filing; I could not reconcile it.) After joinder, PTAB records list all four companies as petitioners in the consolidated proceeding.
• IPR2025-00698 (Savant v. Feit, challenging the '539 patent) — Related proceeding on the second patent added to the N.D. Ohio case; Feit's own IPR filing confirms the N.D. Ohio action "has now been stayed pending the outcome of this IPR" (stay of 2025-04-01).
• Effect on litigation: The March 2025 institution drove the N.D. Ohio stay; the N.D. Tex. court refused a stay and pressed toward a January 2026 trial, which instead ended in the parties' joint without-prejudice dismissal (Jan 2026) — a resolution consistent with the parties resolving the Texas dispute while the IPR remained pending, rather than litigating validity to verdict.

---

Bottom line

Feit Electric's three infringement actions on the '678 patent produced: (1) a stay in N.D. Ohio (2025-04-01) pending the IPRs; (2) a stay denial and adverse-on-claims-but-not-indefiniteness Markman ruling in N.D. Tex. (2025), followed by a Rule 41(a)(1) joint dismissal without prejudice in January 2026 before the scheduled trial; and (3) an E.D. Ky. action whose current status I could not verify from public sources. The controlling proceeding now is the consolidated IPR2024-01357/IPR2025-00260, which remains pending after a good-cause extension, with a final written decision expected no earlier than late 2026 (possibly later), and which will in turn govern the stayed N.D. Ohio case.

Sourcing caveats: Exact answer/counterclaim dates for the E.D. Ky. and N.D. Tex. actions, the current E.D. Ky. docket, the precise FWD due date after the extension, and the conflicting report about a "second IPR" denial could not be fully verified from the search results; those points are flagged above. All other dates are drawn from the PTAB docket (PTACTS), the N.D. Tex. and N.D. Ohio orders, CourtListener (Doc. 81 Markman opinion), PatSnap's case summary, and Feit's press releases.

Important framing note

The docket you provided — IPR2024-01357 — is not a district court patent infringement action. It is an inter partes review before the PTAB, in which there are no "plaintiffs" and "defendants" in the traditional sense. The parties are:

• Petitioners (the challengers) — the parties your metadata lists as "Plaintiff(s)": Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting and LEDVANCE LLC (original petitioners, petition filed Aug. 26, 2024), with Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. later involved through the related/consolidated proceedings (IPR2025-00258, IPR2025-00260). The Board instituted trial on March 5, 2025 (IPR2024-01357, Paper 17).
• Patent Owner — Feit Electric Company, Inc. (Feit is actually the plaintiff in the three parallel district court infringement suits asserting the '678 patent: E.D. Ky. No. 5:24-cv-31, N.D. Ohio No. 1:24-cv-473, and N.D. Tex. No. 3:24-cv-1089).

Below I identify counsel of record for the petitioner side (the Savant/Ledvance group your metadata calls "plaintiffs"), then briefly flag Feit's counsel for completeness.

Counsel of record for Petitioners (Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting and LEDVANCE LLC) in IPR2024-01357

Source: Petitioners' Updated Mandatory Notices (filed Nov. 13, 2024, PTAB Paper), which designates lead and back-up counsel; also reflected in Feit's Sept. 16, 2024 Power of Attorney service list, the May 12, 2025 Joint Stipulation, and the Feb. 2026 LEAP hearing request.

Additional docket items confirming this team: "Power of Attorney of Savant Technologies LLC," "Power of Attorney of Ledvance LLC," and "Petitioners' Updated Mandatory Notices" (Jan. 27, 2025). I found no in-house counsel of record for Savant or Ledvance in the PTAB filings; all filings are signed by the Radulescu LLP team. Elong and Longstar, when they appear in the related IPRs (IPR2025-00258/00260), are represented by the same Radulescu LLP counsel.

For completeness: Feit Electric's counsel (the actual "plaintiff" in the underlying infringement suits, and Patent Owner in the IPR)

• Initially: Michael Pomeroy (lead), Alexis L. Ritzer and Scott Breedlove (back-up) — Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, Dallas, TX (per Feit's Sept. 16, 2024 Power of Attorney).
• Substituted (April–August 2025): Patent Owner moved to substitute Charles M. McMahon (Reg. No. 44,926) as lead and Thomas DaMario as back-up (authorization email of April 22, 2025); the Board's Aug. 4, 2025 order granted withdrawal of the prior substitute counsel. Feit's IPR service address later reflects Benesch (feitelectricipr@beneschlaw.com). A Cozen O'Connor address (mpomeroy@cozen.com) also appears in the April 2025 email chain, suggesting a firm move, but I could not verify that from the record.

Caveats

• I did not access PACER directly; counsel designations are sourced from PTAB filings available via USPTO PTACTS/PTAB docket mirrors (Mandatory Notices, POA, Joint Stipulation, LEAP request) and the Director's decision in the related IPR2025-00260.
• If you actually meant the district court infringement cases (where Feit Electric is the plaintiff), say so and I can pull the specific appearances per case — e.g., in N.D. Ohio No. 1:24-cv-00473, Feit is represented by Michael S. Weinstein, and Savant appeared through Ronald M. McMillan (docket entries 1, 6, 8).
• No filings are sealed that I identified; the IPR remains pending (trial instituted; oral hearing scheduled Feb. 26, 2026), so counsel of record could still change before final written decision.

Counsel of Record for Feit Electric Company, Inc. — IPR2024-01357

Important framing note: The case metadata you provided is an inter partes review (IPR2024-01357) before the PTAB, not a district-court infringement action. Feit Electric is the patent owner/respondent (the "defendant" per your metadata). Feit is, however, the plaintiff in the parallel district-court infringement suits against the petitioners (e.g., Feit Electric Co. v. Savant Techs. LLC, 1:24-cv-00473, N.D. Ohio; Feit Electric Co. v. Ledvance, LLC, 5:24-cv-00031, E.D. Ky.; Feit Electric Co. v. Elong Int'l USA, Inc., 3:24-cv-01089, N.D. Tex.). The IPR counsel of record below is sourced from USPTO PTACTS filings and the PTAB docket.

Current counsel of record (after the Board's Aug. 4, 2025 substitution order)

• Charles M. McMahon — Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP (Partner, Intellectual Property). Office: Cleveland, OH (Benesch HQ; he filed from the firm's IP practice).
  • Experience note: Lead IPR counsel for Feit across the related '678 patent proceedings (IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00260, IPR2025-00258); the motion to substitute states he was "involved with the related district court litigation and familiar with the issues surrounding the patent at issue." He was first added as back-up counsel via Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 21, May 2, 2025), then elevated to lead by the Board's Aug. 4, 2025 order granting Feit's Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel and Withdraw Counsel of Record (37 C.F.R. § 42.10; Paper 29).

• Thomas DaMario — Back-Up Counsel

  • Firm: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP (Cleveland, OH).
  • Experience note: Also involved in Feit's related district-court litigations; appointed back-up counsel in the same substitution order. A registered practitioner per the Board's order.

How the change happened (sourced): On Apr. 22, 2025, Benesch partner McMahon emailed the Board requesting authorization to substitute lead/back-up counsel in IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00260, and IPR2025-00258 (PTACTS document). Feit filed the formal motion on July 15, 2025 (Paper 29) to withdraw Michael Pomeroy, Alexis L. Ritzer, and Scott Breedlove, and to appoint McMahon as lead and DaMario as back-up. The Board granted the motion on Aug. 4, 2025 and ordered Feit to file updated Mandatory Notices naming McMahon/DaMario; the docket shows a subsequent "Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notice." Petitioners did not oppose.

Former counsel of record (withdrawn Aug. 2025)

• Michael Pomeroy — former Lead Counsel (Reg. No. 76,010)

  • Firm: Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75206.
  • Designated lead counsel in Feit's original Mandatory Notices (Sept. 16, 2024, Paper 4) and reappointed Jan. 7, 2025 in the consolidated IPR2025-00260. Note: a later PTACTS filing CCs him at a Cozen O'Connor address (mpomeroy@cozen.com), suggesting a firm move after his withdrawal — I could not confirm his current affiliation from the record.

• Alexis L. Ritzer — former Back-Up Counsel (Reg. No. 78,453) — Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, Dallas, TX. Withdrawn per the Aug. 4, 2025 order.

• Scott Breedlove — former Additional Back-Up Counsel (Reg. No. 46,577) — Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, Dallas, TX. Withdrawn per the Aug. 4, 2025 order.

In-house / other participants (with caveats)

• Nick Kliewer (Feit Electric, in-house): The petitioner-side deposition transcript in this IPR notes "Also on the line by Zoom is Nick Kliewer from Feit Electric itself," indicating in-house involvement. I found no docket entry designating him as counsel of record, so he should not be listed as such without further verification.
• Related district-court counsel (not IPR counsel of record): Email service lists in the record CC Benesch's Thomas Heaton (theaton@beneschlaw.com) and NILaw attorneys (smoore@nilawfirm.com; nnajera@nilawfirm.com) in connection with Feit's district-court litigations; I did not verify their formal appearances in those cases.

Verification caveats

• I confirmed counsel via official USPTO PTACTS filings (original Mandatory Notices, Paper 4; Updated Mandatory Notices, Paper 21; the substitution motion, Paper 29; the Board's Aug. 4, 2025 order) and the PTAB docket summary on IP Verse/Grey B.
• The docket shows the proceeding pending as of the latest entries (exhibits through Feb. 2026, panel change order Nov. 2025), and I found no evidence of any counsel change after the Aug. 2025 substitution. However, I could not access PACER for the parallel district-court dockets, so if you need Feit's district-court counsel of record (in the underlying infringement suits), that list would need separate verification — the IPR record alone shows Benesch (McMahon/DaMario/Heaton) and NILaw counsel active in the related litigation.