Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc. et al.

Case Overview & Background: Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., No. 2025-1058 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties and their roles

The appellant, Sentient Sensors, LLC, is a patent monetization/assertion vehicle rather than a conventional operating company. In the IPR and district court proceedings, Sentient identified itself and Management Sciences Inc. (MSI)—the Albuquerque, New Mexico-based company of sole inventor Kenneth Blemel—as real parties in interest (IPR2023-00195, Paper 4/27, Mandatory Notices). The patent at issue, developed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Air Force at Kirtland AFB with origins in the Strategic Defense Initiative program, protects instrumentation controllers that Blemel's organization developed (Compl. ¶¶ 12–14; Patent Owner's IPR Hearing Presentation, Slide on "The '177 Patent"). The appellees are the IPR petitioners and accused infringers: Xilinx, Inc., the FPGA/semiconductor maker (acquired by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., which completed its acquisition of Xilinx in early 2022), and AMD affiliate ATI Technologies ULC. The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,938,177 B1, "Multi-Chip Module Smart Controller," issued August 30, 2005 to Kenneth Blemel (note: the case metadata truncates this as "6938177," but every court and PTAB document identifies the '177 patent as 6,938,177). The claimed invention is an "instrument controller" combining a processor with a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) "configured to run independent processes in parallel with the processor," variable-bit-depth analog-to-digital converters, non-volatile and volatile memory, and an FPGA portion acting as a signal distribution matrix—technology aimed at rugged, space/defense-oriented monitoring and control systems.

Accused products and asserted claims

In the parallel district court action, Sentient alleged that Xilinx infringed at least claim 1 through its programmable-logic/processing products: Zynq-7000 and Zynq UltraScale+ families, Zynq-based Kria products, Versal products, and associated development kits—i.e., Xilinx's ARM-processor-plus-FPGA system-on-chip/adaptive-computing lines (Compl. ¶ 24, Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 22-cv-00173 (D. Del. filed Feb. 8, 2022)). Xilinx, AMD, and ATI responded by petitioning for inter partes review of claims 1–5, 10–15, and 17–20 on obviousness grounds over a combination led by Lyke (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,399, the AIC prior art the '177 patent purported to improve) plus Dehkordi, Frantz, and Faura, with Krasner, Christian, and Steele supporting dependent-claim grounds (IPR2023-00195, FWD Paper 36). The Board instituted on September 20, 2023; after a June 26, 2024 hearing, it issued its Final Written Decision on September 18, 2024, holding every challenged claim unpatentable as obvious under § 103. The dispositive dispute was claim construction of the "independent processes in parallel" limitation—Sentient urging that the FPGA processes must be independent both from each other and from the processor's processes (and computational), versus Xilinx's plain-meaning "separate" reading, with the Board adopting the "either type" interpretation and finding the prior art satisfied it under either view (CourtListener oral-argument transcript; FWD). The related D. Del. infringement case—assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika and stayed pending the IPR—was the underlying commercial dispute; Sentient's prior suits on the same patent against National Instruments, Microsemi, and Cypress Semiconductor were all previously concluded, several by stipulated dismissal with prejudice (FWD at § I.C, listing related matters).

Procedural posture, outcome, and significance

Sentient appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit on October 8, 2024 (notice of appeal), with the appeal docketed October 15, 2024 as No. 2025-1058—an appeal from the PTAB over which the Federal Circuit has exclusive statutory jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141–144 (UniCourt docket; Justia). Oral argument was heard April 8, 2026, before Judges Chen, Cunningham, and Stark, with Andrew Cochran (Cahill Gordon & Reindel) arguing for Sentient and Jeffrey Shneidman (Fish & Richardson) for Xilinx/AMD/ATI. On April 10, 2026, the panel entered a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment summarily AFFIRMING the Board's obviousness decision (Doc. 49, Sentient Sensors LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 2025-1058 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2026); Law360, Apr. 10, 2026: Federal Circuit "won't revive claims" in a "military instruments monitoring patent"). This resolves the previously unconfirmed disposition flagged in the case summary—the appeal was lost, the PTAB's invalidation stands, and Sentient's remaining Delaware infringement case (stayed throughout) is left without a surviving asserted patent. The case is notable on several fronts: (1) it represents the culmination of an IPR-driven validity attack on a single, government-funded patent that Sentient/Blemel entities had asserted serially against semiconductor and instrumentation companies (National Instruments, Microsemi, Cypress, and finally Xilinx—an NPE-style enforcement pattern with MSI as real party in interest); (2) had the claims survived, they could have reached Xilinx's flagship Zynq/Versal processor-plus-FPGA product lines, giving the case outsized market significance in the adaptive-computing space; and (3) the summary Rule 36 affirmance leaves no precedential Federal Circuit guidance on the "independent processes in parallel" claim-construction question, meaning the Board's construction—and the estoppel consequences for the dismissed-with-prejudice related litigations—stand without appellate elaboration. A caveat: most substantive filings (complaint, FWD, mandatory notices) were sourced through the PTAB's PTACTS system, Justia, and the Federal Circuit's own opinion portal; PACER-confirmed post-judgment status of the stayed D. Del. case (e.g., formal dismissal entries after the April 2026 affirmance) was not independently verified as of this writing.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc. et al. (the '177 patent dispute)

This dispute unfolded across three fora in sequence: (1) D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN (infringement), (2) IPR2023-00195 before the PTAB (validity), and (3) Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1058 (appeal of the IPR). Below is the chronological development, with sources identified.

---

I. District court filing and initial pleadings (2022)

• 2022-02-08 — Sentient Sensors, LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement with jury demand against Xilinx, Inc. in D. Del. (D.I. 1), asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,938,177 B1 ("Multi-Chip Module Smart Controller") against Xilinx's processor-plus-FPGA product lines (D. Del. docket via PTACTS; Justia docket; IPWatchdog, Feb. 17, 2022 Patent Filings Roundup listing "1:22-cv-00173 ... Sentient Sensors LLC v. Xilinx Incorporated ... 6938177"). Case assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika on 2022-02-16.
• 2022-02-08/09 — Summons issued (D.I. 4); Xilinx served 2022-02-09 (D.I. 5).
• 2022-03-03 — Stipulation extending Xilinx's answer deadline to 2022-04-01 (D.I. 8); appearances by Richards, Layton & Finger (Cottrell, Ewing) and Fish & Richardson/Robins Kaplan teams followed (D.I. 6–7, 9).

Caveat: The case metadata lists AMD and ATI Technologies ULC as defendants, but the original complaint (D.I. 1) named only Xilinx, Inc. The Federal Circuit and IPR captions list Xilinx, Advanced Micro Devices, and ATI Technologies ULC as petitioners/appellees. I found no direct docket evidence of an amended complaint adding AMD/ATI to the district court case; that step is plausible but unconfirmed.

---

II. Pre-trial motion of substance: Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

• 2022-04-01 — Xilinx moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 10, opening brief D.I. 11), accompanied by a Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Advanced Micro Devices as an affiliate (D.I. 12). Sentient opposed; Xilinx replied on 2022-05-09 (D.I. 19).
• 2022-10-26 — Motion hearing before Judge Noreika: the motion to dismiss was DENIED; the minute entry states the hearing transcript "shall serve as the Court's ruling" (D.I. 26; minute entry 2022-10-26).
• 2022-11-09 — Xilinx filed its Answer to the complaint with jury demand (D.I. 28). No counterclaims appear in the accessible docket text; I have no source confirming or excluding counterclaims. Judge Noreika also issued an oral order directing the parties to propose scheduling-order dates (D.I. 29).

---

III. Parallel PTAB IPR — IPR2023-00195 (2023–2024) and its effect on the litigation

• 2023-02-03 — Xilinx (together with AMD and ATI Technologies ULC per the appellate caption) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–5, 10–15, and 17–20 of the '177 patent on § 103 grounds led by the Lyke '399 patent plus Dehkordi, Frantz, and Faura, with Krasner, Christian, and Steele supporting dependent claims (Grounds 1–5) (IPR2023-00195, Paper 2).
• 2023-02-03 — In a letter to the district court (filed in the IPR record), Xilinx gave the standard Sotera-type stipulation: if the PTAB instituted, Xilinx would not pursue the same instituted grounds (or grounds formed solely of the same printed publications) in the D. Del. litigation (Ex. letter dated 2023-02-03).
• 2023-06-23 — Sentient filed its Preliminary Response (Paper 6) with exhibits including the USAF CRADA (Ex. 2001) and prosecution-history materials (Ex. 2006–2014).
• 2023-09-20 — The Board instituted review on all challenged claims (Paper 12).
• 2023-10 to 2024-03 — Merits phase: Patent Owner Response (Paper 18, filed 2023-12-21) with the John Peck declaration (Ex. 2020); discovery milestone: Petitioner noticed and took the deposition of Sentient's expert John Peck (Paper 19, 2024-02-26; transcript Ex. 1065, produced 2024-03-21), while petitioner served the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Stanley Shanfield (Ex. 1050, 2024-03-21) and Reply (Paper 21, 2024-03-21); Sentient sur-replied (Paper 24).
• 2024-06-26 — Oral hearing before the Board (Paper 35). The dispositive dispute was claim construction of the "independent processes in parallel" limitation: Sentient argued the FPGA processes must be independent both from each other and from the processor's processes (and computational); Xilinx urged plain-meaning "separate."
• 2024-09-18 — Final Written Decision (Paper 36): the Board adopted Xilinx's construction (processes independent of "either type"), rejected Sentient's "both types + computational" construction, found Sentient had abandoned its clock/control-based independence argument, and held every challenged claim (1–5, 10–15, 17–20) unpatentable as obvious under Lyke/Dehkordi/Frantz/Faura and the secondary references.

Effect on the district court litigation: The D. Del. infringement action (which had not yet reached Markman—the parties had exchanged proposed constructions but no claim construction ruling had issued) was stayed pending the IPR. The FWD's related-matters section still listed the D. Del. case as "(active)" as of September 2024 (FWD § I.C), consistent with a stay rather than dismissal. Caveat: I could not retrieve the specific stay order/date from the D. Del. docket; the stay is documented contextually (see also Patent Owner's IPR Response noting the parallel district court constructions were "not yet briefed, with no ruling yet on the merits").

---

IV. Federal Circuit appeal — No. 2025-1058 (2024–2026)

• 2024-10-08 — Sentient filed its notice of appeal from the FWD (IPR Paper 37; Patexia IPR document list).
• 2024-10-15 — Appeal docketed at the Federal Circuit as No. 2025-1058 (metadata; Justia/UniCourt).
• 2026-04-08 — Oral argument before Judges Chen, Cunningham, and Stark; Andrew Cochran (Cahill Gordon & Reindel) argued for Sentient and Jeffrey Shneidman (Fish & Richardson) for Xilinx/AMD/ATI (CourtListener argument audio/transcript; CAFC oral-argument posting). The argument centered on whether the Board erred in construing "independent processes" as "either type" rather than "both types," and on waiver of the clock/control argument.
• 2026-04-10 — The panel entered a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment summarily AFFIRMING the Board (Doc. 49; CAFC opinion portal PDF; Justia; Law360, Apr. 10, 2026: Federal Circuit "won't revive claims"). Mandate/rehearing activity after April 10, 2026 was not confirmed by my searches.

---

V. Claim construction (Markman) outcome

• District court: The case never reached a Markman ruling—it was stayed while the IPR proceeded (and the FWD found the prior art satisfied the limitation under either party's construction, which obviated the need for the court to resolve the issue).
• PTAB/Federal Circuit (effectively dispositive): The Board construed "independent processes" as processes independent from each other or from the processor's processes (i.e., "either type," plain-meaning "separate"), rejecting Sentient's requirement that FPGA processes be independent both ways and computational (FWD Paper 36; oral-argument transcript). The Rule 36 affirmance (2026-04-10) leaves that construction standing with no precedential appellate guidance.

---

VI. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

• None occurred. Sentient demanded a jury in the D. Del. complaint, but the case was stayed pending the IPR, the IPR invalidated all asserted claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. There was therefore no trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee determination in this case.

---

VII. Settlement, dismissal, judgment — final disposition / present posture

• No settlement was reached. The operative "merits" judgment is the PTAB's Final Written Decision (2024-09-18) holding all challenged claims unpatentable, now final as a result of the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance (2026-04-10).
• The D. Del. infringement action—left with no surviving asserted patent—was still shown as "active"/stayed as of the FWD (Sept. 2024). Caveat (as flagged in the prior case summary): I could not independently verify a formal post-affirmance dismissal/termination entry in the D. Del. case (e.g., stipulated dismissal or closing order after April 2026), so the precise current docket state of 1:22-cv-00173-MN remains unconfirmed.
• Related litigation context (relevant to "final disposition" and estoppel): Sentient/Blemel entities' earlier suits on the same patent—Blemel Techs. v. National Instruments (E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex.), Sentient v. Microsemi (E.D. Tex.), and Sentient v. Cypress (D. Del.)—were all terminated, several by stipulated dismissal with prejudice (FWD § I.C). The Sotera-type stipulation Xilinx gave in 2023-02-03 governs the estoppel scope in the stayed D. Del. case.

---

VIII. Strategic significance and bottom line

• Filing → answer path: Complaint (2022-02-08) → Rule 12(b)(6) motion denied (2022-10-26) → answer (2022-11-09) → case stayed pending IPR.
• The IPR was the case-determinative proceeding: instituted 2023-09-20, tried on the merits before the Board (hearing 2024-06-26), all claims invalidated 2024-09-18.
• Appeal outcome (2026-04-10): summary affirmance under Fed. Cir. R. 36—Xilinx/AMD/ATI prevailed; Sentient's '177 patent claims are dead, and the Delaware infringement case is left without a viable asserted patent.
• The only matters I could not source directly were: (a) the exact D. Del. stay-order date, (b) any amended complaint adding AMD/ATI in the district court, and (c) the post-affirmance formal termination of the stayed D. Del. case—all are flagged as unconfirmed rather than asserted.

Counsel of Record — Sentient Sensors, LLC (plaintiff/patent owner/appellant)

A threshold note on scope: the metadata caption (Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., No. 25-1058) is the Federal Circuit appeal of the IPR. The actual patent infringement case in which Sentient is the plaintiff is the stayed district court action Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN (D. Del., filed Feb. 8, 2022, Judge Maryellen Noreika). Counsel of record below are set out first, followed by the overlapping counsel who appeared for Sentient as patent owner in IPR2023-00195 and as appellant in the Federal Circuit, since the docket/PTAB filings show the same team in each forum. One caveat: the original Delaware complaint named only Xilinx Inc. as defendant; I found no PACER-confirmed amended complaint adding AMD/ATI as defendants, even though AMD and ATI Technologies ULC were co-petitioners in the IPR and are appellees on appeal.

District of Delaware plaintiff's counsel (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00173-MN)

Per the CM/ECF attorney roster embedded in the PTAB's PTACTS filing (docket snapshot retrieved Jan. 14, 2023) and the Justia docket:

1. Brian E. Farnan — Lead local (Delaware) counsel — Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE. Lead attorney of record and attorney to be noticed for Sentient; well-known Delaware IP litigation boutique and frequent local counsel for patent plaintiffs in D. Del.
2. Michael J. Farnan — Local counsel (attorney to be noticed) — Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE. Handled case-initiation mechanics (e.g., executed return of summons, Filing 5, D. Del. docket).
3. Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. — Pro hac vice / lead trial counsel — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, 32 Old Slip, New York, NY (USPTO Reg. No. 37,324). The senior Sentient-side lawyer across the district case and IPR; served as Patent Owner's lead counsel in IPR2023-00195 and was on the Federal Circuit brief (listed on the April 10, 2026 Rule 36 judgment as also representing appellant).
4. Andrew J. Cochran — Pro hac vice (argued the Federal Circuit appeal) — appeared on the D. Del. docket with a King & Spalding email (acochran@kslaw.com) at the time of the district-court appearance; by the IPR (May 2024 mandatory notices) and the 2026 appeal he was at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY (Reg. No. 69,620). He argued Sentient's position before Judges Chen, Cunningham, and Stark on April 8, 2026 (Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment; CourtListener oral-argument audio).
5. John C. Stellabotte — Pro hac vice — Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Fl., New York, NY (Reg. No. 47,969). Backup counsel for Patent Owner in the IPR and pro hac vice on the Delaware docket.
6. Scott H. Kaliko — Pro hac vice — Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York, NY (skaliko@egsllp.com), per the D. Del. roster in the PTACTS snapshot.

IPR2023-00195 — Patent Owner counsel (same client, parallel proceeding)

Sentient's May 3, 2024 Mandatory Notices (Paper filed in IPR2023-00195, PTACTS) designate:

• Lead counsel: Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr., Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY.
• Backup counsel: Andrew J. Cochran, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY, and John C. Stellabotte, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York, NY.

Federal Circuit (No. 25-1058) — appellant's counsel

Per the April 10, 2026 judgment (Justia/CAFC opinion portal): Andrew Cochran, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant Sentient; also represented by Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. UniCourt's appeal docket lists Flattmann as the appellant attorney of record. Note that Sentient is technically the appellant (not plaintiff) in this forum because the appeal is from the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141–144.

Unverified / flag for PACER confirmation

• An attorney database (ExParte) associates Michael Shanahan of YK Law LLP with this D. Del. case as patent-owner counsel, but he does not appear in the CM/ECF roster snapshot I retrieved; his precise role (if any) is unconfirmed and should be checked against the live PACER docket.
• I could not independently verify (from PACER) whether any Cahill attorneys were added/withdrawn after the April 2026 affirmance (e.g., on a final dismissal/stipulation in the stayed D. Del. case), or whether Richards Layton & Finger's termination entries (4/26/2022) affected only the defendants (they did — Cottrell/Ewing represented Xilinx). No filings are sealed that I am aware of, but the post-judgment D. Del. docket was not PACER-verified as of this writing.

Bottom line: For the infringement case proper, Sentient Sensors, LLC's counsel of record is the Farnan LLP (Wilmington) + Cahill Gordon & Reindel (NY) + Ellenoff Grossman & Schole (NY) combination — Brian E. Farnan as lead local counsel; Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. as lead/pro hac vice; Andrew J. Cochran, John C. Stellabotte, and Scott H. Kaliko as additional pro hac vice counsel — with Cochran and Flattmann carrying the matter through the IPR and Federal Circuit appeal.

I have the Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment with appellee counsel. Now let me pin down the IPR petition counsel and the D. Del. district court appearances for Xilinx/AMD.

Counsel of Record for Defendants (Xilinx, AMD, ATI Technologies ULC)

A single national team from Fish & Richardson P.C. represented the defendants across all three fora (D. Del. infringement action → IPR2023-00195 → Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1058), with Delaware local counsel layered on in the district court. One caveat up front: the original district-court complaint named only Xilinx, Inc. as defendant (D. Del. D.I. 1); AMD and ATI Technologies ULC first appear as co-petitioners in the IPR (Petition, Paper 2) and as appellees on appeal, so their "defendant-side" counsel is the same F&R team. I found no evidence of separate counsel for AMD or ATI.

---

Federal Circuit — No. 2025-1058 (appeal of the IPR; appellees Xilinx/AMD/ATI)

Per the April 10, 2026 Rule 36 judgment (CAFC opinion portal PDF; Justia):

---

PTAB — IPR2023-00195 (petitioners Xilinx, AMD, ATI Technologies ULC)

Counsel of record for petitioners were Fish & Richardson (Final Written Decision, Paper 36, "For PETITIONER" block; Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, Apr. 3, 2023, certificate of service listing petitioner's counsel):

• David M. Hoffman (Reg. No. 54,174) — lead of the petitioner team as listed on the FWD's counsel block (hoffman@fr.com listed first). I could not pull the Petition's (Paper 2) signature page itself to confirm the formal "lead/back-up" designation, so this ordering-based inference is flagged, not asserted.
• Jeffrey A. Shneidman — pro hac vice admitted Feb. 2024 (Paper 20), in time for the merits phase and June 26, 2024 hearing; later argued the Federal Circuit appeal.
• Kenneth W. Darby Jr. (Reg. No. 65,068)
• Craig A. Deutsch (Reg. No. 69,264) — F&R counsel on the petition and reply filings.

(Expert: Dr. Stanley Shanfield served as petitioner's technical declarant, Exs. 1002/1050 — not counsel.)

---

District Court — Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN (D. Del.)

From the D. Del. docket (PACER-derived snapshot retrieved Jan. 14, 2023, in the IPR record; Justia docket D.Del. 1:22cv00173):

Original local counsel — Richards, Layton & Finger (withdrew):

• Frederick L. Cottrell III — filed the dispositive Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (D.I. 10–11, Apr. 1, 2022) and the Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying AMD as an affiliate (D.I. 12). RLF litigation-department chair and perennially ranked among Delaware's top IP litigators (IAM Patent 1000; rlf.com). Terminated as counsel April 26, 2022 (docket notation).
• Alexandra M. Ewing (RLF, Wilmington) — notice of appearance Mar. 3, 2022 (D.I. 7); also terminated Apr. 26, 2022.

Substituted/current local counsel — Fish & Richardson P.C. (Wilmington office, 222 Delaware Ave.):

• Warren K. Mabey Jr. — lead local counsel on the D. Del. docket ("LEAD ATTORNEY; ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED"); F&R Delaware resident partner who handled local filings after the RLF withdrawal.

Pro hac vice national trial team (F&R; admitted by Judge Noreika):

• Aaron R. Fahrenkrog, Emily J. Tremblay, Mary Pheng, William R. Jones — admitted pro hac vice Mar. 9–11, 2022 (D.I. 9 and orders; docket entries).
• David M. Hoffman and Jeffrey A. Shneidman — also PHV-listed on the D. Del. docket (Hoffman's email appears on the retrieved docket's attorney table), tying the district-court team to the IPR/appeal team above.

---

In-house counsel

None identified. I found no public appearance by AMD/Xilinx in-house counsel in the accessible docket entries, IPR papers, or the CAFC opinion. If in-house counsel appeared only in sealed/limited filings, that is not visible in the sources retrieved.

---

Key sourcing notes / gaps

• Primary sources used: CAFC Rule 36 judgment PDF (cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1058…); IPR2023-00195 Final Written Decision (Paper 36, posted via bannerwitcoff.com); PTAB PTACTS records (Patent Owner Mandatory Notices service certificate, Apr. 3, 2023); D. Del. docket transcript of 1:22-cv-00173-MN (retrieved Jan. 14, 2023, embedded in IPR exhibit); Justia docket for 1:22-cv-00173; Patexia IPR document list (Papers 20, 25–27); F&R attorney bio for Darby; RLF firm announcements for Cottrell.
• Unconfirmed items flagged above: (1) the exact lead/back-up designation in the IPR Petition (Paper 2) — I relied on the FWD's counsel-block ordering; (2) which F&R attorney argued the PTAB hearing on June 26, 2024 (the transcript, Paper 35, was not retrieved); (3) whether AMD/ATI ever appeared as named defendants in the district court (the docket shows only Xilinx as defendant, with AMD disclosed as an affiliate); (4) post-April 2026 counsel entries, if any, after the D. Del. case was left claim-less by the affirmance.