Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc. et al.

Skysong Innovations, LLC, the exclusive intellectual property management and technology transfer organization for Arizona State University (ASU), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against cybersecurity technology companies CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.. Skysong Innovations is a private nonprofit entity focused on commercializing discoveries and inventions from ASU. CrowdStrike, based in Austin, Texas, is an operating company specializing in cloud-based security solutions, offering endpoint security, threat intelligence, and cyberattack response services through its Falcon platform. The complaint alleges that CrowdStrike's Falcon Platform infringes the asserted patents. While the prompt specifically lists U.S. Patent No. 11,275,900, which generally describes systems and methods for automatically assigning labels to discussion topics in online forums on the dark web, the litigation initially involved additional patents.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 7:25-cv-00040, filed in the Midland-Odessa Division and presided over by District Judge David Counts and Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. The Western District of Texas gained significant prominence as a patent litigation venue due to its fast-paced dockets and judges experienced in patent law; however, a district-wide random assignment system for patent cases was implemented in July 2022, altering the previous concentration of cases before a single judge. In a notable procedural development, Magistrate Judge Gilliland has recommended dismissing some of Skysong's claims, specifically those related to pre-suit inducement and pre-suit and post-suit willful infringement, citing insufficient allegations.

This case is notable for several reasons, including the involvement of a university tech transfer office, Skysong Innovations, in asserting intellectual property against a major cybersecurity firm. Such assertions by university-linked entities highlight a growing trend in patent litigation. Furthermore, parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings are underway at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For instance, CrowdStrike filed IPR2025-01400 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,574,721 B2, another patent involved in the broader litigation, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. The interplay between the district court proceedings and PTAB challenges is a key strategic aspect in patent disputes, particularly in high-stakes technology areas like cybersecurity, where CrowdStrike is a significant market leader.

The patent infringement litigation Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. (7:25-cv-00040) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas is currently active, with several key developments since its filing in early 2025.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-01-31: Skysong Innovations, LLC filed a complaint against CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,313,385; 11,275,900; 11,775,831; and 11,892,897.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-10-09: CrowdStrike filed a Motion to Transfer the case (Dkt. 61). This motion remains pending and is anticipated to be resolved before any Markman hearing.
• A magistrate judge recommended dismissing some of Skysong's claims related to pre-suit inducement and willful infringement. Specific details regarding the date of this recommendation and the district court's subsequent ruling are not immediately available in the provided search results.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Markman hearing has not yet been conducted. According to the court's standard order for patent cases, any motion to transfer will be resolved before the Markman hearing. A projected Markman hearing date is February 1, 2027.

Discovery Milestones:

• A scheduling order (Dkt. 55) has been issued in the case.
• The projected deadline for the close of fact discovery is August 26, 2026.
• The deadline for dispositive motions and Daubert motions is projected for November 4, 2026.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case is in its early pre-trial stages, and no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred. A pretrial conference is projected for November 4, 2026.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active and no final disposition, such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment, has been reached.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
CrowdStrike has initiated multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):

• IPR2025-01170 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,892,897): Petition filed on July 25, 2025. The notice of filing date was accorded on August 8, 2025. The projected institution date was February 8, 2026, with a projected final written decision by February 8, 2027.
• IPR2025-01397 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,313,385): Petition filed on August 15, 2025. The notice of filing date was accorded on August 19, 2025. This IPR was terminated on December 11, 2025, with a status of "Discretionary Denial," meaning the PTAB declined to institute the review.
• IPR2025-01398 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,275,900): Petition filed on August 25, 2025. The notice of filing date was accorded on August 29, 2025. The projected institution date was February 28, 2026, with a projected final written decision by February 28, 2027.
• IPR2025-01400 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,574,721): Petition filed on September 12, 2025. The notice of filing date was accorded on September 23, 2025. The projected institution date was March 23, 2026, with a projected final written decision by March 23, 2027.
• IPR2025-01399 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,775,831): Petition filed on September 26, 2025. The notice of filing date was accorded on October 7, 2025. The projected institution date was April 7, 2026, with a projected final written decision by April 7, 2027.

The discretionary denial of IPR2025-01397 for U.S. Patent No. 10,313,385 is a significant outcome, as it means this particular patent will not undergo PTAB review and remains in play in the district court litigation without that challenge. The status of the other IPRs' institution decisions (projected for early 2026) would be the next critical development.

Skysong Innovations, LLC is represented by both external counsel and internal legal staff in the patent infringement case against CrowdStrike, Inc. et al..

External Counsel:

• Cecil E. Key

  • Role: Likely lead or primary counsel.
  • Firm: Key Kesan Dallmann PLLC, Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Key Kesan Dallmann PLLC filed the complaints for Skysong in this case and a related one against Fortinet. Cecil E. Key is listed on the docket as an attorney for Skysong Innovations, LLC.

• Jay P. Kesan

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Key Kesan Dallmann PLLC, Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Jay P. Kesan is listed on the docket as an attorney for Skysong Innovations, LLC. He is also noted in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) related to Skysong's patent as an attorney for Skysong Innovations LLC.

In-House Counsel (Skysong Innovations, LLC):

• Todd Glenn, J.D.

  • Role: General Counsel
  • Firm: Skysong Innovations, LLC (In-house)
  • Experience Note: Todd Glenn joined Skysong Innovations in 2013 and is responsible for contractual, litigation, intellectual property, corporate governance, and compliance matters. He has prior experience at local law firms supporting litigation and intellectual property matters involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and licensing.

• Mason McCarty, J.D.

  • Role: Assistant General Counsel
  • Firm: Skysong Innovations, LLC (In-house)
  • Experience Note: Mason McCarty joined Skysong Innovations in 2022. His responsibilities include licensing and technology transactions, compliance, complex commercial contracts, litigation, and startup development. He has an intellectual property emphasis from law school and was a named inventor on five U.S. patents.

I have gathered substantial information about the counsel of record for CrowdStrike.

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP has Halima S. Ndai as an attorney of record.
Morrison & Foerster LLP has several attorneys, and Nishi A. Tavernier has been linked to the case in previous searches. Brian Nash, a co-chair of Morrison & Foerster's global IP Litigation Group, specializes in Western District of Texas patent litigation.

I need to:

1. Explicitly confirm if Nishi A. Tavernier is still with Morrison & Foerster LLP and her current office location. The previous search found a profile for her at Robins Kaplan LLP [Previous_snippet: 19], so this needs clarification.
2. Identify any other specific attorneys from Morrison & Foerster LLP who have entered an appearance in Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. (7:25-cv-00040). While general firm information about their W.D. Texas practice is good, named individuals are better.
3. Confirm if Halima S. Ndai is lead or local counsel, or another role.
4. Conclusively state if any in-house counsel have formally appeared, or if CrowdStrike is relying solely on outside counsel.

I'll perform targeted searches to resolve these points.I have successfully identified multiple attorneys and their firms representing CrowdStrike.

For Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Britton F. Davis, Halima Shukri Ndai, Alfonso Garcia Chan, Matthew David Wood, and Christopher C. Campbell are listed as representing the defendant. Halima S. Ndai is an Associate in the Washington, D.C. office, focusing on IP litigation, including in the Western District of Texas, with experience in software and security.

For Morrison & Foerster LLP, Brian Christopher Nash, Bita Rahebi, Nishi A. Tavernier, Richard S.J. Hung, Zachary B. Quinlan, Alex S. Yap, Catherine Jane Canby, and W. Stella Mao are listed as representing the defendant. Nishi A. Tavernier's profile still appears on Robins Kaplan LLP's website, while PacerMonitor lists her with Morrison & Foerster LLP in this case. Given the PacerMonitor listing for this specific case, it's highly probable she was with Morrison & Foerster LLP at the time of her appearance in this case. Brian Christopher Nash is a co-chair of Morrison & Foerster's global IP Litigation Group and specializes in complex patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. Morrison & Foerster has an Austin office [Previous_snippet: 3 in step 3].

There is no indication in the search results that any in-house counsel for CrowdStrike have formally appeared in this specific case (7:25-cv-00040) by filing a notice of appearance. CrowdStrike's in-house legal team generally manages litigation and outside counsel, but specific appearances for this case are not found.

I will consolidate this information into the final answer.CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. are represented by counsel from two prominent law firms: Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP and Morrison & Foerster LLP. While CrowdStrike has an in-house legal team that manages litigation, there is no public record of specific in-house counsel formally appearing on the docket for this case.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel of record for the defendants:

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

• Britton F. Davis

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in New York and Washington, D.C.).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Cahill's IP litigation practice handles patent litigation in district courts across the country, including the Western District of Texas.

• Halima Shukri Ndai

  • Role: Counsel of record, Associate.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Focuses on IP litigation matters, including in the Western District of Texas, with experience in software and security technologies.

• Alfonso Garcia Chan

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in New York and Washington, D.C.).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Cahill's IP litigation practice handles patent litigation in various industries including telecommunications, semiconductors, and computer systems and software.

• Matthew David Wood

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cahill Gordon & Reindel, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in New York and Washington, D.C.).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Cahill's intellectual property litigators represent clients across diverse industries in patent litigation.

• Christopher C. Campbell

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in New York and Washington, D.C.).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Cahill's litigation team handles matters with IP implications in district courts and appellate courts.

Morrison & Foerster LLP

• Brian Christopher Nash

  • Role: Counsel of record, Co-chair of the firm's global IP Litigation Group.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Specialist in complex patent litigation, with a particular focus on disputes in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• Bita Rahebi

  • Role: Counsel of record, Co-chair of the firm's global IP Litigation Group.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Key first-chair patent litigator for leading technology companies.

• Nishi A. Tavernier

  • Role: Counsel of record, Patent Attorney.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP (appears to have been with Morrison & Foerster LLP for this case, though a current profile also exists for Robins Kaplan LLP, New York, NY).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Has represented clients in various intellectual property disputes, including patent and trade secret matters, with appearances before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and federal district courts, and experience working on patent office action responses and inter partes review petitions. Notable past cases include defending Monolithic Power Systems against patent infringement claims in the Western District of Texas and representing Arashi Vision Inc. against GoPro.

• Richard S.J. Hung

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Recognized as a brilliant strategist with strong business acumen, advising on litigation strategies and guiding clients through complex competitive landscapes.

• Zachary B. Quinlan

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in the US, Asia, and Europe).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Morrison & Foerster's IP litigators handle high-profile and complex patent disputes.

• Alex S. Yap

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in the US, Asia, and Europe).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: The firm represents clients in their highest-profile and most complex patent disputes in the tech, life sciences, and consumer products industries.

• Catherine Jane Canby

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison Foerster, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in the US, Asia, and Europe).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Morrison & Foerster's patent litigators are known for their superb knowledge of patent law and experience in high-volume patent venues.

• W. Stella Mao

  • Role: Counsel of record.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has offices in the US, Asia, and Europe).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: The firm has litigated over 300 patent disputes in active district courts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.