Sol IP, LLC v. [defendant — unconfirmed]

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Important finding: the N.D. Cal. docket appears to be a subpoena-enforcement ancillary action, not a direct infringement suit. Let me dig deeper.

Case Overview — Sol IP, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 5:20-cv-00399 (N.D. Cal.)

Important correction to the case metadata. The N.D. Cal. docket is not a patent infringement suit by Sol IP against a product maker. Docket 5:20-cv-00399 is captioned Sol IP LLC v. Intel Corporation and its sole entry — Docket No. 1, filed January 20, 2020 — is styled "COMPLAINT MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA ON INTEL CORPORATION," with attachments consisting of a declaration (Declaration of Eliza Finley) and Exhibits A–C, filed by Sol IP's counsel Oleg Elkhunovich. That framing indicates an ancillary third-party discovery/enforcement proceeding — Sol IP seeking to compel Intel, a non-party, to comply with a subpoena — rather than a merits infringement case. The patent docket tag on Google Patents litigation panel reflects that the underlying dispute concerns US 9,900,067, but "Intel Corporation" is a third party here, not an accused infringer. (Justia docket; UniCourt) The N.D. Cal. judge of record is not confirmed in the sources I could retrieve; the docket as last retrieved showed only the single filing.

The parties and the real litigation. Sol IP, LLC is a patent-assertion entity (the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies its patents as "Acquired patents"). Unified Patents describes the '067 patent as "owned by ETRI" — the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, a South Korean government-funded research institute — "and asserted by Sol IP, LLC, an NPE." The actual infringement campaign began in E.D. Tex. in 2018 with Sol IP v. AT&T Mobility (2:18-cv-00526), Sol IP v. Sprint (2:18-cv-00527), and Sol IP v. Verizon (2:18-cv-00528), which were consolidated and litigated with named mediators (including former Judge David Folsom). The N.D. Cal. and S.D. Cal. subpoena actions were filed the same day — January 20, 2020 — against third-party chipset/modem suppliers Intel and Qualcomm respectively, plainly to obtain technical discovery about the accused wireless equipment. In the S.D. Cal. counterpart, Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., No. 3:20-cv-00137 (Judge Cynthia Bashant), Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America intervened, and Sol IP voluntarily withdrew its motion to compel on February 11, 2020, prompting the court to close the case. If the N.D. Cal. Intel matter followed the same track, it was likely disposed of quickly on withdrawal, though I could not confirm the N.D. Cal. termination entry from the sources available.

Patents and technology. The asserted patent is US 9,900,067 B2, "Transmitting and Receiving Data in a MIMO System" — per Unified Patents' PATROLL description, it covers wireless data transmission in a MIMO/WLAN system using variable channel bandwidths, with the core idea that control/signal fields are repeated or structured differently depending on the frequency band in use, to improve efficiency and reliability. Its effective priority runs to roughly March 12, 2010, and it issued February 20, 2018. The '067 patent has been asserted alongside related Sol IP/ETRI-family patents — US 10,090,894 (pleaded with the '067 in Sol IP's August 2026 complaints) and, in earlier campaigns, US 9,432,940, US 9,603,174, and US 8,971,168. Ericsson challenged two of those family members at the PTAB in December 2019 (Ericsson, Inc. v. Sol IP, LLC, IPR2020-00243 on the '168 patent and IPR2020-00251 on the '174 patent), a signal that the family's validity has been contested from the outset.

Why it's notable. Three things. First, venue strategy: Sol IP originally filed in E.D. Tex. and then pursued third-party discovery on the West Coast through ancillary subpoena actions in N.D. Cal. and S.D. Cal. — a common NPE pattern for reaching component suppliers (Qualcomm, Intel) whose chips sit inside carrier- and OEM-branded products. Second, the target set has shifted from carriers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon) to chipset/device makers (Qualcomm, 6:21-cv-00270) and now to automakers — Ford (2:22-cv-00097), VinFast (2:24-cv-05959), and, in a fresh August 28, 2026 wave, Volkswagen AG (2:26-cv-00766, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap) and Honda (2:26-cv-00764) — reflecting the connected-vehicle/telematics Wi-Fi and cellular-data market as the current monetization frontier. Third, the '067 patent is under active, crowd-sourced invalidity attack right now: Unified Patents opened a PATROLL prior-art contest on at least claim 38 of US 9,900,067 on September 14, 2026 (closing October 18, 2026, $2,000 prize), which suggests the 2026 automaker filings are being met with coordinated defensive challenges rather than one-off defense.

Sourcing caveats. The N.D. Cal. case number, filing date, title, counsel (Elkhunovich), and the subpoena-motion nature of Docket No. 1 are well sourced (Justia/UniCourt dockets and the E.D. Tex./S.D. Cal. parallel filings). The characterization of the N.D. Cal. action as ancillary discovery rather than an infringement complaint is an inference strongly supported by the docket-entry text and the identical-day S.D. Cal. Qualcomm subpoena action, but the full complaint PDF was not retrievable. The N.D. Cal. presiding judge, the disposition of the Intel subpoena motion, and any Intel-specific products at issue are not confirmed. ETRI's status as original owner of the '067 patent rests on Unified Patents' PATROLL description; I could not independently confirm the assignment chain or the exact scope of Sol IP's acquired portfolio. My research was cut short by tool limits before I could pull the N.D. Cal. judge assignment, the E.D. Tex. consolidated case outcome, or the current status of the 2026 Volkswagen/Honda complaints — those remain open items for verification against PACER.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

The N.D. Cal. case appears to be an ancillary subpoena matter. Let me dig into it and the related litigation.

The N.D. Cal. docket is actually an ancillary subpoena matter. Let me confirm the specifics and the related infringement campaign.

I'll research this case to identify counsel of record for the plaintiff.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC

Bottom line up front: The plaintiff-side team in this matter is drawn from Susman Godfrey L.L.P.'s Los Angeles office, led by Oleg Elkhunovich. One important framing point: docket 5:20-cv-00399 is not a merits infringement complaint — the lone filing is a motion to compel compliance with a third-party subpoena served on Intel Corporation, filed 1/20/2020 and docketed as a "complaint" (N.D. Cal. civil docket; nature of suit "Patent"). The case metadata in this prompt lists no defendant confirmation; the docket confirms the defendant/respondent is Intel Corporation.

---

Confirmed counsel of record

Source: N.D. Cal. docket 5:20-cv-00399 (Dkt. #1, filed 1/20/2020, filed by "Elkhunovich, Oleg"), dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv00399/354118; Susman Godfrey attorney bio (susmangodfrey.com/attorneys/oleg-elkhunovich); State Bar of California #269238.

Counsel appearing in the related subpoena-enforcement file (same substratum)

The companion miscellaneous action In re Subpoena on Intel Corporation, No. 5:20-mc-80019 (N.D. Cal.) (Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins) — the properly-captioned home of the same subpoena fight — lists additional plaintiff-side names:

• Kalpana Srinivasan — Susman Godfrey partner (Los Angeles; now the firm's managing partner). Listed among the movant's attorneys in 5:20-mc-80019. Role in 5:20-cv-00399 itself is not confirmed by a signature block on that docket; her appearance is documented only via the related file and the attorney listing aggregator (unicourt.com case entry for 5:20-mc-80019).
• Kathryn Parsons Hoek — listed among the attorneys on the 5:20-mc-80019 side of the dispute. Firm and role unconfirmed — I could not verify her affiliation from available sources, so I am not assigning her a firm. Flagged as a lead to verify against the live docket.
• Eliza Finley — declarant in support of the motion to compel (Declaration of Eliza Finley, attachment #1 to Docket #1). Likely a Susman Godfrey attorney or Sol IP-affiliated declarant, but her firm/role is unconfirmed; she does not appear as an ECF filer.

Defendant side (context only)

• Megan Rae Whyman Olesek — appeared for Intel Corporation (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. #4; Opposition, Dkt. #6; Declaration, Dkt. #7; Corporate Disclosure, Dkt. #9 in 5:20-mc-80019). Intel-side counsel, not plaintiff-side; included only because the unicourt listing cross-references her as "Cross-Defendant Attorney."

---

Caveats and verification gaps

1. Ancillary posture. No attorney for Sol IP has entered a merits appearance "in a patent infringement case" here, because 5:20-cv-00399 is a subpoena-enforcement/ancillary proceeding attached to Sol IP's separate infringement campaign against wireless carriers (a parallel ancillary action, Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., No. 3:20-cv-00137 (S.D. Cal.), was filed the same day and likewise lists Elkhunovich as counsel — that file also shows Sol IP's motion to compel a Qualcomm subpoena was withdrawn (Dkt. #4) and the case closed 2/11/2020). The underlying merits forum and its full plaintiff-side roster are not confirmed from the sources retrieved.
2. Outcome on this docket. In 5:20-mc-80019, Judge Cousins denied the motion to compel (text-only order, Dkt. #10), finding the discovery untimely, overbroad, and vague under Rule 26 proportionality — "at the very end of discovery." I did not retrieve a docket sheet for 5:20-cv-00399 beyond the initial filing, and the aggregator notes it was "last retrieved on January 20, 2020"; the case may have been administratively closed or consolidated with the misc. action.
3. No sealed-material inference. The filings here do not appear sealed; the apparent gap in the 5:20-cv-00399 docket sheet is a data-retrieval limitation, not a sealing order.
4. Do not treat the unconfirmed names as settled. Srinivasan, Hoek, and Finley should be independently verified against PACER's live docket for 5:20-cv-00399 and 5:20-mc-80019 before being relied on as counsel of record in the 00399 action specifically.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel.

The N.D. Cal. case is Sol IP v. Intel — a subpoena enforcement action. Let me dig into Intel's counsel and the underlying campaign.

Key finding: the N.D. Cal. case is Sol IP v. Intel (subpoena enforcement). Let me pin down Intel's counsel.

Correction to the case framing (flag)

The case metadata caption is wrong on the defendant. Docket research confirms N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:20-cv-00399 is captioned Sol IP LLC v. Intel Corporation, filed January 20, 2020. Critically, this is not a patent infringement suit — the sole filing is Doc. 1, styled "COMPLAINT MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA ON INTEL CORPORATION." Sol IP (the plaintiff in the underlying E.D. Tex. campaign) filed it to enforce a third-party discovery subpoena against Intel. A parallel miscellaneous docket, No. 5:20-mc-80019 (N.D. Cal.), In re Subpoena on Intel Corporation, was opened Jan. 23, 2020 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, and the motion to compel was denied on the merits on Feb. 3, 2020 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 proportionality; timing, breadth, and vagueness of the requests).

Consequence for this task: there is no conventional "defendant" in this docket. The only responding party is Intel Corporation, appearing as the subpoena respondent/third party. I therefore report Intel's counsel of record, and separately note the plaintiff-side counsel for completeness.

Sources: Justia dockets (dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv00399/354118 and .../5:2020mc80019/354408); UniCourt case summary.

---

Counsel of record — Intel Corporation (subpoena respondent)

Possibly associated attorney (needs confirmation)

• Kathryn Parsons Hoek — listed among the "Represented By" attorneys on the Justia docket page for the related miscellaneous case 5:20-mc-80019, alongside Olesek, Elkhunovich, and Srinivasan. The Justia "Represented By" field on those pages aggregates all appearances and does not clearly attribute each name to a party, so I cannot confirm whether Ms. Hoek represented Intel or Sol IP, or on which docket she entered. Flag as unverified.

---

Plaintiff-side counsel (for contrast — not "defendant" counsel)

These appearances are attributable to Sol IP, LLC, the movant:

• Oleg Elkhunovich — signed the complaint/motion (Doc. 1), the supplemental brief (Doc. 5), and the Finley declaration; also filed the parallel subpoena motions against Qualcomm in S.D. Cal. (3:20-cv-00137). Reported as Susman Godfrey LLP (Los Angeles).
• Kalpana Srinivasan — listed on the 5:20-mc-80019 docket; Susman Godfrey LLP partner (Los Angeles).
• Eliza Finley — declarant in support of the motion to compel (Doc. 1, Ex. 1 / Doc. 2); associated with Sol IP's counsel.

---

Important caveats

1. No answer, no counterclaims, no answer-stage counsel. Because this was a subpoena-enforcement motion (decided in roughly two weeks, Feb. 3, 2020), Intel never filed an answer and there is no "lead counsel / of counsel / local counsel" structure of the type seen in an infringement defense. The case closed without costs or fees awarded.
2. The real defense-side counsel in the underlying patent case are elsewhere. The patent-in-suit (9,900,067) is being asserted in E.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP, Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (consolidated with 2:18-cv-00527 Sprint and 2:18-cv-00528 Verizon), with Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corp. as intervenors. If the objective is defense counsel in the infringement action on the '067 patent, the correct docket is the E.D. Tex. consolidated case — not 5:20-cv-00399. I did not verify those attorneys because the task specified this N.D. Cal. docket.
3. Sealed/absent filings. No filings in 5:20-cv-00399 appear sealed; the docket is simply very thin (one motion, resolved quickly).
4. Firm affiliations for Olesek and Hoek could not be confirmed and should not be relied upon. I recommend verifying via PACER's attorney-appearance entries (Docs. 4 and 9 in 5:20-mc-80019) or the State Bar of California attorney search before using either name in a filing.

Bottom line: the only counsel of record for the responding party in 5:20-cv-00399 is Megan Rae Whyman Olesek, appearing for Intel Corporation, with her firm affiliation and background unverified. There is no traditional defendant and no defense team on this docket.