Valtrus Innovations Limited et al. v. EvoDC, LLC

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

I have substantial grounding already. Let me verify the patent, the defendant, the NPE structure, and the standing ruling.

Case Overview — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. EvoDC, LLC

A note on the docket, up front. The caption and the docket number in the case metadata point to two different public dockets. Public records show Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. EvoDC, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00286 (E.D. Tex., filed Apr. 9, 2026, assigned to Judge James Rodney Gilstrap), while D.N.J. No. 2:26-cv-03886 (filed Apr. 13, 2026, Judge Jamel Semper) is captioned Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. H5 Data Centers LLC (JPML/MDL 3190 centralization brief; Justia docket for TXE 2:26-cv-00286). Notably, the patent listed as at issue here — the '277 patent — is pled in the D.N.J. '03886/H5 case and in most of the data-center cases, but according to Valtrus's own MDL brief it is not asserted in the EvoDC case, which pleads the '287 and '682 patents. Both cases are now swallowed by the MDL, so the practical significance is limited, but the reader should not assume a single consolidated caption.

Parties. The plaintiffs are two Irish entities registered at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (a wholly owned subsidiary of KPI that holds legal title as trustee) and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI," the beneficial owner). Neither makes or sells anything — Google's declaratory-judgment complaint describes Valtrus as a licensing vehicle that is "successor in interest to a substantial patent portfolio created by Hewlett Packard Enterprise and its predecessors, including Compaq, Verity, and Hewlett-Packard Development Company," acquired in 2021, and states that Valtrus/KPI "have filed lawsuits against 20 established companies" (Google DJ Complaint, N.D. Cal.). MDL filings confirm the corporate chain (KPI → subsidiary New PP Licensing LLC; Valtrus → parent KPI) (JPML briefing on MDL 3190). The defendant, EvoDC, LLC — referred to in Vertiv's counterclaim as "Evocative" — is a California LLC and an operating colocation/data-center provider (Evocative, f/k/a VPLS; HQ in La Palma/Emeryville, CA; roughly 13 U.S. data centers, reportedly backed by Crestline Investors) (Evocative press release; Vertiv counterclaim, E.D. Tex.). So this is a pure NPE-vs.-operator suit: a non-practicing Irish assertion vehicle suing a data-center operator.

Accused technology and asserted patents. Valtrus is not accusing EvoDC of making a product; it accuses the operation of data-center cooling. As The Patent Lawyer put it, "[i]n the EvoDC litigation, for example, the plaintiffs allege infringement involving methods used to cool data centers with equipment supplied by third parties," and the asserted patents are expired, with Valtrus seeking past damages only (Patent Lawyer Magazine, Aug. 21, 2026). The '277 patent — U.S. Pat. No. 6,718,277 B2, "Atmospheric Control Within a Building," inventor Ratnesh Sharma, filed Apr. 17, 2002, issued Apr. 6, 2004, originally assigned to Hewlett-Packard Development Co., now assigned to Valtrus — claims a computer-implemented method of supplying conditioned fluid to a building (typically a data center), sensing atmospheric parameters at multiple locations, generating an "empirical atmospheric map," comparing it to a "template atmospheric map," identifying pattern differentials, and varying the quantity/quality/distribution of the conditioned fluid (patent text; uspto.report). In plain terms: sensor-driven, map-based thermal management of a data hall. Per Valtrus's MDL brief, the '277 patent "is only asserted against the Data Center Defendants for their use of non-Vertiv cooling equipment," while companion patents in the campaign cover cooling a room housing computers (the '287 patent, inventors Bash and Patel) and agent-based temperature control (the '682 patent). Because the '277 patent's 20-year term ran from April 2002, it expired in 2022, which is why the remedies are backward-looking.

Posture and why it matters. Originating in seven judges' courtrooms across four districts (D.N.J., N.D. Ill., W.D. La., E.D. Tex.), the twelve Valtrus data-center actions were consolidated into MDL No. 3190, In re: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, by JPML order dated August 7, 2026, and assigned with the transferee court's consent to Judge James Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas (JPML CTO-1; JPML hearing notice, July 30, 2026). Venue matters enormously here: Judge Gilstrap's E.D. Tex. docket is the most experienced forum in the country on these three patents, having handled Valtrus v. SAP America, Valtrus v. Home Depot, Valtrus v. FedEx, and the earlier Vertiv declaratory-judgment actions, and the panel explicitly credited his familiarity with the technology in choosing Texas. Centralization also forecloses Valtrus's stated strategy of "successive individual cases" against customers.

Three features make the case notable. First, industry context: this is the data-center-cooling/AI-infrastructure patent wave, in which cooling, thermal management, and environmental monitoring become the asserted IP as AI capacity expands — paralleled by the Xockets USITC case on GPU/DPU hardware. Second, supplier-indemnity dynamics: Valtrus sued Vertiv's customers, and Vertiv filed declaratory-judgment actions (E.D. Tex. Nos. 2:24-cv-00361 and 2:26-cv-00084), intervened to defend customers, and Valtrus responded with counterclaims naming 100+ "Vertiv Customers" plus Does 1–200 — making the operator suits a proxy fight over Vertiv equipment. Third, a campaign-wide ownership vulnerability: in Valtrus v. Google, Judge P. Casey Pitts (N.D. Cal.) dismissed Valtrus's consolidated complaints for lack of constitutional standing, finding that Valtrus executed a declaration of trust passing substantive ownership rights to KPI on the same day it acquired the HPE portfolio, leaving it with bare legal title — and denied leave to amend as a sanction for claim-splitting (MLex, Mar. 17, 2026; IIPLA). Judge Pitts granted a further motion to dismiss on August 10, 2026, in Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 5:26-cv-02379, on § 101 grounds (dismissal with prejudice), after Google filed a fresh declaratory-judgment action covering nine portfolio patents including Kubernetes/Hadoop/Kafka-related patents (govinfo order; Bloomberg Law, Mar. 19, 2026). The same trust structure governs the entities suing EvoDC, so the standing defect is a live, systemic risk across MDL 3190. PTAB linkage is also present: the '277 patent has been challenged in IPR (claims 1–21 challenged over Nakanishi/Bishop), and other Valtrus patents are in IPRs filed by SAP, FedEx, and Google (PTAB petition, '277 patent; SAP v. Valtrus, IPR2025-00414).

Sourcing caveats. (1) I could not independently verify EvoDC's litigation counsel, the exact filing date/venue assigned to the D.N.J. '03886 action beyond the JPML schedule, or the current MDL judge assignment beyond the JPML records cited — PACER itself was not directly accessible. (2) I could not confirm the petitioner identity or institution status in the IPRs involving the '277 patent. (3) Press accounts differ on whether the MDL was "designated" in June or formally ordered in August 2026; the JPML CTO states the transfer order issued August 7, 2026, and I have used that. (4) The caption/docket mismatch described above is a genuine discrepancy between the provided metadata and public records, not a coding error on my part.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

I have substantial background. Let me dig into the specific EvoDC case docket, the PTAB IPRs on the '277 patent, and the MDL.

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. EvoDC, LLC — Litigation Development Timeline

Analyst note on case identification (read first). The case metadata and the public record are internally inconsistent on the case number, and this matters for anyone verifying citations:

Per your instruction I treat the metadata as authoritative on party name/patent, and I do not silently rewrite it — but every docket citation below points to the EvoDC action as it actually exists on PACER (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00286), because the two dockets cannot both be described accurately from a single case number. Flagging this as a probable data-entry conflation in the source system (EvoDC = TXE 2:26-cv-00286; H5 = NJ 2:26-cv-03886).

---

I. Technology and patents

• U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 ("the '277 patent"), application 10/123,403, issued 2004-04-06, generally directed to atmospheric/environmental control within a building (a building/data-center atmospheric-control method using "empirical atmospheric map" vs. "template atmospheric map" comparisons and "pattern differentials"). Named inventor family includes Ratnesh Sharma.
• Provenance: portfolio acquired from Hewlett Packard Enterprise; Valtrus Innovations Ltd. holds legal title as trustee and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (KPI) is the beneficial owner. Both are Dublin, Ireland entities.
• The EvoDC action also appears in third-party dockets as asserting the '287 (6,854,287) and '682 (6,868,682) patents; Valtrus's MDL brief states each data-center case pleads the '287 and '682 patents, "with certain cases also alleging infringement of" the '277 patent. The '277 patent is expired (issued 2004; ~20-year term), so the '277 exposure here is past damages only.
• The accused conduct is not the making of a product but the operation of third-party-supplied cooling equipment (Vertiv, Stulz, Trane, DataAire, Schneider Electric, etc.) at the defendant's data center — a method-infringement theory.

II. Filing and initial pleadings

No answer, counterclaims, or Rule 12 motion filed by EvoDC, LLC is documented in the sources I could retrieve. EvoDC's proven participation is defensive/discovery-stage: it joined the defendants' briefs opposing MDL centralization (below). Treat any statement that EvoDC answered, counterclaimed, or moved to transfer/stay as unsourced. (Contrast the sister entity: the older Valtrus v. Dawn Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Evoque Data Center Solutions, 2:24-cv-00142, is a different defendant and should not be conflated.)

III. Pre-trial motions of substance

Specific to EvoDC, none documented. Two categories of substantive motion practice in the related Valtrus docket bear directly on EvoDC's case posture:

A. Standing motions (systemic, affects every Valtrus/KPI case).

• In Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-07063-PCP (N.D. Cal.), Judge P. Casey Pitts on 2026-03-16 dismissed Valtrus I for lack of Article III standing — holding that under the HPE declaration of trust, Valtrus retained only a "bare right to sue" with no exclusionary right (citing Morrow, Lone Star, Intell. Tech v. Zebra), and that the defect was incurable by joining KPI; it also dismissed Valtrus II under the rule against claim-splitting (the two suits were filed "out of an abundance of caution" to preserve a longer damages window). Dismissal was without leave to amend, without prejudice.
• Earlier, E.D. Tex. courts held in Valtrus v. SAP America (2024-11-08) and Pictiva Displays v. Samsung (2024-12-11) that Valtrus-type subsidiaries lacked statutory standing and that KPI must be joined as plaintiff. This is why the 2026 data-center complaints (including EvoDC's) name both Valtrus and KPI as plaintiffs.
• In the E.D. Tex. declaratory-judgment lead case, Valtrus's renewed Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction was rejected: R&R entered 2026-03-04, objections 2026-03-18, and Judge Gilstrap adopted the R&R denying dismissal on 2026-03-24.

B. MDL motion practice (EvoDC's actual litigation activity).

• 2026-04-28/30 — Valtrus/KPI move the JPML for §1407 transfer and consolidation of 12 actions (2 DJ actions + 10 data-center actions) into E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap. MDL No. 3190 assigned and motion accepted for filing 2026-04-30; briefing schedule set that day.
• 2026-05-15 — Several defendants (STACK Infrastructure et al., joined by Cologix, CoreSite, NTT GDC, H5, Netrality, Prime, Iron Mountain, Lumen, EvoDC, and intervenor Vertiv) move to extend response deadlines.
• 2026-05-18 — JPML clerk grants in part: responses by 2026-06-04, replies by 2026-06-11.
• 2026-06-04 — NTT GDC files its own opposition.
• 2026-06-05 — A joint response in opposition to centralization is filed on behalf of Iron Mountain, Lumen, EvoDC, H5, Netrality and Prime Data Centers; errata filed the same day. EvoDC thus opposed being swept into the MDL.

IV. Claim construction

• No Markman ruling on the '277 patent specific to the EvoDC action is documented.
• The '277 terms were, however, fully briefed in the earlier Vertiv DJ litigation (Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00361, the MDL anchor case): the parties' Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 117, filed 2025-08-11) listed disputed '277 terms — "empirical atmospheric map," "template atmospheric map," "pattern differentials," and "comparing said empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map" (Valtrus: plain and ordinary meaning; Vertiv: "visual representation of an area showing measured atmospheric conditions corresponding to locations"). Valtrus's responsive brief accused Vertiv of untimely amending its construction ("trial by ambush").
• Crucially, the '277 patent was dropped from that case before any merits construction issued: on 2026-01-29/30 Judge Gilstrap granted a joint stipulation dismissing the '277 and '870 patents (Dkt. 247) and a joint stipulation of non-infringement of the '179 patent (Dkt. 243). The '287 patent is the only patent that reached claim construction (Dkts. 201, 221, per Valtrus's MDL brief). Consequence: the '277 patent's key terms remain unconstrued by any court as of this report — a material open risk for both sides in EvoDC and the other data-center cases.

V. Discovery milestones

Strategic milestones documented at the campaign level (from Valtrus's MDL briefing and Vertiv DJ record), not EvoDC-specific:

• Pre-suit notice: Valtrus counsel sent licensing/demand letters to operators (e.g., Lumen's GC in March 2024, follow-up May 2024) with infringement claim charts.
• In the Vertiv anchor case: claim-construction discovery, expert reports, a court-appointed technical advisor (Dkt. 135), substantial document production, and a motions-in-limine/pre-trial conference held on or about 2026-08-24 (hearing transcript Dkt. 409, transcribed 2026-08-24, certified 2026-05-21 per the reporter's page — treat the certification date as a docket artifact).
• Damages discovery is centered on the HPE patent purchase agreement, trust/valuation, and third-party funders (Centerbridge referenced at the 2026-08-24 hearing, where the court limited investor-identity evidence).

VI. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion has occurred in the EvoDC action — the case is in coordinated pretrial proceedings. Nothing to report.
• For context on maturity of the campaign: the anchor Vertiv case was headed to trial in 2026 (Valtrus filed four partial-SJ motions and Daubert motions on 2026-03-23/24 attacking Dr. John Abraham and seeking to exclude Dr. Himanshu Pokharna; Vertiv filed multiple SJ motions of non-infringement and invalidity), and the PTAB cited scheduled trials of 2026-04-06 and 2026-06-22.

VII. Disposition / present posture

• Pending. As of 2026-09-18, the EvoDC action is consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in In re: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3190 (J.P.M.L.), before the Hon. James Rodney Gilstrap in the E.D. Tex.
• MDL mechanics: the Panel's §1407 transfer order is ECF No. 64 (J.P.M.L. 2026), dated 2026-08-07, transferring 7 actions; followed by CTO-1 ("no additional actions transferred since" the 2026-08-07 order) and CTO-2, which pulled in Valtrus v. Compass Datacenters LLC from N.D. Tex. (3:26-cv-02760 → E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00800, order filed 2026-09-09). Valtrus had sought consolidation of all 12 actions; the Panel's initial tranche was 7, with tag-alongs following.
• Non-parties' dispositions that inform (but do not resolve) EvoDC: Valtrus v. Digital Realty Trust (2:24-cv-00139) dismissed with prejudice; Valtrus v. TierPoint (2:24-cv-00776) dismissed without prejudice on 2025-11-25, each side bearing its own costs, with the lead case 2:24-cv-00777 expressly kept open; SAP America v. Valtrus (D. Del. 1:24-cv-00756) stipulated dismissal 2025-12-09. These signal a licensing/negotiated-exit pattern rather than merits wins.

VIII. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '277 patent

This is the most complete and litigation-decisive part of the record:

• On 2025-02-26, Vertiv Corporation petitioned for IPR of three Valtrus patents: IPR2025-00667 ('287), IPR2025-00668 ('277), and IPR2025-00669 ('179). The '277 petition was grounded on, inter alia, Nakanishi (6,283,380), Bishop (2002/0149911), Patel (2003/0067745), Nakagawa (2003/0158718), Blake (6,188,189), and Lee & Mahalingam thermal-simulation art, with a declaration by Dr. John P. Abraham.
• On 2025-07-31, the Board issued a single Decision Denying Institution across all three proceedings under 35 U.S.C. §314(a), granting Valtrus's request for discretionary denial. Reasoning: (i) projected FWD in October 2026 vs. scheduled district-court trials of 2026-04-06 and 2026-06-22 (i.e., FWD would not precede trial, risking duplication and inconsistent decisions); (ii) no likelihood the district court would stay; and (iii) each challenged patent had been in force ~20 years, creating "strong settled expectations." Post-institution fees were refunded (request 2025-09-17; refund approved 2025-09-23).
• Effect on the litigation: the '277 patent emerges from the PTAB unscathed and un-reviewed. No IPR/PGR on the '277 patent has been instituted, so EvoDC (and the other data-center defendants) cannot rely on a PTAB invalidity track; and Valtrus cannot point to any PTAB affirmation of the '277 claims either — its validity rests on an unexamined-by-the-Board posture plus the fact that no district court has construed the claims.
• Separately, IPRs in the FedEx/NetApp/Lenovo/Home Depot line concern the unrelated '832 patent, and a co-pending ex parte reexamination exists there — not relevant to the '277 patent.

IX. Bottom line and open questions

1. The EvoDC action is a 2026-filed, still-pretrial, MDL-coordinated case with no merits rulings, no Markman on the '277 patent, no trial date, and no recorded answer/counterclaim.
2. EvoDC's principal documented act to date is opposing MDL centralization (joint response 2026-06-05) — it lost that fight when the Panel transferred actions on 2026-08-07.
3. Two structural risks dominate: (a) standing — the N.D. Cal. Google dismissal (2026-03-16) shows the trust structure is a live jurisdictional vulnerability, even though KPI is now a named plaintiff; and (b) the '277 claims are expired, unconstrued, and were abandoned by Valtrus in the lead case by stipulation (2026-01-29), which is a notable signal about where Valtrus thinks the value sits.
4. Unsourced / unverified items I could not confirm and would not assert: any EvoDC answer or counterclaims; any EvoDC motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay; any EvoDC-specific discovery order or scheduling order; whether the '277 patent is in fact asserted in the EvoDC complaint (versus the '287/'682); and any settlement discussions. These should be verified against the E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00286 docket on PACER.

Primary sources consulted: JPML MDL 3190 docket and CTO-1/CTO-2 (govinfo, dockets.justia.com); Valtrus/KPI §1407 brief in support of transfer (mdlcases.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/MDL-3190.pdf, dated 2026-04-28); PTAB IPR2025-00667/668/669 Decision Denying Institution (2025-07-31) and IPR2025-00668 proceeding record (ptacts.uspto.gov; ipverse.greyb.com); E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00361 docket (CourtListener, Dkts. 117, 243, 247, 253, 266, 409); Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-07063-PCP (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026) (order dismissing consolidated cases); Patent Lawyer Magazine (2026-08-21); Legal Newsline/American Press (2026-06-07); Stanford NPE database; PatSnap litigation summaries (secondary — treat with caution).

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel across the EvoDC docket, the MDL 3190 centralization papers, and the related Valtrus/KPI campaign filings.

Good initial leads. Now let me pin down who signed the EvoDC complaint and the MDL 3190 motion, and check for local counsel.

Strong leads. Let me confirm the EvoDC-specific appearances and verify the individual attorneys' roles and experience.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. / Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (EvoDC action, E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00286, now MDL 3190)

Threshold point (cross-reference to prior sections). The EvoDC defendant's case is E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00286 (filed 2026-04-09, Judge Gilstrap), which is the action Valtrus/KPI themselves list in their MDL 3190 § 1407 motion. D.N.J. 2:26-cv-03886 is the H5 Data Centers action. Counsel staffing, however, is identical across the entire 2026 data-center campaign, so the roster below is the same team that would appear on the EvoDC docket in the transferee court. I could not open the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF docket sheet directly (PACER unavailable; the Docket Alarm/GovInfo mirrors for 2:26-cv-00286 truncate the attorney block), so the roster is reconstructed from (a) the signature block of Valtrus/KPI's own MDL 3190 transfer motion — which expressly covers the EvoDC action — (b) the JPML MDL 3190 docket's notices of appearance, and (c) the parallel 2026 data-center complaints signed by the same team.

A. Core trial team — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

B. Local counsel — Findlay Craft, P.C. (E.D. Tex.)

JPML docket confirmation: On 2026-05-14, Matthew G. Berkowitz filed the plaintiff-side notices of appearance (MDL No. 3190, Filings 3 and 4) on behalf of Key Patent Innovations Limited and Valtrus Innovations Limited, with the associated-case list including TXE/2:26-cv-00286 (EvoDC); the same day plaintiffs filed their corporate disclosure statement (Filing 5, identifying subsidiary New PP Licensing LLC), and certificates of service followed on 2026-05-15 (Filings 6–7). Berkowitz is therefore the attorney verifiably on the MDL docket for the EvoDC-related plaintiffs.

C. Campaign counsel who may surface in the MDL but are not confirmed on the EvoDC action

To prevent mis-attribution, these attorneys appear for Valtrus/KPI elsewhere but I found no EvoDC-specific appearance:

• Reichman Jorgensen (same firm, other offices/attorneys): Khue V. Hoang (NY), Philip J. Eklem (DC, pro hac vice in E.D. Tex.), Savannah H. Carnes (DC), Navid Cyrus Bayar (Redwood City), Rikesh Patel (NY), Scott Lamar Cole (Austin, TX), and Ariane S. Mann (DC; Texas Bar No. 24140399 — the other Texas-eligible Reichman Jorgensen attorney on the 2026 data-center complaint template).
• Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX; formerly Ward, Smith & Hill): Andrea L. Fair and Claire Abernathy Henry served as the E.D. Tex. local counsel of record in the earlier Valtrus matters (SAP, Equinix, ~2024). Their appearances have been superseded by Findlay Craft in the 2026 data-center wave.
• Irell & Manella LLP — Jason G. Sheasby, Andrew J. Strabone, Lucas Oxenford, Megan Dieffenbach, Erick R. Franklund — represent Valtrus/KPI in the Northern District of California/Section 101 track and related DJ actions (Google, Cloudflare, Starbucks), including the matters covered in the earlier sections on standing and § 101.
• Fabricant LLP (NY) — Alfred Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, with Justin Kurt Truelove — appear for Valtrus/KPI in the separate Valtrus v. Home Depot line (different patents from the data-center cooling group).

D. In-house / entity-side counsel

I found no in-house counsel of record for Valtrus or KPI in the EvoDC action. The only entity-side individual named in the record is a Valtrus/KPI Managing Director (identified in Google's DJ complaint as the author of the 2021 licensing correspondence) and a Declaration of Angela Quinlan filed by Valtrus — a factual declarant, not counsel of record; I would not list either as an attorney without docket confirmation.

Sourcing caveats (please verify on PACER)

1. The single strongest source is plaintiffs' own MDL 3190 § 1407 motion (mdlcases.com PDF), signed by Berkowitz (LEAD), Morris, Colsher (NJ Bar # 012732010), McCarthy, Houghton, Warner and Findlay, and captioned "Attorneys for Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd." — that motion covers the EvoDC action and is the basis for the roster above.
2. Corroborating: JPML MDL 3190 docket for TXE/2:26-cv-00286 (Berkowitz appearances, Filings 3–4; corporate disclosure, Filing 5); CoreSite, N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-03926 (Berkowitz, Colsher, Houghton appearances); Cologix, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00666 (Colsher as plaintiffs' counsel); 365 Data Centers, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00801 (Findlay as plaintiffs' counsel; motion to proceed without local counsel granted); HarrisMartin, Apr. 29, 2026 (identifying only Reichman Jorgensen as the firm for the centralization motion).
3. Not verified: any post-transfer E.D. Tex. appearance list specific to 2:26-cv-00286 (the CM/ECF "attorneys" pane), pro hac vice admissions in the MDL, and whether any additional Reichman Jorgensen attorney (e.g., Mann, Hoang, Bayar) has since entered an appearance in the EvoDC action. Also unverified: individual biographical details (bar admissions, prior notable verdicts) for Morris, Houghton, Warner, McCarthy and Colsher beyond their docket designations — I have stated only what the filings establish; I found no reliable firm-bio or press source for their pre-Valtrus track records and have not speculated.

I'll research defendant counsel across the EvoDC docket and related filings.

Now let me target EvoDC's own counsel specifically.

Let me identify the EvoDC-side counsel from the JPML filings and the E.D. Tex. docket.

Counsel of Record for EvoDC, LLC — What the Record Actually Shows

Bottom line up front: I could not verify any counsel of record for EvoDC, LLC. No appearance, answer, counterclaim, or signature block attributable to EvoDC in either the E.D. Tex. EvoDC action (No. 2:26-cv-00286) or the MDL-captioned proceedings was retrievable from the sources available to me (Justia dockets, CourtListener RECAP, the JPML docket, PACERMonitor public pages, PTAB P-TACTS, and firm/press coverage). I am therefore not naming a lead counsel, local counsel, or in-house lawyer for EvoDC, because doing so would require inventing one. What follows is the narrow, sourced set of leads, with the limits of each stated plainly.

---

1. The one attorney whose name appears on a filing that names EvoDC as a party

How to read this lead. The June 5 joint MDL response is the strongest indication that EvoDC is represented within the operator-defendant group and that Schwartz is coordinating that group's MDL briefing. But a joint JPML filing is not the same as a district-court counsel-of-record entry, and the fact that his May 14 MDL notice of appearance did not list EvoDC affirmatively suggests EvoDC's own attorney(s) — or its separate JPML Form 18 appearance — exist under a different name. Treat "Schwartz = EvoDC's counsel" as unconfirmed.

2. Attorneys I located who are not EvoDC's counsel (do not misattribute)

These surfaced prominently in searches for EvoDC counsel and are listed only so the record is not confused:

• Eric Ferrante (New Jersey) — local counsel for Iron Mountain Data Centers LLC, D.N.J. No. 2:26-cv-00669, later transferred into the MDL (PACERMonitor). Not EvoDC.
• Timothy P. Maloney and Daniel J. Schwartz — admitted pro hac vice in D.N.J. for Iron Mountain in that same case (id.). Not EvoDC.
• Plaintiff's counsel — Matthew G. Berkowitz, Aaron Morris, Patrick Colsher, Sean M. McCarthy, Connor S. Houghton, Nathaniel G. Warner, Stuart Hene (Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP) and Eric H. Findlay (Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, Tex., the E.D. Tex. local counsel) represent Valtrus/KPI, not EvoDC (MDL 3190 §1407 brief signature block). The JPML docket's "attorney" listing for this case is dominated by these plaintiff-side names, which is a common source of error when docket aggregators are scraped.

3. A second, independent forum where EvoDC's counsel should appear

EvoDC was named as a Counterclaim-Defendant in Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-00361 (the MDL anchor case) and, per the CourtListener docket, "EvoDC, LLC served on 10/1/2025" (CourtListener, 2:24-cv-00361). That service would ordinarily trigger an appearance by EvoDC's counsel in the anchor case before the MDL was created — the single most likely place an EvoDC attorney name is actually on file. I could not retrieve the appearance entry itself.

4. Why the search is unusually thin here — two caveats

1. Caption/docket mismatch (carried forward from the prior sections). Public records place the EvoDC action at E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00286 (filed Apr. 9, 2026, Judge Gilstrap), while D.N.J. No. 2:26-cv-03886 is Valtrus v. H5 Data Centers LLC. If counsel searches are run against the docket number in the case metadata, they will return H5's attorneys — including Schwartz's May 14 notice of appearance, which is precisely the kind of false positive that could be mistaken for EvoDC counsel. I flag this as a contradiction between the case metadata and the public record, not a search error.
2. MDL consolidation. Since the JPML transfer order of Aug. 7, 2026, appearances in this dispute are increasingly filed in the MDL lead proceeding rather than the member case. A counsel-of-record search limited to 2:26-cv-00286 may show a stale or empty attorney list even if counsel has appeared.

5. What would resolve this definitively

• E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00286 docket sheet — look for a Notice of Appearance, an Answer/Counterclaim, or a Corporate Disclosure Statement. (Case flags "CONSOL" and "JURY"; NOS 830; no answer is documented in aggregated dockets.)
• The MDL 3190 lead-case ECF for JPML Form 18 notices of appearance and corporate disclosure statements, due May 14, 2026 — EvoDC's Form 18 would name its attorney(s) directly.
• Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus, No. 2:24-cv-00361 (E.D. Tex.) — EvoDC's appearance following 10/1/2025 service.
• If EvoDC has retained Texas counsel, that attorney must be admitted in the Eastern District of Texas; pro hac vice admission would generate a separate order.

Primary sources consulted: Justia JPML dockets for TXE 2:26-cv-00286 and ILN 1:26-cv-03929; CourtListener docket 68526786 (Valtrus v. NTT Data Services, E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00361); PACERMonitor public page for Valtrus v. Iron Mountain, D.N.J. 2:26-cv-00669; Valtrus/KPI §1407 brief in support of transfer (mdlcases.com, Apr. 28, 2026); P-TACTS petition records; Patent Lawyer Magazine (Aug. 21, 2026). Nothing in the record I retrieved identifies EvoDC's litigation counsel by name in a document signed on EvoDC's behalf in its own case.