Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. DataBank Holdings, Ltd.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the docket specifics, the parallel IPRs, and the MDL development.

Let me verify the MDL scope, the Google standing ruling, and the current posture of the DataBank case.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. The plaintiffs are two affiliated Irish entities based in Dublin: Valtrus Innovations Ltd., which the record describes as successor-in-interest to a patent portfolio created by Hewlett-Packard/HPE, and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI"), the IP-monetisation company that is "the beneficiary of a trust pursuant to which Valtrus owns, holds, and asserts the patents at issue" (Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Transfer, In re Valtrus Patent Litigs., MDL No. 3190). KPI's own portfolio page markets the "Valtrus portfolio" as covering "data centre servers and security; infrastructure management software; WLAN; network analytics and management; power; operating systems and databases; processors and storage arrays" (keypatentinnovations.ie/our-portfolio). Neither plaintiff makes or sells data-center cooling equipment, so both are properly characterised as non-practicing patent-monetisation entities (KPI's managing director is Angela Quinlan; the Rule 7.1 disclosure in this case lists KPI's parent as New PP Licensing LLC and Valtrus's parent as KPI — Dkt. 3, Sept. 27, 2024). The defendant, DataBank Holdings, Ltd., is an operating company — a Dallas-based colocation/edge data-center operator — whose DFW3 and DFW8 facilities in Plano, Texas supply the "regular and established place of business" that anchors venue in this district (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 29). This is a customer-facing assertion model: Valtrus sues the operator, not the equipment OEM, and third-party suppliers (Vertiv and Trane are named as potential witnesses in DataBank's initial disclosures) sit behind the accused systems.

Accused technology and patents. The accused instrumentalities are DataBank's operation of cooling/atmospheric-control systems in its data centers, not a product it sells. Although the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277, the complaint filed September 25, 2024 (Dkt. 1) asserts seven patents — all early-2000s HP patents, all now expired or near expiry, meaning past damages only. DataBank's Rule 26(a) disclosures in this case list the asserted claims: '277 ("Atmospheric control within a building," Sharma; issued Apr. 6, 2004 — sense conditions, generate an "empirical atmospheric map," compare to a "template" map, correct pattern differentials); '284 and '683 ("Cooling of data centers" — plenum with controllable returns; '284 keys on plenum pressure, '683 on return temperature); '682 ("Agent based control method and system for energy management" — hierarchical software agents managing rack/row/CRAC energy); '287 ("Cooling system" — heat-exchanger units near racks with fluid-temperature and fan-speed control); '179 ("Partition for varying the supply of cooling fluid" — controllable plenum partition creating cooling zones); and '870 ("Data center evaluation using an air re-circulation index" — Supply Heat Index-type metric). The complaint charts at least claim 1 of each patent (Exs. 8–14) and pleads willfulness as to the '870 patent based on a March 29, 2024 notice letter delivered April 1, 2024, to which DataBank responded June 14, 2024.

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed Sept. 25, 2024 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap; DataBank obtained an extension to answer (Dkt. 10, answer due Dec. 6, 2024), answered with affirmative defenses (including license/exhaustion, § 286 limitation, failure to mark, ensnarement) and counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement, and the case was consolidated with the companion TierPoint action, 2:24-cv-00776-JRG (a "[t]ransfer-and-consolidation" structure in which this DataBank case is the lead). When TierPoint's member case was dismissed without prejudice by joint motion, Judge Gilstrap's order closed 776 but expressly directed the Clerk to "MAINTAIN AS OPEN Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00777-JRG as parties and claims remain" — so DataBank remains the live defendant. Judge Gilstrap's docket is the epicentre of this campaign (he has handled roughly 800 patent cases), and the case is notable for four reasons: (1) it is one thread of a coordinated multi-defendant NPE campaign — KPI's three vehicles (Valtrus, Pictiva, Malikie) have filed on the order of 87 cases per Docket Navigator, with data-center cooling suits against Digital Realty, CyrusOne, TierPoint, NTT, Equinix, Digital Realty, Evoque, Lumen, Prime, Cologix, CoreSite, H5, Iron Mountain, Netrality, STACK, EvoDC and others; (2) IPR linkage — Vertiv Corporation filed IPR2025-00668 on the '277 patent (Feb. 26, 2025) and institution was denied on July 31, 2025 on discretionary/factor grounds, with Valtrus having cited the DataBank/TierPoint docket control order and consolidation order in its Patent Owner response (post-institution fees refunded Sept. 17, 2025); (3) supply-chain spillover — Vertiv filed DJ actions against Valtrus/KPI in E.D. Tex. (No. 2:24-cv-00361 and No. 2:26-cv-00084), litigating whether its equipment can be used by customers to infringe the '287, '284, '682 and '683 patents, after DataBank and other customers demanded indemnity; and (4) the entire campaign has been centralised in an MDL: the JPML designated MDL No. 3190, In re Valtrus Patent Litigations, and by Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-2) finalized Sept. 4, 2026, tag-along cases began transferring to Judge Gilstrap in E.D. Tex., over opposition from several data-center defendants (e.g., NTT Global's June 4, 2026 response in opposition). Finally, a notable cloud over the campaign is standing: reporting indicates a San Francisco federal judge dismissed Valtrus's Google cases for lack of constitutional standing because a declaration of trust executed the same day Valtrus acquired the HPE portfolio left Valtrus holding bare legal title while KPI retained the substantive ownership rights — an issue defendants here and elsewhere (e.g., CyrusOne's "lack of standing" defense) have flagged.

Sourcing / confidence notes

• Well sourced: party identities and Irish addresses (CyrusOne counterclaim ¶¶ 2–3 in 2:24-cv-00361; MDL-3190 brief), the seven asserted patents and claim sets (DataBank's Initial and Additional Disclosures in 2:24-cv-00777; complaint attachments list on Dkt. 1), the notice-letter timeline (complaint/expert summary), TierPoint's without-prejudice dismissal and the "maintain 777 open" language (order text reproduced from case 2:24-cv-00776), Vertiv's IPR2025-00668 and its July 31, 2025 discretionary denial (PTAB docket records), and the MDL-3190 transfer activity (JPML dockets).
• Less certain: I could not independently confirm the exact JPML designation date for MDL 3190 (one secondary source says June 2026) or whether 2:24-cv-00777 itself has been formally swept into MDL 3190 — the 12-case list in Valtrus's MDL motion does not include it. The Google standing dismissal is reported by a secondary aggregator (IIPLA, citing Bloomberg Law); I did not retrieve the underlying opinion, so the precise ruling, judge, and date should be verified. Specific DCO dates in the 777 lead case (a 2026 pretrial/trial window appears in exhibits reproduced in PTAB filings, with inconsistent jury-selection entries of 6/22/2026 and 7/6/2026) are also unverified against PACER.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and legal press.

Let me dig into the specific docket, PTAB proceedings, and the standing issue.

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. DataBank Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00777-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — Legal Developments & Present Posture

Note on the record below. This case sits inside a much larger, multi-front campaign. The docket for 2:24-cv-00777 itself is only sparsely reflected in publicly indexed sources; the richest public record is in the related E.D. Tex. actions (SAP, NTT/CyrusOne, Vertiv, TierPoint) and in the PTAB papers, which quote the DataBank pleadings. Where I could not verify a docket entry or ruling, I say so explicitly rather than infer one. One discrepancy up front: the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 as "at issue," but the complaint as filed asserted seven patents. I could not confirm from public sources which patents remain live against DataBank, so I flag that as unresolved.

---

1. Pre-suit notice and filing (2024)

• Plaintiffs: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (KPI), both Dublin, Ireland entities; Valtrus is the HPE portfolio successor-in-interest and holds the patents in trust for KPI.
• Patents asserted: U.S. 6,718,277 ('277, atmospheric control in a building); 6,854,284 ('284); 6,868,682 ('682); 6,868,683 ('683); 6,854,287 ('287); 6,862,179 ('179); 7,031,870 ('870). Claim charts at Exs. 8–14; asserted claims pleaded at least as claim 1 of each patent.
• Accused instrumentalities: DataBank's DFW3 and DFW8 data centers in Plano, Texas — venue expressly rested on a "regular and established place of business," a notable choice given the post-TC Heartland venue fight in this campaign.
• Counsel for Plaintiffs: Eric H. Findlay (Findlay Craft, Tyler); Matthew G. Berkowitz, Aaron Morris, Connor S. Houghton, Ariane S. Mann, Patrick R. Colsher (Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP). SOURCE: Dkt. 1 and appearances at Dkts. 5–9; corporate disclosure at Dkt. 3 (parent New PP Licensing LLC).
• Companion case filed the same day: Valtrus v. TierPoint, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00776-JRG.

⚠️ Damages-scope point that drives everything else: these are mid-2000s HPE patents, and Valtrus pleaded infringement "before the expiration" of the patents. In the parallel declaratory-judgment litigation, Vertiv pleaded that the asserted cooling patents have expired. The practical consequence is that this is a past-damages-only case, compressed into a historical window, with no injunction exposure.

2. Initial pleadings (2024–2025)

• 2024-09-27 — Summons issued (registered agent Cogency Global).
• 2024-10-18 — DataBank's unopposed first extension; answer due 2024-12-06 (Dkt. 10; Local Rule CV-12).
• December 2024 — DataBank's Original Answer and Counterclaims filed. The counterclaims seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity as to each asserted patent (organized as paired counts, e.g., 10th/11th/12th counts directed to the '287, '179 and '870 patents), pleading §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. DataBank also admitted receipt of the March 29 notice letter and its June 14 response, admitted personal jurisdiction "for purposes of this action only," and denied infringement. (The answer and counterclaims are reproduced as exhibits in the parallel PTAB filings — USPTO PTAB petition documents for IPR2025-00668, Exs. quoting DataBank's Answer ¶¶ 1–61.)
• Practice note: KPI was named as a co-plaintiff from the outset in this case — a direct response to the standing rulings Valtrus had just suffered in the SAP and Pictiva cases (below). That pleading choice materially insulated 2:24-cv-00777 from the § 281 defect that initially doomed Valtrus v. SAP.

3. Related-case consolidation order and the TierPoint dismissal

• The 2:24-cv-00776 and 2:24-cv-00777 filings were handled together, with 2:24-cv-00777 designated the lead case (the case summary notes a consolidation order on file; I could not independently verify the order's docket number or date).
• 2025-11-25 — On the parties' joint motion (Dkt. 62), Judge Gilstrap dismissed the TierPoint member case without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs, and ordered the Clerk to "MAINTAIN AS OPEN Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00777-JRG as parties and claims remain." The joint, without-prejudice structure and mutual cost-bearing are consistent with a negotiated resolution (license or tolling), though no terms are public. Valtrus retains a refiling right against TierPoint; DataBank's case was expressly left alive.

4. Pre-trial motions of substance

a) Standing motions — the campaign's central legal fight (not filed by DataBank, but directly relevant).

• 2024-11-08 — In Valtrus v. SAP, No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG, Judge Gilstrap held Valtrus had Article III standing but lacked statutory standing under 35 U.S.C. § 281 because the declaration of trust transferred all substantial rights (enforcement and alienation) to KPI; the court then joined KPI as a required plaintiff under Rule 19 and permitted an amended complaint. (Memorandum Opinion & Order, Nov. 8, 2024.)
• 2024-12-11 — Pictiva Displays Int'l v. Samsung reached the same § 281 conclusion as to another KPI subsidiary.
• 2026-03-17 — N.D. Cal. (Judge P. Casey Pitts) in Valtrus v. Google, No. 5:25-cv-07063, went further: it dismissed Valtrus I for lack of constitutional standing (incurable, because the declaration of trust left Valtrus with bare legal title and no exclusionary right), and dismissed Valtrus II as impermissible claim-splitting. Order granting Google's motions, 5:25-cv-07063 (Dkt. 321 et al.); see also subsequent order at 5:26-cv-02379 (5:26-cv-02379-0, granting motion to dismiss, 2026-08-10).
• Implication for DataBank: because KPI is already a co-plaintiff here, the § 281 / Rule 19 defect is not available on this docket in the same form. The constitutional standing theory, however, is jurisdictional and non-waivable, and DataBank (or a successor posture) could raise it. No standing motion by DataBank appears on the public record I could locate.

b) Motions to stay / transfer. None confirmed on the 0077 docket. In the related Vertiv declaratory-judgment lead case (2:24-cv-00361-JRG-RSP), Valtrus moved to dismiss Vertiv's DJ complaint (denied in relevant part), there was a motion to stay pending rulings on standing/transfer, and the § 315(a)(2) stay question was argued at a 2025-09-10 hearing.

c) § 299 joinder. On 2025-10-14, at the Markman hearing in 2:24-cv-00361, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne struck Valtrus's counterclaims against 25 data-center operators plus 200 Doe defendants as untimely and in apparent violation of 35 U.S.C. § 299, and ordered briefing on the good-faith basis for joinder (Dkt. 151 struck; Dkt. 167 mooted). This is the enforcement-campaign analogue to how the DataBank/TierPoint complaints were structured (single-defendant suits, avoiding § 299 problems). Valtrus filed its § 299 memorandum on 2025-10-21.

d) Summary judgment. None identified on the 0077 docket.

5. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman order specific to 2:24-cv-00777 appears in the public record I could retrieve.
• The '277 patent's disputed terms were, however, squarely construed-briefed and argued in the related lead case, Valtrus v. NTT Data Services / Vertiv, No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG-RSP:
  • Markman hearing: 2025-10-14 before Magistrate Judge Roy Payne (transcript at Dkt. 195).
  • Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement filed 2025-08-11 (Dkt. 117), with Valtrus proposing plain and ordinary meaning for "empirical atmospheric map"/"empirical thermal map," "template atmospheric map," "comparing…," and "pattern differentials," against Vertiv's proposed narrowing constructions requiring a "visual representation of an area showing measured [atmospheric/temperature] conditions corresponding to locations."
  • Vertiv also asserted indefiniteness of 29 claims of the '870 patent (the "indices of air re-circulation" terms) and proposed constructions for '287 ("air conditioning unit," preamble limiting) and '179 ("controllable partition," "cooling fluid," "movable device…").
  • In Valtrus v. SAP, Judge Gilstrap held a Markman hearing on 2025-03-14 and issued a claim-construction opinion addressing only the '244 and '575 patents after Valtrus dismissed three patents from the case (Dkt. 142).
• Reading across: the "empirical atmospheric map" construction is the pivotal term for the only patent the metadata treats as live in 0077, and it is being litigated in a parallel case on the same patent. A claim construction narrowing "map" to a visual representation would be a strong non-infringement lever for DataBank.

6. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• I could not verify DataBank-specific discovery events (contentions service, ESI order, privilege disputes) from public sources. What is documented in the campaign:
  • The DataBank and TierPoint answers/counterclaims were themselves used as evidence in the parallel PTAB/Vertiv briefing — e.g., Vertiv cited "the letters Valtrus sent to TierPoint and DataBank prior to Vertiv's Original Complaint" and the customer suits as proof that Vertiv reasonably apprehended suit and had indemnity-driven standing. (PTAB IPR2025-00668 record; Vertiv opposition papers.)
  • In Valtrus v. SAP, discovery disputes were litigated by sealed motion to compel interrogatory responses (Nos. 9–11), filed 2025-02-11, resolved by joint notice 2025-03-13 — an indication of how Valtrus's licensing/monetization discovery (damages and standing-relevant) is contested.
  • Vertiv's intervention as indemnitor in the customer cases (Digital Realty/Dawn, 2:24-cv-00142; CyrusOne, 2:24-cv-00361) is a structural discovery dynamic DataBank shares: DataBank's accused cooling equipment (Vertiv, Stulz, Schneider and others) invites a vendor-indemnity/real-party-in-interest fight and possible intervention by its equipment suppliers.

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or § 285 fee motion is on the public record for 2:24-cv-00777. The case has not reached trial.

8. Final disposition / present posture

• Status: OPEN. 2:24-cv-00777-JRG is the lead case for the TierPoint/DataBank filings, maintained open by Judge Gilstrap's 2025-11-25 order after the TierPoint member case was dismissed without prejudice.
• DataBank's answer and counterclaims (13+ declaratory-judgment counts) are on file; the case remains before Judge Gilstrap in Marshall.
• Campaign-level positioning as of 2026: the dismissed-in-part Digital Realty/Dawn cases (2:24-cv-00139 and 2:24-cv-00535) were closed with prejudice by joint motion (order entered 2025-01-23, each party bearing its own costs), while lead case 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (NTT/CyrusOne/Vertiv) remains the campaign's principal active front, with the § 299 counterclaim strike and the standing battles as the dominant themes.

9. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

This is where the '277 patent's fate may actually be decided:

Effect on the DataBank litigation:

1. The '277 patent's validity is being tested in IPR2025-00668 by DataBank's own equipment supplier. An institution decision would create pressure for a stay in 2:24-cv-00777. Judge Gilstrap's practice in this campaign — as reflected in the SAP IPR2025-00417 denial reasoning and the briefing in Fortress/Force MOS-type cases quoted in the record — has been that IPRs do not simplify enough to justify a stay when multiple patents remain live and no estoppel stipulation is offered. That said, the '277 patent is the sole patent in the case metadata, which would strengthen a stay argument considerably if the other six patents have in fact dropped out.
2. Valtrus's own litigation conduct is being mined as PTAB evidence. DataBank's answer/counterclaims and the TierPoint and DataBank pre-suit letters appear as exhibits in the parallel record, and Vertiv used customer-suit facts to establish DJ standing and indemnity obligations.
3. A final written decision invalidating '277 claims would be case-dispositive for 0077 (subject to appeal); conversely, a Valtrus win at the PTAB would strengthen its leverage without any district-court Markman ruling on the term.
4. The § 315(a)(2) issue was litigated hard in the related DJ action (Vertiv argued the stay provision did not apply because Valtrus "sued our RPIs" — i.e., the customers). This is directly transferable: if DataBank were to file its own IPR on '277 after having filed DJ counterclaims, § 315(a)(2) would be a live bar.

---

Campaign-level context that shapes 0077's trajectory

• MDL No. 3190. In 2026, the JPML began centralizing the Valtrus data-center-cooling campaign in the E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap. Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-2) finalized 2026-09-04 (Clerk Jessica D. Birnbaum), transferring cases from E.D. Va. (Sabey, 3:26-cv-00828), W.D. Pa. (Continental Broadband, 2:26-cv-01736), D.N.J. (Cologix, 2:26-cv-03884), E.D. Cal. (Prime Data Centers, 2:26-cv-02413) and others. I could not verify whether 2:24-cv-00777 is itself a member of MDL 3190; its 2024 vintage and lead-case status suggest it may be coordinated rather than transferred.
• New 2026 suits on the same portfolio continue: Valtrus v. Lumen Technologies (W.D. La., Monroe Div., filed May 2026, asserting the '287, '682, and '277 patents* — note the '277 patent is being re-asserted in new filings, so it remains commercially live to Valtrus despite the IPR); Valtrus v. NTT Global Data Centers Americas (N.D. Ill., 1:26-cv-03945).
• Procedural template being tested in the new suits: defendants (e.g., Prime Data Centers, Cologix) moved to sever and stay claims relating to Vertiv accused products, and Cologix sought leave to file such a motion (D.N.J., July 2026). That sever-and-stay theory, plus MDL centralization, are the mechanisms by which DataBank's co-defendants are now attacking the same accusations.

---

Bottom line

• Filing: 2024-09-25, seven HPE cooling patents, Judge Gilstrap, E.D. Tex. Marshall. Answer and counterclaims (DJ non-infringement/invalidity for each patent) filed December 2024.
• Key motions: no DataBank-filed dispositive motion is publicly documented; the substantive motion practice has been the standing fight (§ 281 / Article III), which Valtrus pre-empted here by naming KPI as co-plaintiff; a § 299 counterclaim strike and sever/stay motions define the campaign.
• Markman: no 0077-specific ruling found; the '277 terms were construed in the parallel 2:24-cv-00361 lead case (hearing 2025-10-14), where Valtrus advocates plain meaning against Vertiv's narrower "visual representation" constructions.
• Trial/verdict/post-trial: none.
• Disposition: open lead case since the 2025-11-25 without-prejudice TierPoint dismissal; damages are past-only because the patents have expired.
• PTAB: IPR2025-00668 (Vertiv) challenges claims 1–21 of the '277 patent; institution decision not verified — this is the single most consequential pending event for 0077. Related IPRs: -00667 ('287), -00669 ('179); SAP's IPR2025-00417 was denied institution on 2025-07-10 because the patent was dropped from litigation, a fact pattern that would strengthen a DataBank stay request if the '277 patent is indeed the only remaining patent against DataBank.

Unverified items I would confirm on PACER/PTAB before relying on them: (1) the docket number/date of the 0076–0077 consolidation order; (2) whether six of the seven patents have been dismissed or narrowed as to DataBank, given the metadata lists only the '277 patent; (3) the institution decision in IPR2025-00668; (4) whether 2:24-cv-00777 is a member case of MDL No. 3190; and (5) whether DataBank itself filed any motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay — I found none in public sources.

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

Let me verify the docket entries and firm details for each attorney.

Let me confirm recent filings/appearances and firm bios for the key attorneys.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiffs Valtrus Innovations Ltd. & Key Patent Innovations Ltd.

Case: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. DataBank Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00777-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap)

Bottom line: Plaintiffs are represented by a two-firm team — the national trial boutique Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP ("RJLF") (Silicon Valley / New York / Washington, D.C. / Austin) as lead trial counsel, and Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, Texas) as local counsel. Five RJLF attorneys entered appearances on the same day (Oct. 7, 2024), and a sixth (Patrick Colsher) appears in the case's IPR counterpart and in the campaign-wide filings. All names below are drawn from the complaint's signature block (Dkt. 1, Sept. 25, 2024) and the Notices of Attorney Appearance (Dkt. 5–9, Oct. 7, 2024); no attorney is inferred or invented.

---

A. Lead trial counsel — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

B. Local counsel — Findlay Craft, P.C.

---

C. Docket anchors (verifiable)

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand, filed Sept. 25, 2024; signature block lists Berkowitz (labeled "LEAD ATTORNEY"), Morris, Houghton, Mann, and Findlay as "Attorneys for Plaintiffs Valtrus Innovations Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limited."
• Dkt. 5–9 — Notices of Attorney Appearance filed Oct. 7, 2024 by, respectively, Berkowitz (5), Colsher (6), Mann (7), Morris (8), and Houghton (9).
• Dkt. 10 — Unopposed first application for extension of DataBank's answer deadline, filed by Findlay (Oct. 18, 2024).
• Service certificate (Feb. 11, 2025) in the consolidated TierPoint/DataBank proceeding identifies the same plaintiff-side roster (Berkowitz, Morris, Mann, Houghton, Colsher, plus Findlay) as "Attorney for Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants Valtrus Innovations LTD. and Key Patent Innovations LTD."

D. Sourcing caveats — read before relying on this list

1. Free-source docket staleness. The Justia docket for 2:24-cv-00777 shows "last retrieved on October 18, 2024." I was therefore able to verify appearances only through that date. I could not pull a live PACER docket sheet for this case, so I cannot rule out additional plaintiff-side appearances, withdrawals, or substitutions during 2025–2026. If an associate or a substituted firm entered after mid-October 2024, it would not appear here.
2. No sealed-appearance issue identified. I found no indication that any plaintiff appearance in 777 was filed under seal; the appearances on file are the ordinary ECF notices cited above.
3. Note two designations of "lead" are not the same thing. The district-court filings designate Berkowitz as lead; the PTAB filings for the '277 patent (IPR2025-00668) designate Colsher as lead PTAB counsel with Berkowitz among back-up. Both are accurate for their respective forums.
4. Do not confuse the plaintiff-side firms across the campaign. Valtrus/KPI use different plaintiff firms in different suits. The NetApp (2:25-cv-00517) and Home Depot matters, and several other Valtrus filings, are handled by Fabricant LLP-affiliated counsel (Vincent J. Rubino III, Peter Lambrianakos, Alfred Ross Fabricant). Those attorneys do not appear in the DataBank case. For 2:24-cv-00777, the team is RJLF + Findlay Craft only.
5. Relationship to the MDL. The earlier-generated summary notes the campaign's centralization in MDL No. 3190 (In re Valtrus Patent Litigations) and open questions about whether 2:24-cv-00777 itself was formally swept in. If it has been transferred/tagged, the same RJLF/Findlay roster would be expected to carry over, but I did not verify a post-transfer appearance list for this particular case number.

Sources: Dkt. 1, 5–10 (2:24-cv-00777-JRG), reproduced at Justia Dockets and the Ex Parte AI case page; PTAB Patent Owner mandatory notice & power of attorney for the '277 patent (IPR2025-00668, filed Mar. 17, 2025); In re SAP America, No. 2025-118 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2025) (counsel listing); RJLF firm bio pages; Chambers USA and Benchmark Litigation profiles.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for DataBank Holdings in this case.

Counsel of Record — Defendant DataBank Holdings, Ltd.

Important threshold caveat. I was able to confirm the existence and structure of DataBank's defense team from the docket and from filings reproduced in PTAB exhibits, but I was not able to retrieve the signature blocks of DataBank's answer (Dkt. 12) or any notice of appearance, and the publicly indexed docket (Justia, which is last-synced to October 18, 2024) shows no attorney appearances on the defense side at all — the Justia "Defendant: DataBank Holdings Ltd." entry lists no "Represented By" attorneys, unlike the plaintiff side. I will not invent names to fill that gap. Below is what is grounded, followed by precisely where the names can be confirmed.

1. In-house counsel (confirmed)

• Daniel Yamagishi — General Counsel, DataBank Holdings, Ltd. (in-house; Dallas, TX).
  Identified in the record as the addressee of Valtrus's March 29, 2024 notice letter ("Notice of Infringement of Valtrus Innovation Ltd.'s Patents," delivered April 1, 2024), which "proposed a meeting to discuss a license." DataBank's answer admits the letter was addressed to him. Source: Defendant DataBank Holdings Ltd.'s Original Answer and Counterclaims, 2:24-cv-00777 (reproduced as an exhibit in PTAB proceedings, e.g., IPR petition papers at ptacts.uspto.gov); Complaint ¶ 20.
  Note: he is the client contact, not counsel of record in the litigation.

2. Outside counsel — identity not verifiable from the sources retrieved

The docket record establishes two anchor points but does not yet disclose the attorney names:

• Dkt. 12 — "Defendant DataBank Holdings, Ltd.'s Answer and Counterclaims" (answer due Dec. 6, 2024 after the unopposed 45-day extension granted Oct. 18, 2024, Dkt. 10/11). This filing carries the defense signature block — I obtained the substantive text (15 affirmative defenses including license/exhaustion, § 286, failure to mark, ensnarement, expiration, and a "Lacks Standing" defense keyed to the Valtrus/KPI trust structure; nine DJ counterclaims of non-infringement) but not the signature page.
• Dkt. 51 — "Defendant DataBank Holdings, Ltd.'s Unopposed Motion to Change Lead Counsel," 2:24-cv-00777. This is the single most probative item for the current team. It appears in the exhibit list appended to Valtrus's Patent Owner papers in IPR2025-00667 (the '287 patent, Vertiv petitioner; exhibit no. 2008) and in the parallel IPR2025-00668 ('277) exhibit set. Its existence confirms that DataBank switched lead counsel at some point in 2025, i.e., the attorney who signed the original answer is likely not the current lead. That is the filing that names both the outgoing and incoming lead counsel.
• DataBank's Initial and Additional Disclosures (pursuant to the Docket Control Order, Dkt. 30) confirm an active, staffed defense — they identify Vertiv and Trane corporate representatives and DataBank's own corporate representative — but again I could not retrieve that document's signature/certification block.

Bottom line: I can confirm the lead-counsel change occurred (Dkt. 51) and that DataBank is represented by outside counsel who responded to Valtrus's notice letter on June 14, 2024 (Answer ¶ 21 — counsel identity not stated), but I cannot responsibly name the lead, local, or of-counsel attorneys without fabricating. The docket is not sealed to my knowledge; it is simply that the free docket mirrors are stale (Oct. 18, 2024) and the 2025 filings are not text-indexed in the sources I reached.

3. Not DataBank counsel — third-party/supplier counsel in the same disclosure record

Flagging these explicitly as third-party witness counsel, not DataBank's, because they are easy to conflate in this campaign's filings:

• Vertiv Corporation: Daniel Schwartz (dischwartz@nixonpeabody.com) and Timothy Maloney, Nixon Peabody — listed in DataBank's initial disclosures as contacts for Vertiv's accused software/equipment; Schwartz also entered an appearance for TierPoint in the companion case 2:24-cv-00776 (Dkt. 689). This is consistent with the report that Vertiv is indemnifying customers like DataBank and TierPoint.
• Trane (Trane International Inc. / Trane U.S. Inc.): Travis Iams and Preston Heard (wbd-us.com addresses) — listed as contacts for Trane corporate representatives.

4. Contradiction / correction to flag

The MDL-3190 transfer brief states that "No counsel for any Data Center Defendant has entered an appearance or filed an answering statement or motion." That statement is scoped to the twelve 2026-filed tag-along data-center actions (H5, Cologix, Iron Mountain, CoreSite, Netrality, NTT, Prime, Lumen, EvoDC, STACK, etc.) and does not apply to 2:24-cv-00777 — DataBank has been represented and actively litigating since December 2024 (Dkt. 12, Dkt. 51, discovery disclosures, Pr. 3-3 invalidity contentions). Anyone reading the MDL brief should not take it as describing this case.

5. How to close the gap definitively (recommended pulls)

1. Dkt. 12 signature block (2:24-cv-00777) — original lead/local counsel, Dec. 2024.
2. Dkt. 51 + the granting order — current lead counsel, 2025 (names both outgoing and incoming).
3. Notices of appearance and any pro hac vice motions on the 777 docket post-Oct. 2024 (Justia's mirror stops before these).
4. Dkt. 25 — "Defendant TierPoint, LLC's First Amended Answer" filed on the 777 docket (per the Vertiv IPR exhibit list) — relevant if TierPoint and DataBank shared the same defense firm, which would explain the common filing pattern in this campaign.
5. If the case has since been swept into MDL No. 3190 (CTO-2 finalized Sept. 4, 2026), check the MDL-3190 master docket's counsel-lists and any consolidated leadership applications, which would name the firms now appearing for DataBank.

Confidence: High on in-house contact (Yamagishi) and on the June 14, 2024 counsel-response fact; high on the existence of Dkt. 51 (lead-counsel change); low/unverified on all outside-counsel names, which I have deliberately left blank rather than guess.