Litigation

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Lumen Technologies, Inc.

open / transferred

3:26-cv-01346

Filed
2026-04-27

Patents at issue (1)

6718277

Summary

Valtrus and KPI sued Lumen, asserting U.S. Patent 6,718,277 and other patents referred to as '287 and '682. The case transferred to E.D. Tex. under MDL No. 3190 by order entered Aug. 7, 2026. Lumen had moved to sever/stay claims regarding Vertiv-accused products.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to verify the details before drafting.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the MDL, the patents' technical details, IPR activity, and Lumen's profile.

Let me verify the IPR/PTAB activity and MDL scope, plus the pre-transfer judge.

Case Overview: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Lumen Technologies, Inc.

Parties and accused technology

The plaintiffs are two Dublin, Ireland-based patent monetization entities: Valtrus Innovations Ltd., the successor-in-interest to a portfolio of data center patents created by Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (KPI), which the complaint describes as the beneficiary of a trust through which Valtrus holds and asserts the patents. Neither makes or sells products. KPI is a well-documented Irish NPE platform whose affiliate entities include Malikie Innovations (built on ~32,000 former BlackBerry patents acquired in 2023 for $200 million); Valtrus was created by KPI to monetize the HPE data-center assets. Legal Newsline/IAN reporting characterizes both as non-practicing/patent-assertion entities, and Valtrus has filed a broad campaign against cloud, data center, storage and enterprise-software targets (Google, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, SAP, Digital Realty, CyrusOne, NTT, TierPoint, Iron Mountain, and others). The defendant, Lumen Technologies, Inc., is an operating company — one of the largest U.S. enterprise digital-networking and telecommunications carriers, formerly CenturyLink, headquartered at 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana (note: the Legal Newsline write-up inconsistently calls Lumen "headquartered in Baton Rouge" in one sentence and Monroe elsewhere; Lumen's own corporate address and the Monroe Division filing confirm Monroe). Lumen provides extensive colocation and data center services and has been repositioning around AI/Cloud 2.0 infrastructure, including a 2026 agreement to sell its consumer fiber business (Quantum Fiber) to AT&T. The accused instrumentality is not a product Lumen sells but rather Lumen's own operation of data center facilities — specifically, its use of cooling equipment and methods inside data centers, including at least two Louisiana facilities (Baton Rouge and New Orleans). The complaint concedes that "Lumen's data centers implement cooling equipment from various suppliers, and Lumen uses that equipment to perform methods of cooling" alleged to infringe — i.e., end-user/method-of-operation infringement against the operator, not supplier liability.

Asserted patents

Three patents are asserted (the case metadata flags the '277 patent):

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 — "Atmospheric control within a building" (issued Apr. 6, 2004; priority Apr. 17, 2002; inventor Sharma, assigned to HPE). Claims a feedback method: supply conditioned fluid, sense atmospheric parameters at multiple locations, generate an "empirical atmospheric map," compare it to a "template atmospheric map," and identify "pattern differentials" (e.g., hot spots) to drive corrective cooling.
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287 — "Cooling system" (issued Feb. 15, 2005). Claims a data-center cooling system with multiple heat-exchanger units fed cooling fluid from an air-conditioning unit, temperature sensing, and individually manipulating the mass flow rate of cooling fluid to each unit for localized demand-responsive cooling.
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,868,682 — (as pleaded, "Agent based control method and system for energy management") (issued Mar. 22, 2005). The Legal Newsline summary loosely describes the '682 patent as "controlling temperature in a data center based on sensory data," but parallel Valtrus complaints identify it as a hierarchical, agent-based energy-management control system with software agents at rack, row and CRAC levels. Practitioners should treat the news description as imprecise and rely on the complaint/patent text.

All three trace to HPE inventors and are long expired-or-near-expiration assets, which is why the theory is framed as past damages (Valtrus seeks damages, interest, and fees rather than forward injunctive relief).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters

Valtrus and KPI filed in W.D. La., Monroe Division on April 27, 2026 (No. 3:26-cv-01346), and served at least two pre-suit licensing/notice letters on Lumen's GC Stacey Goff (March 2024) and CEO Kate Johnson (May 2024), which Lumen allegedly never answered. Lumen appeared through local counsel Claire Elizabeth Juneau and pro hac vice counsel Kevin E. Cadwell (Cadwell Thomas LLP) and Jon V. Swenson, and on August 4–6, 2026 moved to sever and stay claims relating to "Vertiv accused products" — the same supplier-indemnity theory that has driven Vertiv to intervene and file declaratory-judgment actions in Valtrus's other data-center cases. That motion (noticed to Magistrate Judge Kayla D. McClusky) never got decided in Louisiana: on August 7, 2026, the JPML transferred the case into MDL No. 3190, In re: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas (now No. 2:26-cv-00670). The JPML's initial August 7 order transferred seven actions (J.P.M.L. ECF No. 64), with conditional transfer orders (CTO-1, CTO-2) later sweeping in tag-alongs such as Prime Data Centers, Cogent, Iron Mountain and NTT; Valtrus and KPI themselves had moved for centralization on April 28, 2026, citing 12 overlapping actions. Because the transfer order made all pending W.D. La. motions moot, Lumen's sever/stay motion must be re-urged in E.D. Tex. (see Dkt. 19 in 2:26-cv-00670). A prior, apparently short-lived Lumen suit in N.D. Ill. (No. 1:26-cv-03928, filed Apr. 7, 2026 and terminated Apr. 27, 2026) appears to be the refiling precursor, though I could not independently confirm the dismissal reason. The identity of the original W.D. La. district judge is not well sourced in the materials reviewed.

The case is notable on several axes. First, it is part of an unusually coordinated MDL-driven NPE campaign — Valtrus/KPI litigating the same HPE data-center cooling family against a dozen+ operators simultaneously, now consolidated before Judge Gilstrap, whose E.D. Tex. docket is known for fast time-to-trial (a factor Valtrus has repeatedly invoked in PTAB discretionary-denial fights). Second, it illustrates the "sue the customer, not the supplier" strategy: because the asserted claims are largely method claims practiced at the data center, Valtrus targets operators (Lumen), while equipment vendors like Vertiv seek to intervene, indemnify and obtain declaratory relief — generating satellite DJ and IPR litigation. Third, there is substantial PTAB/IPR linkage across the Valtrus and Malikie portfolios (Unified Patents has filed ex parte reexaminations and IPRs against Valtrus/KPI/Malikie assets, and Unified has published a members-only Valtrus litigation-analysis report describing "dense… IPRs, declaratory judgment and reexamination activity"); however, I could not confirm a specific instituted IPR against the '277 patent itself, so that should not be assumed. Fourth, the market context is significant: data-center cooling efficiency is a hot topic amid the AI build-out, energy-cost and power-density pressure make the patented "map-and-compare" and per-unit flow-control concepts commercially salient, and the patents' 2002–2005 priority dates make validity/enforceability and § 286 damages limits central. Notably, Valtrus has shown willingness to drop older cooling patents mid-case (it jointly stipulated to dismissal of the '277 and '870 patents in the NTT Data action in January 2026), which is a useful signal for how the Lumen case may evolve.

Caveats on sourcing: The party roles, accused technology, patent list and transfer facts are grounded in the complaint-as-reported (Legal Newsline/American Press), the JPML MDL 3190 orders, the E.D. Tex. docket (2:26-cv-00670), and Unified Patents/IP fray/IAM commentary. Specific damages theories, the full accused-product list (beyond "Baton Rouge and New Orleans"), the exact Vertiv products at issue, and any '277-specific IPR outcome are not established by the sources reviewed and should be confirmed against PACER and PTAB filings before being relied upon.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I've pulled what the public record (PACER mirrors, JPML filings, PTAB dockets, and trade press) shows. One important caveat up front: this case is at a very early, transitional stage, and the E.D. Tex. docket snapshot available for 2:26-cv-00670 reflects nothing beyond the transfer-in entry (Dkt. 19). There is no Markman, no summary-judgment practice, no trial, and no verdict in the Lumen case itself. Several "substance" developments must therefore be drawn from the related MDL/Vertiv/SAP/Google track, which I flag as such.

1. Pre-suit history (context, 2024–early 2026)

Date Event
2024-03 Valtrus's counsel sends Lumen's EVP/GC Stacey Goff a portfolio notice letter offering a license (Compl. ¶, via Legal Newsline).
2024-05 Follow-up letter to Goff and CEO Kate Johnson with an additional claim chart; Lumen never responds (same).
2025-02-26 Vertiv Corporation files IPR2025-00668 against U.S. 6,718,277 — the only asserted Lumen patent ever challenged at the PTAB (PTAB docket via ipverse; ptacts.uspto.gov petition docs).
2025-07-31 Director discretionary decision denying institution of IPR2025-00668 (no merits ruling on the '277 patent). Post-institution fee refund approved 2025-09-23.
2025-10-09 In Vertiv I (2:24-cv-00361), the parties file a "Joint Notice re Resolution of Claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,718,277 and 7,031,870" — Valtrus drops the '277 patent from the Vertiv DJ action (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 162).
2026-03-16 N.D. Cal. dismisses Valtrus's Google suits: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-07063-PCP — Valtrus I dismissed for lack of constitutional standing (transfer of all exclusionary rights to KPI under the declaration of trust; defect incurable, dismissal without leave to amend but without prejudice) and Valtrus II dismissed for claim-splitting.

Why this matters for Lumen: the standing holding is the single largest latent risk in this case. Earlier, E.D. Tex. courts (Valtrus v. SAP, 2:24-cv-00021, Dkt. 83 (2024-11-08); Pictiva Displays v. Samsung, 2:23-cv-00495, Dkt. 128 (2024-12-11)) found constitutional standing but no § 281 statutory standing, requiring KPI's joinder under Rule 19. N.D. Cal. went further and found no Article III standing at all. Valtrus and KPI are suing Lumen jointly — the direct consequence of those rulings — which cures the § 281 problem but not necessarily the Article III defect as to Valtrus.

2. Filing and initial pleadings (Lumen case)

2026-04-08 — parallel N.D. Ill. action filed and abandoned. Valtrus/KPI sued Lumen in N.D. Ill. (1:26-cv-03928), served 2026-04-10 (answer due 5/1/2026). After a Local Rule 3.2 affiliate-disclosure reprimand (Dkt. 12, 16), plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on 2026-04-24, granted 2026-04-28 (Dkt. 17, 18). Three days later they refiled in Louisiana.

2026-04-27 — Complaint filed, W.D. La., Monroe Division, No. 3:26-cv-01346, assigned to Judge Terry A. Doughty and Magistrate Judge Kayla D. McClusky (Dkt. 1). Asserted patents: '287 (6,854,287), '682 (6,868,682), '277 (6,718,277) — data-center cooling / atmospheric control, HPE-origin. Exhibits include claim charts against Vertiv, Stulz-Trane, Schneider Electric, and DataAire equipment for the '287 and '682 patents, and a single chart for the '277 patent (no Vertiv chart — consistent with Valtrus's MDL position that '277 is asserted only for use of non-Vertiv equipment).

2026-04-28 — Corporate disclosure (Dkt. 2): New PP Licensing LLC → KPI → Valtrus. AO 120 filed (Dkt. 3).

2026-04-29 / 04-30 — Summons issued (Dkt. 4); notice of MDL motion filed (Dkt. 5); Lumen served 2026-04-30 (affidavit, Dkt. 6, filed 5/4/2026).

Responsive pleading: never filed in W.D. La. Two consent extensions moved Lumen's answer deadline to 2026-07-17 (order 2026-06-03, Dkt. 8) and then 2026-08-16 (order 2026-07-20, Dkt. 10). The case transferred on 2026-08-07, before any answer. No answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaims appear on either docket (as of the latest available snapshots). Any Lumen counterclaims (DJ of non-infringement/invalidity, § 285) would be first-filed in E.D. Tex.

Counsel: Plaintiffs — Jan P. Christiansen (Christiansen Law Firm, Monroe, LA) and Matthew G. Berkowitz / Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. Defendant — Claire Elizabeth Juneau (local), with Kevin E. Cadwell (Cadwell Thomas LLP) and Jon V. Swenson admitted pro hac vice 2026-07-29 (Dkts. 11–14).

3. First substantive motion practice — and the MDL transfer

2026-08-05 — Lumen's Motion to Sever and Stay Claims Relating to Vertiv Accused Products (Dkt. 15), referred to Mag. J. McClusky, responses due 2026-08-27 (notice at Dkt. 16, entered 8/6/2026). This is the only merits-adjacent motion of substance filed in the case. Its logic: the '287 and '682 claims premised on customers' use of Vertiv equipment are already the subject of Vertiv's declaratory-judgment actions in E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap; Lumen asked to sever/stay those claims so only the non-Vertiv equipment theories proceed. It mirrors Prime Data Centers' motion to stay filed in the (then) E.D. Cal. case on 2026-08-04/05.

2026-04-28 → 2026-08-07 — MDL No. 3190.

  • 2026-04-28: Valtrus/KPI move the JPML to centralize 12 actions (10 data-center-operator suits + Vertiv I & II) in E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap, emphasizing that "no counsel for any Data Center Defendant has entered an appearance or filed an answering statement or motion" (JPML brief, mdlcases.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/MDL-3190.pdf).
  • 2026-04-30: MDL No. 3190 assigned; briefing schedule set (responses due 5/21, replies 5/28).
  • 2026-05-15/18: Defense motion to extend; Panel grants in part — responses due 2026-06-04, replies 2026-06-11.
  • 2026-06-04/05: Lumen (with EvoDC, H5, Iron Mountain, Netrality, Prime, CoreSite, Cologix, NTT, STACK, and Vertiv as intervenor/consolidated plaintiff) files a joint response in opposition to centralization (MDL 3190 ECF 10, errata ECF 11). NTT filed separately.
  • 2026-08-07: JPML transfers 7 civil actions to E.D. Tex. for coordinated/consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, assigned to Judge James Rodney Gilstrap (MDL 3190, ECF 64). Trade press (Patent Lawyer Magazine, 2026-08-21) attributes the panel action to "June," but the JPML order itself is dated 2026-08-07 — I'd rely on the order.
  • 2026-08-07: W.D. La. issues the § 1407 transfer order (Dkt. 18), terminating 3:26-cv-01346; case opened in E.D. Tex. as 2:26-cv-00670 (Dkt. 19).
  • Effect on Lumen's motion: under E.D. Tex. LR CV-7(j), all pending motions from the transferor court are deemed moot and must be re-urged. Lumen's sever/stay motion therefore died on transfer and has not (per available records) been re-filed.
  • Later CTOs: CTO-1 added Prime Data Centers (E.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-02413 → E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00762); CTO-2 added Cogent Communications and Compass Datacenters (N.D. Tex. 3:26-cv-02758 / 02760 → E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00799 and 2:26-cv-00800), filed 2026-09-09.

4. Claim construction, discovery, trial, post-trial — status in this case

None has occurred in the Lumen case. No scheduling order, infringement/invalidity contentions, Markman briefing, dispositive motions, trial setting, verdict, or JMOL/§ 285 practice appears on the 2:26-cv-00670 docket.

What exists is inherited claim construction from the lead MDL case:

  • In Vertiv I (2:24-cv-00361), the court appointed a technical advisor (Dkt. 135) and completed claim construction of the '287 patent (Dkts. 201, 221) — per Valtrus's own MDL brief. That construction will almost certainly govern the '287 claims against Lumen. (The MDL brief does not give opinion dates.)
  • The '277 Markman fight — "empirical atmospheric map" / "empirical thermal map," with Vertiv proposing "visual representation of an area showing measured … conditions" against Valtrus's plain-and-ordinary-meaning position — was briefed in Vertiv I (P.R. 4-3 filed 2025-08-11; P.R. 4-5(d) charts 2025-10-01 and 2025-10-09), but the '277 claims were dropped from Vertiv I on 2025-10-09, so it appears the court never construed the '277 terms. Lumen is thus likely to be the first party to get a '277 construction.
  • The MDL is the mechanism for a single, consistent construction; Judge Gilstrap has already flagged the structural problem that "there is no data center owner involved in the case" in Vertiv I (11/20/25 Tr. at 8:15-20, quoted in MDL brief) — precisely the gap the consolidated Lumen and operator cases fill.

Discovery milestones with strategic significance so far are all in the aggregate campaign, not this case: extensive third-party discovery and multiple motions to compel in the SAP case (Dkts. 143–154, April–May 2025); Vertiv's invalidity contentions in Vertiv I (citing '287 and '682 art); and the technical advisor's work in Vertiv I.

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

Patent PTAB proceeding Outcome Effect on Lumen litigation
6,718,277 IPR2025-00668, Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., filed 2025-02-26 (claims 1–12+ challenged; Nakanishi, Bishop, Patel, Nakagawa, Blake, Lee/Mahalingam art; Abraham decl.) PO Preliminary Response 2025-07-14; Petitioner's corrected opposition to discretionary denial 2025-07-18; Director discretionary decision DENYING institution 2025-07-31; refund approved 2025-09-23 No estoppel, no claim cancellation. The '277 patent remains live and asserted against Lumen (and most other data-center defendants) for non-Vertiv equipment.
6,854,287 No IPR/PGR located — Validity will be litigated in the MDL/Vertiv I.
6,868,682 No IPR/PGR located — Same; '682 is the core patent in Vertiv II (2:26-cv-00084, filed 2026-02-02).

Note for completeness: Valtrus/KPI are the patent owner in a large separate PTAB/IPR docket (IPR2026-00060 on the '416 patent against FedEx; a FedEx IPR on the '332 patent; a parallel ex parte reexamination 90/015,497 on the '332 patent; IPRs on the Google '704/'764/'809/'005/'454 patents, where the PTAB invalidated '764, '005, and '454 and rejected several '809 claims). None of those patents is asserted against Lumen, but they show the Fintiv/settled-expectations template the PTAB has been applying to this patent owner and the discretionary-denial posture that killed the one Vertiv challenge to a Lumen patent.

6. Present posture (as of 2026-09-18) and what to watch

Posture: Active, but only just restarted. The case is now E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00670, before Judge Gilstrap as part of MDL No. 3190. The transferor court's docket closed with the Rule CV-7(j) mootness rule, so the sever/stay motion and the unexpired answer deadline both carried over unresolved. No answer, no counterclaims, no scheduling order, no Markman, no trial.

Watch items, in likely order:

  1. Lumen's responsive pleading and counterclaims in E.D. Tex. (DJ of non-infringement/invalidity; § 285).
  2. Re-urging the sever/stay motion (Vertiv-equipment claims vs. non-Vertiv equipment claims) — the same issue is pending in Prime Data Centers and, in modified form, in the other operator cases.
  3. A Rule 12(b)(1) standing challenge to Valtrus for lack of exclusionary rights under the declaration of trust, now supported by the 2026-03-16 N.D. Cal. Google order — the most consequential non-infringement defense in the case. KPI's co-plaintiff status cures § 281 but may not cure Valtrus's Article III defect.
  4. An MDL-wide scheduling order and consolidated claim construction, which would import the Vertiv I '287 construction and give Lumen its first construction of the '277 terms.
  5. Further IPR activity — no petition on the '287 or '682 patents has surfaced, and Vertiv's only '277 petition was discretionarily denied. Given the Office's current Fintiv/§ 314(a) practice reflected in the FedEx briefs, additional petitions against these patents face a steep discretionary-denial hurdle.

Sourcing notes / gaps: The W.D. La. docket entries 1–19 are well documented via PACER mirrors (pacermonitor.com case 66137018; dockets.justia.com). I could not locate a filed answer, counterclaims, a scheduling order, or any Markman/trial activity in 2:26-cv-00670; if such filings exist in the last several weeks they are not in the snapshots I could retrieve, and I have not asserted them. The JPML transfer order is dated 2026-08-07 (govinfo PDF of the CTO-1 in E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00762); the Patent Lawyer Magazine article's "June" reference for the MDL designation conflicts with that order.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research plaintiffs' counsel across the W.D. La. docket, the transferred E.D. Tex. docket, and MDL 3190 filings.

Good leads. Now let me identify the specific attorneys at Reichman Jorgensen and confirm the docket appearances in the transferred E.D. Tex. case.

Now let me confirm the specific appearances on the transferred docket, the RJLF team on the operator suits, and any MDL leadership appointments.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs (Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.)

Scope note: This section identifies counsel for the plaintiffs. Defense counsel (Claire Elizabeth Juneau/Cadwell Thomas; Kevin E. Cadwell; Jon V. Swenson) is already covered in the case overview and is not repeated here. Where an appearance is confirmed on the docket I say so; where I am extrapolating from the parallel Valtrus operator suits or from press reporting, I flag it.

Summary table

Attorney Role Firm / Office Confirmation on this docket
Jan P. Christiansen Filing attorney; Louisiana local counsel (Monroe Division) Christiansen Law Firm, Monroe, LA Confirmed — Dkt. 1 signature/filing attorney for both plaintiffs
Matthew G. ("Matt") Berkowitz Lead trial counsel (portfolio-wide for Valtrus/KPI) Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF), Redwood Shores, CA Confirmed as counsel in related Valtrus actions; not yet confirmed on 2:26-cv-00670 docket
Patrick R. Colsher Lead counsel / trial team; also IPR lead counsel for Valtrus RJLF, New York, NY (400 Madison Ave., Ste. 14D) Reported by ip fray as counsel on the April-2026 operator wave (which includes Lumen); not yet confirmed on the E.D. Tex. docket
Connor S. Houghton Counsel RJLF, Washington, D.C. (1909 K St. NW, Ste. 800) Reported by ip fray for the operator wave; confirmed in other Valtrus matters (e.g., Vertiv I / Equinix)
Sean M. McCarthy Counsel Reported as part of the RJLF team (firm attribution not independently confirmed) Reported by ip fray for the operator wave only
Aaron L. Morris Counsel RJLF, Redwood City/Redwood Shores, CA Confirmed in sibling Valtrus actions (Equinix, Digital Realty, SAP); not confirmed here
Ariane S. Mann Counsel RJLF, Washington, D.C. / Austin, TX Confirmed in sibling Valtrus actions; not confirmed here
Eric H. Findlay Texas local counsel for Valtrus/KPI in E.D. Tex. generally Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX Not on the Lumen docket as of the last docket snapshot; likely to be added now that the case sits in Judge Gilstrap's court — see caveat below

1. Confirmed on the Lumen docket (pre-transfer, W.D. La. 3:26-cv-01346)

Jan P. Christiansen — Christiansen Law Firm (Monroe, Louisiana).
The W.D. La. docket entry for the complaint records: "COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs with Jury Demand … (Attorney Jan P Christiansen added to party Key Patent Innovations Ltd(pty:pla), Attorney Jan P Christiansen added to party Valtrus Innovations Ltd(pty:pla))" — Dkt. 1, No. 3:26-cv-01346 (W.D. La., filed Apr. 27, 2026), carried forward as Dkt. 19 in the transferred action, E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00670 (PacerMonitor case page for 2:26-cv-00670). Press coverage of the filing likewise states the plaintiffs "are being represented by Christiansen Law Firm in Monroe and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP in Redwood Shores, California" (Legal Newsline / American Press / New Orleans CityBusiness, June 2026). Law360's firm page lists Jan P. Christiansen (Monroe, LA) with an April 27, 2026 entry for Valtrus Innovations Ltd et al v. Lumen Technologies Inc, matching the filing date.

This is the classic Monroe-Division local-counsel structure: because Lumen is headquartered in Monroe, the complaint was filed through a Monroe firm. What I could not verify: the actual signature block of the complaint. Given RJLF's uniform practice in the parallel Valtrus complaints (e.g., the Equinix complaint, 2:25-cv-00016, signed by Berkowitz (lead), Morris, Colsher, Houghton, Mann plus Texas local counsel), it is very likely the Lumen complaint bears the same RJLF signature lines plus Christiansen, but I could not retrieve the signature page to confirm. Additional Christiansen Law Firm attorneys, if any, are not reflected in the entries I reviewed.

2. The plaintiffs' national/lead trial team — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

RJLF is Valtrus's and KPI's long-standing lead firm across essentially the entire HPE data-center campaign, so continuity of personnel is the single most reliable predictor of who will appear in the Lumen matter:

  • Matthew G. Berkowitz (RJLF, Redwood Shores, CA) — the portfolio's designated LEAD ATTORNEY in the E.D. Tex. docket sheets (e.g., Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG; Valtrus v. Equinix, No. 2:25-cv-00016). Registered patent practitioner (Reg. No. 57,215); listed as back-up IPR counsel for Valtrus in IPR2025-00418 (US 6,871,264). He signed the Equinix complaint for both plaintiffs.
  • Patrick R. Colsher (RJLF, New York) — Reg. No. 74,955; lead counsel for Valtrus in PTAB proceedings (Power of Attorney, IPR2025-00418) and lead/co-lead in the district court actions. ip fray's report on the April 2026 filing wave identifies Colsher as counsel "against the remaining defendants, in both courts" — the group that includes Lumen.
  • Connor S. Houghton (RJLF, Washington, D.C.) — counsel of record in the Valtrus operator suits and the declarant on Valtrus's § 299 joinder brief in Vertiv I (Dkt. 197, Oct. 21, 2025). ip fray names him on the operator-wave team along with Colsher.
  • Sean M. McCarthy — named by ip fray as part of the same plaintiff team on the April 2026 operator wave. Caveat: ip fray's sentence ("Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg's Patrick Colsher, as well as Connor S. Houghton, and Sean M. McCarthy") is grammatically ambiguous as to whether Houghton and McCarthy are being attributed to RJLF or to other firms on the team. I could not independently confirm McCarthy's firm, office, or bar status, so treat his inclusion as reported-but-unverified.
  • Other RJLF attorneys who have appeared for Valtrus/KPI in sibling matters — Aaron L. Morris, Ariane S. Mann (TX Bar No. 24140399), Khue V. Hoang, Navid C. Bayar, Philip J. Eklem, Savannah H. Carnes, Scott L. Cole (Austin), Joy Wang, Tim Trost, James Gordon — are plausible but not confirmed on this docket. Mann and Houghton were on the Equinix complaint along with Berkowitz, Morris and Colsher, which is the closest analogue to the Lumen filing.

3. E.D. Tex. local counsel — the open question after the MDL transfer

The case was transferred into MDL No. 3190 on Aug. 7, 2026 and docketed as 2:26-cv-00670 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (E.D. Tex. transfer order, Dkt. 18; case-transferred-in entry, Dkt. 19). In the E.D. Tex. Valtrus cases, plaintiffs have consistently used Eric H. Findlay (Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX; TX Bar No. 00789886) as Texas local counsel — he signed the Equinix complaint, the § 299 opposition in Vertiv I, and the '870/'179 claim-construction brief. It is reasonable to expect Findlay Craft to be substituted or added as Texas local counsel in 2:26-cv-00670, but I found no docket entry confirming that, and the PacerMonitor snapshot for 2:26-cv-00670 (last checked Aug. 7, 2026) lists only defense counsel — no plaintiff-side appearance entries at all. Similarly, I could not confirm any plaintiffs' liaison counsel designation in MDL 3190 itself; the JPML docket for MDL 3190 (filed Apr. 28, 2026) still shows the generic placeholders "Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs / Liaison Counsel for Defendants."

Why the gap matters: Under E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(j), Lumen's sever/stay motion was terminated as moot on transfer and must be re-urged (Dkt. 19), and new counsel appearances are required in the transferee court. Any appearance list you compile from PACER today should be re-run before relying on it — the 2:26-cv-00670 docket is roughly six weeks past the last snapshot I could access (Aug. 7, 2026), and plaintiff-side E.D. Tex. appearances, pro hac vice motions, and MDL leadership filings are likely to have been docketed since.

4. Cross-checks and caveats

  • Plaintiff identity/standing is itself an issue litigated by these same counsel. In Valtrus v. SAP (2:24-cv-00021-JRG), Judge Gilstrap held that Valtrus does not hold "all substantial rights" and does not satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 281, which is precisely why KPI has been added as a co-plaintiff in the newer complaints — including Lumen's. Expect KPI's joinder to be a contested issue in the MDL. The same team (RJLF) briefed that issue.
  • No in-house counsel appears for plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs are Irish NPEs with no U.S. legal department; all plaintiff-side representation is outside counsel.
  • Nothing is sealed as to plaintiff counsel on the entries I reviewed — the silence is simply a function of docket lag post-transfer, not sealing.
  • Do not attribute the ip fray counsel list to the Lumen complaint itself. That article covers a wave of complaints (Hisense, NTT, STACK, EvoDC, Netrality, CoreSite, Prime, Lumen); it confirms the team on the wave, and reports that Lumen is among the defendants sued over data-center patents, but it does not reproduce the Lumen signature block.
  • Consistency with the existing case summary: the prior sections correctly identified defense counsel and the transfer mechanics, and correctly noted the "sue the customer, not the supplier" posture (Vertiv intervening/DJ actions). The plaintiffs'-counsel piece was the missing link; the notable point of continuity is that the same RJLF team litigating the Vertiv declaratory judgment actions is now on both sides of the MDL's core patents — i.e., Valtrus/KPI's counsel in the Lumen matter are the same lawyers defending Valtrus against Vertiv's DJ claims on the '287 and '682 patents.

Bottom line: For the Lumen case specifically, the only docket-confirmed plaintiff-side attorney is Jan P. Christiansen (Christiansen Law Firm, Monroe, LA), with Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP as lead national counsel — most likely Matthew G. Berkowitz (lead), Patrick R. Colsher, and Connor S. Houghton, per ip fray's reporting on the same filing wave. Confirm the post-transfer E.D. Tex. appearance list and any Findlay Craft substitution directly on PACER for 2:26-cv-00670 before relying on it.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record across the docket, firm announcements, and related Valtrus matters.

Strong docket data. Now let me pin down each attorney's firm, office, and background.

Now let me identify the MDL-level counsel and check for any post-transfer appearances in E.D. Tex.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Lumen Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line: Lumen's defense team is a two-firm structure — Cadwell Thomas LLP (Houston) as national/IP lead trial counsel (Kevin E. Cadwell and Jon V. Swenson, both admitted pro hac vice in W.D. La. on July 29, 2026) and Kean Miller LLP (New Orleans/Baton Rouge) as Louisiana local counsel (Claire Elizabeth Juneau, who is the filer of record on the docket and the only attorney formally added as counsel of record in the transferor court). In the JPML/MDL No. 3190 proceedings, additional coordinated-defense counsel (Timothy P. Maloney, Nixon Peabody) filed on Lumen's behalf alongside the other data-center defendants. No in-house Lumen attorney has appeared.

Counsel of record

Attorney Role Firm / office Notable experience
Claire Elizabeth Juneau Local counsel (Louisiana) — counsel of record in W.D. La.; entered as counsel of record on the docket and efiled Lumen's sever/stay motion Kean Miller LLP, 909 Poydras St., Ste. 3600, New Orleans, LA (also Baton Rouge) Litigation partner; Chambers USA Band 2, Litigation: Appellate – Louisiana; LSU Law (J.D. 2010, Order of the Coif); former law clerk to La. Supreme Court Justice Victory. Practice is appellate/energy/environmental, not patent — a conventional local-counsel role.
Kevin Eugene Cadwell Lead trial counsel (appears first on the E.D. Tex. docket as Lumen's representative) Cadwell Thomas LLP, Houston, TX (firm founded ~2020; partners ex-Baker Botts / Akin Gump) Founding partner; Chambers-ranked leading Texas IP litigator (3 consecutive years); Best Lawyers in America, Litigation–IP; Vanderbilt J.D. 2002. Currently also represents a plaintiff-side patentee in E.D. Tex. (e.g., Many Worlds 2T Innovations v. Spotify, No. 2:26-cv-00303, before Judge Gilstrap) — i.e., he is a regular in the Gilstrap courtroom on both sides.
Jon V. Swenson Pro hac vice counsel / IP litigation (admitted W.D. La. July 29, 2026) Cadwell Thomas LLP, Houston, TX 20+ years; ex-Baker Botts partner (Palo Alto) for over a decade, then solo practitioner (Bend, OR); joined Cadwell Thomas in May 2026. Represents communications-technology clients in 50+ patent matters; handles PTAB post-grant work (firm press release claims a 100% IPR success rate); Santa Clara J.D. with high honors.

Docket grounding: W.D. La. No. 3:26-cv-01346, Dkt. 11 (motion for Kevin Eugene Cadwell to appear pro hac vice, filed July 29, 2026, receipt ALAWDC-6908545), Dkt. 12 (motion for Jon Vensel Swenson PHV, receipt ALAWDC-6908606), Dkts. 13–14 (orders granting both, July 29, 2026), Dkt. 15 (Lumen's Motion to Sever and Stay Claims Relating to Vertiv Accused Products, efiled by Juneau), Dkt. 16 (motion-setting notice referring the motion to Magistrate Judge Kayla D. McClusky, responses due Aug. 27, 2026). The E.D. Tex. docket for the transferred case (No. 2:26-cv-00670, Judge Rodney Gilstrap) lists Lumen as "Represented By: Kevin Eugene Cadwell, Cadwell Thomas LLP; Jon V. Swenson." Note that Dkt. 19 of the E.D. Tex. case (case transferred in, Aug. 7, 2026) flags under LR CV-7(j) that the Louisiana sever/stay motion is deemed moot and must be re-urged in E.D. Tex.

Coordinated/MDL-level defense counsel (JPML No. 3190)

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Timothy P. Maloney Coordinated defense counsel (MDL 3190) — filed the May 15, 2026 extension motion in the JPML on behalf of "STACK Infrastructure, Inc., et al.," a list that expressly includes Lumen Technologies Inc. (and Cologix, CoreSite, NTT, H5, Netrality, Prime Data Centers, Iron Mountain, EvoDC, and Vertiv) Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL (joined April 2024 from Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, where he co-chaired the litigation group) One of the most prolific patent-trial and PTAB practitioners in the country — first-chair trial experience, 100+ post-grant proceedings, Patexia top-ranked for patent-owner IPR representation; ironically, represented Vertiv as patent owner in a data-center rack-cooling case (Vertiv Corp. v. OptiCool Technologies, W.D.N.Y. 2021–22). Admitted E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex.
Daniel J. Schwartz Coordinated defense counsel (MDL 3190) — filed the joint response in opposition to centralization (June 5, 2026) and the related errata on behalf of a defendant group that includes Lumen Technologies, Inc., EvoDC, H5, Netrality, Prime Data Centers and Iron Mountain Firm not confirmed in the sources reviewed — search results establish his role and case list but not his firm; treat firm/office as unverified. He also filed JPML notices of appearance for Iron Mountain, H5 and Netrality (not expressly for Lumen) Appears to be part of the shared defense-group counsel coordinating the MDL opposition; confirm his firm on the JPML docket before relying on it.

In-house and non-appearing counsel

  • Stacey Goff (Lumen EVP, General Counsel & Secretary) is the recipient of Valtrus's March 2024 notice letter (the willfulness predicate), and Kate Johnson (President & CEO) received the May 2024 follow-up — but neither appears on the docket. No in-house Lumen attorney has entered an appearance.
  • In the short-lived precursor suit, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-03928 (filed Apr. 8, 2026, terminated Apr. 27, 2026), the docket I reviewed shows only a plaintiff's attorney appearance (Matthew Berkowitz); I found no Lumen appearance there. The metadata's Apr. 27, 2026 filing date for the Louisiana case lines up with that N.D. Ill. termination.

Cross-checks and caveats against the prior summary

  1. Consistent with the earlier section — the prior write-up named Juneau (local), Cadwell and Swenson (PHV). The docket confirms all three and adds the firm identifications: Juneau = Kean Miller LLP (New Orleans) and Cadwell + Swenson = Cadwell Thomas LLP (Houston).
  2. New information / slight refinement — the earlier section said Lumen "appeared through local counsel Claire Elizabeth Juneau and pro hac vice counsel Kevin E. Cadwell (Cadwell Thomas LLP) and Jon V. Swenson." That is accurate; what it did not capture is (a) Swenson's May 2026 arrival at Cadwell Thomas (so his Lumen representation is one of his first matters at the new firm), and (b) the MDL-level defense-group counsel (Maloney/Nixon Peabody, Schwartz) who have filed for Lumen in JPML No. 3190 but are not on the merits docket.
  3. Contradiction to flag — the JPML record entry stating "No counsel for any Data Center Defendant has entered an appearance" was true as of May 2026 but is now stale: Juneau was added as counsel of record on July 29, 2026, and Cadwell/Swenson were admitted the same day. Likewise, before transfer (Aug. 7, 2026) Lumen's sever/stay motion (Dkt. 15) was briefed out but never decided; under LR CV-7(j) it is moot and must be re-urged in E.D. Tex.
  4. Not sourceable / do not assume — (a) any E.D. Tex. local counsel separately retained by Lumen post-transfer (none confirmed in the materials reviewed); (b) Daniel J. Schwartz's firm; (c) whether Cadwell or Swenson has formally re-filed a notice of appearance in 2:26-cv-00670 after Aug. 7, 2026 (their names carry over on the PacerMonitor party listing, but I could not retrieve the specific E.D. Tex. appearance docket entries); and (d) whether any additional PHV counsel were admitted after my last-retrieved date. These should be confirmed on PACER (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00670) and the JPML docket for MDL No. 3190.

For contrast on the other side, plaintiffs are represented by the Christiansen Law Firm (Monroe, LA — local) and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Redwood Shores, CA), per Legal Newsline/American Press reporting.