Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc.

I'll research this case across the sources you named before drafting.

Good start. Let me dig into the MDL, the IPR posture, and NTT's corporate background.

Case Overview — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-03945 (N.D. Ill.), now MDL No. 3190 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiffs Valtrus Innovations Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limited ("KPI") are both Irish corporations with the same registered office at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin (see KPI/Valtrus's own corporate disclosure in Valtrus v. Markley Network Services, D. Mass. 1:26-cv-13811, Dkt. 4). Neither makes or sells products; they are pure patent-monetization entities. KPI is the Irish licensing platform that sits above Valtrus — Valtrus holds the asserted patents in trust for KPI, as Valtrus has admitted in its own pleadings (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00361, Dkt. 151 at ¶¶ 39, 49). Valtrus's portfolio traces to Hewlett-Packard/HPE: a March 2024 demand letter from Valtrus's licensing counsel describes "an extensive portfolio of patents originating from Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company," comprising roughly 1,500 patents, about half U.S. (Valtrus letter to FedEx, Oct. 16, 2024, filed as a PTAB exhibit). Vertiv's IPR briefing establishes the '277 chain of title in more detail: HPE issued and held the patent for ~17 years, assigned it to an escrow entity on January 15, 2021, which assigned it to Valtrus on February 2, 2022 — and HPE never commercialized, licensed, or asserted it. Unified Patents has published a members-only analysis describing the Valtrus campaign as one of "multiple parallel assertion programs built on large tranches of acquired assets, targeting cloud, data center, storage, and open-source-related technology," "backed by Irish patent monetization platform Key Patent Innovations" (unifiedpatents.com, Jan. 22, 2026). Defendant NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc. is the U.S. data-center operating subsidiary within Japan's NTT DATA/NTT Group; the Itasca development agreements identify it alongside NTT Global Data Centers CH, LLC (a Delaware LLC) as the permitted grantees of the campus's zoning entitlements. Caveat: the specific identity of the parent named in this case's Rule 3.2 affiliate notification (per the prior summary, NTT America, Inc.) is docketed at Dkts. 3 and 13 but I could not open the filing itself to confirm the caption language.

The accused conduct and the patent. This is a method case against an operator, not a products case against a vendor. Valtrus accuses NTT GDCA's methods of operating and cooling its Chicago-area campus at Itasca, Illinois — specifically the CH1 (255 Pierce Rd., opened 2019), CH2 (275 Pierce Rd., 2023), and CH3 (235 Pierce Rd., under construction, completion slated for 2026) buildings on the ~35-acre, up-to-126 MW campus (Village of Itasca planning documents; dcpulse project profile). The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as NTT's cooling/atmospheric-control methods, evidenced in part by a public data-center video tour and an NTT–Stulz precision-air-conditioning partnership press release, and alleges the equipment in the halls comes from suppliers including Vertiv and Stulz (Ex Parte complaint analysis of Dkt. 1; treat supplier-specific detail beyond Vertiv/Stulz as unverified secondary reporting). One patent is at issue here: U.S. Pat. No. 6,718,277, "Atmospheric control within a building" — filed April 17, 2002, issued April 6, 2004, inventor Ratnesh Sharma, originally assigned to Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. (uspto.report/patent/grant/6718277). In one line: sense atmospheric parameters at many points in a building, generate an "empirical atmospheric map," compare it to a "template atmospheric map," identify "pattern differentials," and vary the quantity, quality, or distribution of conditioned fluid in response. Valtrus asserts at least independent claim 1, with the key disputed terms being "empirical atmospheric map"/"empirical thermal map," "template atmospheric map," "comparing," and "pattern differentials" — terms already briefed on the merits in the parallel Gilstrap case (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 148, Valtrus's responsive claim-construction brief). The '277 patent is one member of an HPE-era data-center-cooling family Valtrus asserts across the campaign (alongside the '287, '179, '682, '683, '284, '870, and '967 patents).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Valtrus and KPI filed this case on April 9, 2026 in the Northern District of Illinois — the district where the accused Itasca halls physically sit — and it was assigned to Judge Virginia M. Kendall (magistrate: Albert Berry, III), with service effected on NTT on April 10, 2026 (Justia docket 1:26-cv-03945; Dkt. 14). NTT (represented by Roger J. Fulghum and Brian J. Hausman of Baker Botts) obtained an extension and answered with counterclaims on June 15, 2026 (Dkt. 22), then the parties jointly moved to stay pending the JPML ruling, which Judge Kendall granted on June 18, 2026 (Dkts. 23–24). On August 7, 2026 the Panel created In re Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3190, transferred seven actions to the Eastern District of Texas, and assigned them to Judge James Rodney Gilstrap (MDL No. 3190, ECF No. 64; CTO-1). This case came over on August 11, 2026 and is now No. 2:26-cv-00679-JRG in Marshall — i.e., the case has been pulled out of the district where the accused conduct occurs and into the forum where Valtrus's earlier, already-advanced campaign against data-center operators and Vertiv has been litigated since 2024 (Valtrus v. NTT Data Services, LLC, 2:24-cv-00361-JRG-RSP, lead case). Venue therefore matters in two directions: N.D. Ill. offered NTT the accused-facility district under § 1400(b), but MDL centralization overrides that convenience calculus, handing Valtrus Gilstrap's Marshall docket, where a Markman hearing on these patents was already held October 15, 2025 and where the court is steeped in the family's claim-construction record. The case is notable on three fronts. First, IPR linkage: Vertiv (a cooling-equipment supplier with indemnity obligations to operators) petitioned for review of the '277 patent in IPR2025-00668 on February 26, 2025, but the Director exercised discretionary denial and terminated the proceeding on July 31, 2025, with Vertiv later seeking a refund of post-institution fees — meaning the '277 patent has so far escaped PTAB scrutiny on the merits and is being tested primarily in district court. Second, NPE assertion pattern: Valtrus sues operators on method claims rather than suppliers, converting a procurement decision into ongoing infringement exposure and driving suppliers (Vertiv) into declaratory-judgment and intervention postures; Valtrus has also repeatedly settled operator defendants before validity rulings, as Vertiv has stressed to the Board. Third, market context: filed into the teeth of the AI-driven data-center buildout — NTT's CH3 is part of a ~$10 billion global expansion and 115+ MW of new North American commitments announced March 3, 2026 — the case tests whether two-decade-old air-side thermal-control methods read on modern, sensor-rich cooling control logic. Limitations: I found no MDL 3190 consolidated scheduling order, no pending IPR on the '277 patent post-dating the July 2025 denial, and no merits ruling on the '277 patent in this docket; the lead case's April 2026 trial setting slipped, with an August 2026 pretrial transcript (2:24-cv-00361, Dkt. 409) showing the court still working through license and summary-judgment motions before setting a trial term.

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

Let me dig into the PTAB proceedings and the MDL.

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc.

N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-03945 → E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00679 (MDL No. 3190, Judge James Rodney Gilstrap)
Posture as of 2026-09-18: pending in MDL 3190; the Illinois case has been closed by conditional transfer; no merits ruling, no Markman, no trial.

A threshold caveat: this is a young case (docketed 2026-04-09) that spent its entire N.D. Ill. life under a stay pending JPML action. There are therefore no motions to dismiss, no transfer motion, no stay-pending-IPR motion, no Markman, no discovery milestones, no trial, and no judgment in this docket itself. Everything of substance on the merits is happening in the related proceedings — the E.D. Tex. lead case, the PTAB, and the standing rulings in the Google/SAP cases. Those are covered below because they directly drive this docket.

---

I. Chronological developments

A. Pre-suit and pre-filing (2024)

B. The 2026 filing wave (April 2026)

C. MDL proceedings, answer, and stay (May–June 2026)

D. MDL 3190 created; this case transferred (August–September 2026)

Associated cases now in MDL 3190 (per the JPML docket): ILN 1:26-cv-03926, -03929, -03945, -03958; LAW 3:26-cv-01346; NJ 2:26-cv-03884, -03886, -03890; TXE 2:24-cv-00361; TXE 2:26-cv-00084, -00286, -00287.

---

II. Pre-trial motions of substance

In this docket: none. The only motions were pro hac vice applications, an unopposed extension to answer, and the joint motion to stay (Dkt. 23, granted 2026-06-01). No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no stay-pending-IPR motion, no summary judgment.

In the related E.D. Tex. lead case (2:24-cv-00361), which the MDL has now swept in:

• Valtrus's motion to dismiss Vertiv's declaratory-judgment complaint (Dkt. 121), argued 2025-09-10; the magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 253) recommended denial; Judge Gilstrap adopted the R&R and denied the MTD on 2026-03-24 (Dkt. 266). Valtrus separately re-urged the same motion after transfer from N.D. Tex. — a notable sequence of two bites at the dismissal apple.
• Spring 2026 dispositive-motion barrage (filed sealed ~2026-03-13; redacted versions Dkts. 267–277 on 2026-03-30; oppositions 2026-04-06):
  • Valtrus: four partial summary-judgment motions (no invalidity on certain prior art; no invalidity under §§ 112/101; no invalidity based on "Patel '104"; no unpleaded license claim) plus a motion to exclude opinions of Dr. John Abraham.
  • Vertiv: four summary-judgment motions of non-infringement (claims 8–22; "dropped products"; claims 5–6; claims 1–9), a Daubert motion to strike Dr. Himanshu Pokharna, and a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claims 1–4 and 7–9 of the '287 patent.
• A joint motion to amend the Eighth Docket Control Order was filed 2026-04-06 (Dkt. 279) — consistent with the April 2026 trial setting slipping.

Standing motions (cross-cutting, and the single most consequential merits issue for Valtrus). Multiple courts have held that Valtrus does not hold "all substantial rights" and therefore lacks statutory standing under 35 U.S.C. § 281, requiring Key Patent Innovations to be joined:

• Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America (D. Del. No. 1:24-cv-00756): the court found Article III standing but no § 281 standing, because under the Declaration of Trust KPI holds the enforcement right of first refusal and directs any suit, and Valtrus cannot alienate rights without KPI approval. The case ended by stipulated dismissal on 2025-12-09 with no merits ruling (Judge Gregory B. Williams).
• Earlier E.D. Tex. rulings to the same effect in Valtrus's data-monitoring cases (Valtrus v. [defendant], No. 2:24-cv-00021; Pictiva Displays, No. 2:23-cv-00495), which led Valtrus to re-file with KPI as co-plaintiff "out of an abundance of caution."
• 2026-03-17: reporting that the N.D. Cal. (Judge in 5:25-cv-07063) dismissed Valtrus's consolidated suits against Google on standing grounds relating to the same Declaration of Trust.

Strategic read-through to NTT: Valtrus's April 2026 complaints — including this one — name KPI as a co-plaintiff, which is a direct, structural response to the § 281 problem. Expect standing to be litigated in the MDL regardless.

---

III. Claim construction (Markman)

• This case: no Markman. The case was stayed roughly six weeks after the answer was filed and transferred to the MDL before any scheduling order, Rule 26(f) conference, or P.R. 4 disclosures.
• Related E.D. Tex. lead case: claim-construction practice ran on the same patent family. The P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement was filed 2025-08-11 (Dkt. 117), covering the '277 patent ("empirical atmospheric map"/"empirical thermal map," "template atmospheric map"/"template thermal map," "comparing said empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map," "pattern differentials"), plus the '287 ("method for cooling a room…," "an air conditioning unit"), '179 ("cooling fluid," "controllable partition," "movable device…") and '870 ("calculating indices of air re-circulation") patents. No agreed constructions; four hours anticipated.
• Positions: Vertiv sought a "visual representation" gloss on "empirical/template atmospheric [thermal] map"; Valtrus argued plain and ordinary meaning and objected that Vertiv's construction was untimely changed from its P.R. 4-2/4-3 disclosures ("trial by ambush"). Vertiv also asserted 29 claims of the '870 patent are indefinite. The Markman hearing was set for 2025-10-15 in the E.D. Tex. lead case.
• No Markman ruling on the '277 patent is confirmed in the sources I could reach. Treat as an open item; the construction of "empirical atmospheric map" and "pattern differentials" is the pivotal issue for the '277 patent.

---

IV. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• This case: none. It was stayed on 2026-06-01 before any Rule 26(f) conference or discovery order.
• Related proceedings: In the E.D. Tex. lead case, Vertiv served invalidity contentions; Valtrus served infringement contentions; the parties exchanged written discovery; experts (Dr. John P. Abraham for Vertiv; Dr. Himanshu Pokharna for Valtrus) were deposed and their opinions challenged on Daubert. In other Valtrus matters, IPR papers reference served infringement/invalidity contentions in the FedEx, NetApp, Starbucks, Home Depot and DataBank matters, plus venue discovery in the NetApp action.
• Strategic significance for NTT: NTT's Itasca facilities are the accused instrumentalities, and Valtrus's theory is a method-of-operation theory against multi-vendor cooling systems, so the fact discovery that matters is operational (BAS/EPMS/DCIM control logic, setpoint schedules, cooling-unit control sequences), not product-level. Valtrus's own complaint analysis concedes the two likely battlegrounds: whether multi-vendor control qualifies as a "hierarchy of agents" ('682) and whether cooling control is granular enough to be "individually manipulating a mass flow rate" per heat exchanger unit ('287).

---

V. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion in this case or (so far as retrievable) in the related lead case. The lead case's April 2026 trial setting was overtaken by summary-judgment practice and then by MDL centralization. Post-trial activity exists only in unrelated Valtrus matters (e.g., the Google standing dismissal and the SAP stipulated dismissal).

---

VI. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

• No settlement, no dismissal, no judgment, no appeal in the NTT matter. NTT's counterclaims survive the transfer (pending motions in the transferor court are moot and must be re-urged under LR CV-7(j)).
• Present posture (2026-09-18): active but dormant. The case is No. 2:26-cv-00679 (E.D. Tex.), one member of MDL No. 3190 before Judge Gilstrap, awaiting a case-management/lead-counsel structure and coordinated scheduling. Because the MDL also absorbed the lead case 2:24-cv-00361, Judge Gilstrap now controls both the previously-scheduled trial track and the newer tag-along complaints. The next inflection points will almost certainly be (a) appointment of lead/ liaison counsel and a consolidated scheduling order, (b) rulings on the already-briefed E.D. Tex. summary-judgment and Daubert motions, and (c) coordinated claim construction across the family.
• Non-NTT dispositions in the campaign, for context: Valtrus v. Digital Realty Trust — claims dismissed with prejudice as to two member cases by joint motion (Jan. 2025), lead case preserved; Valtrus v. TierPoint — dismissed without prejudice by joint motion; Valtrus v. DataBank — lead case remains open.

---

VII. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

Grounds and record in IPR2025-00668. Vertiv challenged claims including 1–11 and claim 12 of the '277 patent on Nakanishi, Bishop, Patel, Nakagawa, Blake, and Lee & Mahalingam. Valtrus requested discretionary denial; Vertiv's corrected opposition argued settled expectations, compelling economic/innovation interests, and the Fintiv factors — emphasizing that the parallel DJ action's trial date was speculative and that there was no overlap between the petition's grounds and the DJ action. A related § 315(a)(2) dispute arose: at the 2025-09-10 hearing, Vertiv argued the statutory bar did not apply because Valtrus had sued Vertiv's real parties in interest.

Effect on the NTT litigation:

1. No IPR-based stay. Because the '277 IPR was denied institution, there is no live PTAB proceeding on the NTT-asserted patent and no basis for a stay-pending-IPR motion. This is the single most important negative development for NTT's early defense strategy, and it removes one of the standard delay levers.
2. Validity stays in district court. The '277 patent's validity will be litigated in the MDL, not at the PTAB — where the Federal Circuit's Advanced Bionics framework and the Office's discretionary-denial practice would otherwise have narrowed the invalidity case.
3. A fresh IPR on an expired patent is possible but unattractive. The '277 patent issued 2004-04-06 from an application filed 2002-04-17, so its 20-year term (plus any patent-term adjustment) has almost certainly run; the contemporaneous complaints refer to infringement occurring "before the expiration of the '277 Patent." That means the case is a back-damages case, and a new IPR would yield no prospective relief and only limited leverage. Treat the expiration point as an inference from the filing/issue dates, not a confirmed term calculation.
4. The MDL creates a coordination problem for petitioners. With all customer suits consolidated before Judge Gilstrap, the Fintiv/discretionary-denial analysis shifts; expect any new petitions to be filed only after the MDL scheduling order is set.

---

VIII. What I could not verify

• The substance of NTT's May 15, 2026 counterclaims (Dkt. 22) — the free docket text confirms only that an Answer with jury demand and counterclaim was filed against Valtrus and KPI.
• Which motion NTT opposed in the JPML proceeding on 2026-06-04 (MDL No. 3190, Dkt. 12).
• Whether the JPML excluded or included the E.D. Tex. lead case 2:24-cv-00361 in the § 1407 order itself; it appears as an "associated case" on the MDL docket and is listed among the cases associated with MDL No. 3190.
• Any Markman ruling on the '277 patent terms in the lead E.D. Tex. case.
• The exact patent set charted in the N.D. Ill. complaint. The case metadata and prior section identify only U.S. 6,718,277, and I treat the '277 as the asserted patent. A third-party complaint analysis also discusses the '287 and '682 patents, and the complaint attached 13 exhibits consistent with multiple patents and claim charts. Since no infringement contentions were served before the stay, the final asserted-patent set is not yet fixed in this docket. (Note the parallel Lumen suit asserts '287, '682 and '277.)

Sources: Justia docket, 1:26-cv-03945 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2026cv03945/[498513](/patent/498513)); Justia JPML docket, MDL No. 3190 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/multi-district/jpml/ILN/1:26-cv-03945/[1752953](/patent/1752953)); PacerMonitor docket, 2:26-cv-00679 (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66184311/); JPML Conditional Transfer Order CTO-1 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00762/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00762-0.pdf); HarrisMartin, "JPML Asked to Centralize Data Center Cooling Patent Infringement Lawsuits," 2026-04-29; CourtListener docket 2:24-cv-00361 and Dkts. 117, 151 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68526786/); IPVerse, IPR2025-00668 (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00668); PTAB petition papers, IPR2025-00668 (ptacts.uspto.gov); Ex Parte complaint analysis, 1:26-cv-03945 (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ilnd/1:26-cv-03945/doc/analysis/1); IIPLA, "Google Emerges Victorious in Valtrus Data Monitoring Patent Infringement Lawsuit," 2026-03-17; N.D. Cal. opinion text, 5:25-cv-07063 (govinfo); PatSnap litigation summaries for SAP America v. Valtrus and Valtrus v. TierPoint/Digital Realty; American Press/Legal Newsline, 2026-06-07 (Lumen suit).

I'll research the counsel of record for this case through multiple targeted searches.

I have the docket appearances. Now let me identify the firms for each plaintiff's attorney.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-03945 (N.D. Ill.), now In re Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3190, E.D. Tex. (Case No. 2:26-cv-00679, Judge Gilstrap)

Both plaintiffs — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Irish NPEs; Valtrus is a wholly owned subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations) — are represented by the same team. Notably, all plaintiff-side appearances are outside counsel; no in-house counsel for either plaintiff has entered an appearance on this docket.

Confirmed counsel of record (N.D. Ill. appearances, Apr. 9, 2026)

Additional counsel shown on the MDL/aggregated docket

Justia's docket for the JPML/MDL 3190 tag-along of this case lists three additional plaintiff attorneys who do not appear on the four April 9, 2026 N.D. Ill. appearance entries, but who have appeared for plaintiffs across the related Valtrus actions:

Related counsel not of record in this case (for context)

• Ariane S. Mann (RJLF, D.C.) and Andrea L. Fair / Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC / Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX) appear for Valtrus/Key Patent in other matters (Equinix, DataBank, SAP, Malikie) but are not listed on this docket. Under MDL practice they may be added after the transfer.

Procedural notes affecting the counsel roster

1. Transfer / MDL status. This case was transferred to the E.D. Tex. under MDL 3190: Conditional Transfer Order filed Aug. 7, 2026 (N.D. Ill. D.I. 26), electronic record transferred Aug. 11, 2026 (D.I. 27), now E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00679-JRG before Judge Gilstrap. Per E.D. Tex. LR CV-7(j), motions pending at transfer are moot and must be re-urged; counsel generally must re-enter appearances in the transferee court.
2. Stay. Judge Virginia M. Kendall granted the parties' joint motion to stay pending the JPML determination (N.D. Ill. D.I. 24), so the case was stayed while in the Northern District.
3. Discovery-proceedings appearances. Berkowitz and Houghton argued for Valtrus at the Oct. 14, 2025 Markman hearing in the related Valtrus v. NTT Data Services case, and Colsher/Berkowitz/Morris have been the consistent RJLF team across the campaign.
4. Patents. Consistent with the case metadata, the plaintiff's assertion centers on the '277 patent (U.S. 6,718,277). Some complaint analyses of this docket also describe the '287 and '682 patents as asserted against the data-center defendants in the parallel MDL actions, so treat that point as pending confirmation from the operative complaint/transfer papers.

Bottom line: The core, verifiable plaintiff-side roster for this case is Matthew G. Berkowitz (lead, RJLF–Redwood Shores), Patrick R. Colsher (RJLF–New York), Connor S. Houghton (RJLF–Washington, D.C.), and Sean M. McCarthy (local/Chicago) — with Aaron Morris and Nathaniel G. Warner (RJLF) and Eric H. Findlay (Findlay Craft, Tyler, TX) also appearing for plaintiffs on the MDL docket. Firm affiliations for McCarthy and Warner could not be verified from the sources available and should be confirmed on the current E.D. Tex. docket before being cited.

I'll research the docket and firm sources for defense counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc.

Bottom line: Only two attorneys have appeared of record for NTT in this case, both at Baker Botts L.L.P., and both admitted in the N.D. Ill. by pro hac vice before the case was pulled into MDL 3190. No separate local-counsel appearance for NTT, and no additional Baker Botts attorney admission, is reflected in the docket I could retrieve. This confirms (and now grounds with docket cites) the two-name roster in the earlier case summary.

Because the case transferred on the JPML's Aug. 7, 2026 CTO (Dkt. 26) and was docketed in Marshall as No. 2:26-cv-00679-JRG on Aug. 11, 2026 (Dkt. 28), the operative E.D. Tex. docket carries the same two representatives for the defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff, with Fulghum's Baker Botts–Houston address listed.

Attorney detail

Roger J. Fulghum — lead counsel. Registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 39,678); J.D., University of Texas (1994); B.S. electrical engineering (UT, 1990). He is the signatory on the filings that defined this case's early posture: the unopposed extension motion (Dkt. 17), the Answer with jury demand and counterclaims (Dkt. 22), and the joint motion to stay pending the JPML ruling (Dkt. 23) that Judge Kendall granted (Dkt. 24). Chambers USA has ranked him in IP–Texas (Band 4; ranked 2017–2025), and he serves as Baker Botts' Austin IP department chair. Relevant experience for a data-center-cooling NPE defense: he has led scores of IPRs and reexaminations and is described by the firm as having "led teams at Baker Botts that have invalidated dozens upon dozens of asserted patents." Representative matters include defending Dell in the Convolve hard-drive case and Adjustacam (E.D. Tex.) and the Intellectual Ventures campaign against AT&T (35 patents across two suits); representing onsemi/Fairchild against Power Integrations; Halliburton in the $34M composite-packer verdict and in U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) where he obtained an indefiniteness ruling on "high pressure"; and the DSC v. Next Level trade-secret verdict. Baker Botts is currently co-counsel for Dish Network/Sling TV in the C.D. Cal. declaratory-judgment action against Adeia — i.e., he is currently on the defense side of large NPE/portfolio DJ fights, the same structural posture as here.

Brian James Hausman — second chair. USPTO Reg. No. 77,361; J.D., University of Houston Law Center (2023); B.S. mechanical engineering, Texas A&M (2017); admitted in Texas and the S.D./E.D. Tex. (admitted pro hac vice in N.D. Ill. for this case only). His practice mixes patent prosecution, post-grant work, and litigation, and his firm bio lists technical knowledge in HVAC systems — directly on point for the accused air-side cooling and atmospheric-control methods. Recent litigation experience: representing plaintiffs Dish Network/Sling TV against Adeia (N.D. Cal., 2026, where he was also admitted PHV); an oilfield-services infringement action in D. Wyo. with an instituted IPR; and a software license/breach matter in Connecticut. Note the seniority gap: Hausman is roughly three years out of law school, consistent with a supporting role behind Fulghum rather than co-lead.

What I could not confirm (flagging rather than guessing)

• No local counsel of record appears on the N.D. Ill. docket for NTT. The only attorney appearances docketed in Illinois are for the plaintiffs (Dkts. 5–8, Reichman Jorgensen and Findlay Craft personnel). Baker Botts has no Chicago office among its listed locations, so the absence of a docketed local-counsel appearance is worth verifying directly against the live docket — I could not open every N.D. Ill. filing, and a local-counsel notice could exist in a document not surfaced in the docket text I retrieved.
• I could not read the signature blocks of the Answer/counterclaims (Dkt. 22) or the stay motion (Dkt. 23) to see whether additional Baker Botts attorneys (e.g., associates or the firm's E.D. Tex. trial team) are named but have not sought admission. The answer was ECF-filed under Fulghum's login, which is the only attribution available to me. Treat any additional names as unverified.
• No MDL 3190 leadership designation or consolidated defense-group structure has been reported for this defendant as of the latest docket data (PacerMonitor last checked Aug. 11, 2026). If NTT joins a common-interest or joint-defense group with the other data-center defendants in MDL 3190, additional firms would appear later.
• In-house contacts are not counsel of record. The record identifies two NTT in-house figures — John Dick (EVP, General Counsel & Secretary, NTT Data Americas, Inc.), the addressee of Valtrus's March 22, 2024 notice letter, and Christopher T. Stidvent (VP, Commercial Litigation, NTT Data Services, LLC), who responded in April 2024 (both described in the Valtrus v. NTT Data Services, 2:24-cv-00361 complaint, ¶¶ 22–23). Neither has entered an appearance in this action, and I found no evidence they are managing this matter in-house.

Practical read

The defense is single-firm, out-of-district, and concentrated in one lead partner — a Houston-based Baker Botts team led by a Chambers-ranked patent trial lawyer, with no evident Illinois and (so far) no E.D. Tex. local presence on the docket. That is a lean posture for a multi-defendant MDL in which the plaintiff is represented by a four-attorney Reichman Jorgensen/Findlay Craft team and in which the same three HPE-era cooling patents are being litigated against ten operators plus Vertiv. Two consequences worth tracking: (1) once the MDL gets a consolidated schedule, expect a PHV motion or a local-counsel appearance in Marshall under E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-3; and (2) because the answer and counterclaims were filed in Illinois and the case was stayed the same week, no invalidity contentions or IPR decisions on the '277 patent have yet been tied to this defense team's work — the '277 patent's only PTAB exposure (Vertiv's IPR2025-00668) was discretionarily denied in July 2025, so Fulghum's team inherits an untested patent.

Sourcing note: docket entries and pro hac vice grants are from the N.D. Ill. docket sheet (1:26-cv-03945) and the transferred E.D. Tex. docket (2:26-cv-00679) as mirrored on Justia Dockets and PacerMonitor (last retrieval Aug. 11, 2026); attorney credentials are from Baker Botts' own bios, Chambers USA, Best Lawyers/Super Lawyers, USPTO OED registration data (Reg. Nos. 39,678 and 77,361), and firm news releases. Where I could not open the underlying filing, I have said so rather than inferring.