Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. NTT Data Services, LLC et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the accused technology, the remaining patents, and the procedural status.

Case Overview and Background: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. NTT Data Services, LLC et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. is a Dublin-based (Dun Laoghaire) non-practicing entity and the successor-in-interest to a large patent portfolio created by Hewlett Packard Enterprise and its predecessors (Compaq, Verity, Hewlett-Packard Development Co.). Valtrus acquired the portfolio in May 2021 (assignments recorded at Reels 56157/0492 and 55269/0001) and asserts it alongside its parent/affiliate Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI"), the beneficiary of a trust through which Valtrus holds and enforces the patents. Valtrus's Managing Director, Angela Quinlan, is also MD of KPI; Valtrus has publicly stated that 50-plus entities have licensed the portfolio without suit (PTAB Ex. 2023 / IPR2025-01490 declaration). Unified Patents classifies Valtrus as an NPE and a "New PP Licensing LLC entity" and has funded prior-art bounties against several of its patents (Unified Patents PATROLL / CNCF "Cloud Native Heroes Challenge"). The defendants are NTT group operating companies — NTT Data Services, LLC; NTT Data Americas, Inc.; NTT Communications Corp.; and NTT Data, Inc. — i.e., a global IT-services provider and data-center operator (the complaint pleads NTT's Plano, Texas headquarters as a basis for venue). Critically, the NTT defendants are users/operators, not equipment makers: this is an end-user assertion, not a supplier suit.

The accused technology. Valtrus does not accuse a discrete NTT product. It alleges that NTT "makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports systems in its data centers for cooling, or otherwise controlling atmospheric conditions within, the data centers" — i.e., NTT's operation of its own data centers, using commodity cooling equipment sourced from multiple vendors (Vertiv/Liebert iCOM and iCOM-S controls, Stulz, Schneider Electric, Vigilent, Nlyte, Automated Logic, among others). See Complaint ¶¶32–43 (available via CourtListener RECAP, gov.uscourts.txed.230090.1). This "operator/user" theory is what spawned the parallel supplier-side fight: Vertiv Corporation filed a declaratory-judgment action in N.D. Tex. on May 14, 2024, invoking its contractual indemnity/defense obligations to its data-center customers; that case was transferred to E.D. Tex. (2:24-cv-00907) on Oct. 15, 2024 and consolidated for pretrial with the NTT lead case. See Dkt. 158 (Valtrus motion to consolidate; recounting procedural history). The same template recurs across the Valtrus campaign against Digital Realty, CyrusOne, Equinix, TierPoint, DataBank, and (in 2026) Lumen and NTT Global Data Centers Americas (N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-03945), all asserting the same cooling/analytics family.

Patents asserted. Per the complaint, Valtrus asserts the '277 patent plus six others. The metadata for this case lists only U.S. Patent 6,718,277, but the pleadings and claim-construction record show the broader set. Well-sourced one-line sketches: '277 (6,718,277) — "Atmospheric Control Within a Building": sensors generate an empirical atmospheric/thermal map, which software compares against a template map to identify pattern differentials and drive cooling adjustments. '287 (6,854,287) — "system and method for cooling a room configured to house a plurality of computer systems," including individually manipulating the mass-flow rate of cooling fluid to each heat-exchanger unit. '179 (6,862,179) — "Partition for Varying the Supply of Cooling Fluid," a controllable partition in a cooling plenum to zone cooling. '870 (7,031,870) — "Data Center Evaluation Using an Air Re-Circulation Index," computing a re-circulation index from inlet/outlet/supply air temperatures. The remaining three — '490, '855, and '967 — appear in the existing case summary; I could verify only that the '490 is another data-center atmospheric-control patent (automated template map, temperature sensors, controllable partitions/cooling devices) and that the '967 has reportedly been licensed to 50-plus entities. I could not independently source technical sketches for '855 or '967 in this research pass — treat those as unverified. A related patent, the '682 (6,868,682) "Agent Based Control Method and System for Energy Management" (hierarchical software agents controlling cooling-fluid delivery), is asserted in Valtrus's other data-center suits and was added via counterclaim here.

Posture and venue significance. Filed May 14, 2024 in the Marshall Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the case is the lead of Valtrus's 2024 E.D. Tex. wave. The Sept. 3, 2024 Docket Control Order set Markman for Oct. 15, 2025, pretrial for Mar. 2, 2026, and jury selection for Apr. 6, 2026 (a second June 26, 2026 calendar also appears). Valtrus served its P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement on Aug. 11, 2025 (Dkt. 117); the P.R. 4-5 briefing (Dkt. 148 and later) frames disputes over "empirical/template atmospheric map" and a 29-claim indefiniteness challenge to the '870. On Sept. 25, 2025, after the court granted Vertiv leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, Valtrus counterclaimed against Vertiv and more than two dozen Vertiv customers plus "Does 1–200" (unknown customers), adding the '682 patent — a notable escalation that turned a declaratory-judgment case into a mass customer suit. By spring 2026 the docket reflected cross-motions for summary judgment on non-infringement, invalidity (including a motion on claims 1–4 and 7–9 of the '287), and § 112/§ 101 grounds, plus Daubert motions (Dkt. 255–285 range). Venue matters because Gilstrap's Marshall docket is the nation's busiest patent venue with roughly 24–27 months to trial; parallel litigants have argued in PTAB filings that the crowded calendar makes the posted trial dates unreliable and that a Board final written decision will likely precede or moot trial.

Why it is notable. (1) NPE assertion pattern: an Irish, KPI-backed monetization vehicle built on divested HPE assets, running a coordinated "campaign" of nearly identical user-side data-center suits plus supplier declaratory-judgment responses — a strategy IAM and RPX have tracked closely (IAM: "Key Patent NPEs ramp up patent litigation led by Valtrus' data centre suits"). (2) IPR/PTAB linkage: Valtrus faces a dense PTAB landscape — e.g., IPR2022-01497 ('764), -01406 ('005), -01545 ('704), Unified Patents IPR2022-01399, and the 2025 SAP petitions (IPR2025-00414 '182, -00418 '264, -00419 '738, ultimately withdrawn), plus 2026 FedEx/NetApp/Google petitions (IPR2025-01490/01491, IPR2026-00039, -00060) with Fintiv/§314(a) and Sotera stipulation fights. (3) Standing / § 281 exposure: in the SAP case the court found Valtrus lacked "all substantial rights" (KPI controls enforcement and alienation), a finding defendants can leverage to attack Valtrus's capacity to sue. (4) Expired-patent damages limits: Vertiv has argued the '277, '287, and '179 are expired, confining recovery to the six-year lookback — a recurring theme across Valtrus's cooling suits. (5) Market context: the accused technology sits at the center of data-center cooling and energy efficiency, a sector under intense AI-driven demand, making these user-side suits broadly relevant to hyperscalers and colocation operators, and explaining Unified Patents'/CNCF's open-source prior-art bounties against Valtrus patents.

Sourcing caveats. Party identities, patent sketches for '277/'287/'179/'870/'682, procedural history, and DCO dates are grounded in the complaint, Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 117), Dkt. 158, and PTAB filings quoted above. I could not verify the '855 and '967 details, the current post–April 2026 status (e.g., actual trial date, any Markman order text, or settlement), or precise NTT-side counsel in this pass; those should be confirmed against PACER docket 2:24-cv-00361-JRG and the CourtListener RECAP docket (courtlistener.com/docket/68526786) before reliance.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and party/patent background.

Let me get the docket and dig into specific events.

This is a complex, multi-front dispute. Let me dig into the docket chronology and PTAB proceedings.

I hit the tool-call limit, so the following is built from what I was able to pull (CourtListener docket snippets for No. 2:24-cv-00361, PTAB PTACTS petition/exhibit documents, and secondary reporting). Where I could not confirm something, I say so explicitly.

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. NTT Data Services, LLC et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Panel: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The case became the lead case of a consolidated Valtrus proceeding that also absorbed Vertiv Corporation's transferred declaratory-judgment action (member case 2:24-cv-00907-JRG-RSP) and, per docket listings, CyrusOne-related claims.

I. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2024-05-14 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Valtrus asserted seven HPE-origin patents: the '277 (6,718,277, "Atmospheric control within a building"), '287, '179, '870, '490, '855, and '967 patents. Valtrus is an Irish entity (Dun Laoghaire, Dublin) and successor-in-interest to a Hewlett Packard Enterprise portfolio; it holds the patents in trust for Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI") — a structural fact that drove years of standing litigation (see §III).
• Defendants: NTT Data Services, LLC (Plano, TX HQ), NTT Data Americas, Inc., NTT Communications Corp. (Japan), and NTT Data, Inc. (Japan). Infringement was pleaded against NTT's operation of data-center cooling systems, with claim charts (Exs. 8–14; Ex. 14 = '967 chart), plus a willfulness count on the '870 patent. Summonses issued the same day (Dkt. 9).
• 2024-05-14 — Vertiv Corporation filed a parallel declaratory-judgment action in N.D. Tex., seeking declarations of non-infringement of the '277, '287, '179, '870 (and later '682) patents based on its indemnity obligations to Valtrus-targeted customers, and alleging Valtrus's campaign was aimed at its "Liebert"/"iCOM" cooling and control products. Vertiv framed the DJ action as "the battlefield on which the larger fight is being fought."
• Docket party listings in later filings tag NTT Data Services, NTT Data Americas, and CyrusOne with the "[T]" terminated-party marker, which suggests those defendants exited the case early (settlement or dismissal). I could not locate the order effecting that, and the lead-case caption still names NTT Data Services. Treat this as unresolved. Likewise, references to a CyrusOne dismissal order dated 2024-11-21 (in Nos. 2:24-cv-00259 and 2:24-cv-00534) appear in PTAB exhibits but I could not independently verify the terms.

II. Pre-trial motions and schedule

• 2024-09-03 — Agreed Docket Control Order (Dkt. 48). Set Markman for 2025-10-15, Pretrial Conference for 2026-03-02, and jury selection for 2026-04-06. Later amended repeatedly (Second Amended DCO, Dkt. 116; an Eighth Docket Control Order, Dkt. 252), with a Joint Motion to Amend the Eighth DCO filed 2026-04-06 (Dkt. 279) — consistent with the metadata's reference to an alternate 2026-06-26 Gilstrap calendar.
• Valtrus's jurisdictional motions to dismiss (the recurring centerpiece). Valtrus first moved under Rule 12(b)(1) in N.D. Tex. (Dkts. 14, 25, 35); after transfer it re-urged the motion (Dkt. 81), and later filed a further Rule 12(b)(1) motion (Dkt. 121). Each was largely mooted by Vertiv's successive complaints (First Amended, then a Second Amended Complaint allowed by leave granted 2025-09-12 after a 2025-09-10 hearing). Judge Payne issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial (Dkt. 253); Valtrus objected (Dkt. 254); Judge Gilstrap overruled the objections and adopted the R&R, denying the motion on 2026-03-24 (Dkt. 266). So the court accepted subject-matter jurisdiction over Vertiv's DJ claims.
• No motion to transfer by the NTT defendants surfaced in my searches (NTT's venue was uncontroversial given its Plano presence). I found no stay motion in the lead case itself.

III. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2025-08-11 — P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 117), covering the '277, '287, '179 and '870 patents. No agreed constructions — all disputed. Vertiv opened (Dkt. 133); Valtrus responded (Dkt. 148, 2025-09-19).
• Core disputes: construction of "empirical atmospheric map"/"empirical thermal map" ('277 cl. 1, 12, 22) — Vertiv sought "visual representation of an area showing measured conditions corresponding to locations," while Valtrus pressed plain and ordinary meaning and accused Vertiv of late "trial by ambush" amendments to its 4-2/4-3 positions. Vertiv separately asserted 29 claims of the '870 patent indefinite.
• 2025-10-14 — Markman hearing before Judge Payne (transcript at Dkt. 195; argument by Tim Maloney for Vertiv, Matthew Berkowitz and Connor Houghton for Valtrus). The court took claim construction under submission and, so far as I can tell, had not issued a written construction order at the time of the filings I could reach.

IV. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2025-09-25 — Valtrus's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (Dkt. 151). Valtrus counter-sued Vertiv and 25 named Vertiv customers plus Does 1–200 (including NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Equinix, Iron Mountain, Lumen, Cologix, Prime Data Centers, etc.), adding the '682 patent. Valtrus explained it was forced to do so by Vertiv's representations that its products are non-modifiable and that a ruling would preclude later customer suits.
• 2025-10-14 — At the Markman hearing, the court STRUCK the counterclaim. It held the counterclaim was "filed far too late … without leave of Court" and appeared to violate 35 U.S.C. § 299 joinder limits. Valtrus was ordered to file a §299 good-faith joinder memorandum within two weeks and to confer on a joint notice. This mooted Vertiv's motion to sever/strike (Dkt. 167) and is the single most significant discovery/joinder development I found.
• Valtrus separately sought to align this case's schedule with the Equinix case (Dkt. 158, 2025-10-03), citing the "unusual procedural history."

V. Summary-judgment and Daubert phase (spring 2026)

A heavy cross-motion SJ package was filed in March 2026 (redactions entered 2026-03-30):

• Valtrus: partial SJ of no invalidity based on certain prior art (Dkt. 255); no invalidity under §§ 112/101 (Dkt. 257); no invalidity based on Patel '104 (Dkt. 258); and a motion to exclude portions of Dr. John Abraham's opinions (Dkt. 259).
• Vertiv: SJ of non-infringement of claims 8–22 (Dkt. 260); of "dropped products" (Dkt. 261); of claims 5–6 (Dkt. 262); of claims 1–9 (Dkt. 263); a Daubert motion against Dr. Himanshu Pokharna (Dkt. 264); and SJ of invalidity of '287 claims 1–4 and 7–9 (Dkt. 265).

VI. Trial, verdict, post-trial, disposition

• No verdict, judgment, or appeal is documented in anything I could retrieve. As of the last docket activity I can source (April 2026), the case was in SJ/Daubert briefing with an amended trial calendar under negotiation. A June 26, 2026 trial setting is referenced in the case metadata, and today's date (2026-09-18) is past it, but I found no reporting of a trial outcome — I will not speculate. There is no confirmed JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion.
• Structural development: By 2026-08-07, the JPML had created MDL No. 3190, In re: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. Patent Litigation, and began transferring Valtrus/KPI suits into the E.D. Tex. (e.g., Valtrus v. Lumen Technologies (W.D. La. → E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00670, with a pending motion to sever/stay Vertiv-product claims) and Valtrus v. Iron Mountain Data Centers (D.N.J. → E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00669)). This suggests the Valtrus campaign was still being actively litigated into mid‑2026.

VII. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

• IPR2025-00668 — Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. / Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (U.S. 6,718,277). Vertiv filed a Corrected Opposition to Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial, contesting Valtrus's §314(a)/Fintiv arguments (Fintiv factors 1–6; settled expectations; "compelling economic and innovation interests"; Advanced Bionics). The papers confirm the IPR targets the '277 patent — the sole patent listed in the case metadata — and that the DJ action and the DataBank action were the parallel proceedings at issue. Institution status was not confirmed in my sources.
• '967 patent IPR (Google). Google petitioned for IPR of the '967 patent on 2025-06-13, and on 2025-09-05 the N.D. Tex. court (Judge Scholer) stayed Valtrus v. Google, No. 3:24-cv-03249-S, pending IPR (ECF 55). Valtrus's POPR argued discretionary denial, noting Equinix (trial 2026-09-14) and TierPoint (trial 2026-11-02) were set for trial before the projected FTOW (early January 2027).
• SAP IPR2025-00416 (U.S. 7,313,575 — not one of the NTT patents) and related filings also discuss the KPI trust/§281 standing issue. In Valtrus v. SAP America, No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2024), the court found Valtrus had Article III but not statutory standing under § 281 because it lacked "all substantial rights," and required KPI's joinder — a ruling Valtrus's answer in this case essentially concedes ("Valtrus holds the Patents-in-Suit in trust for KPI"). This standing vulnerability explains why later Valtrus pleadings (e.g., the Lumen complaint) name KPI as a co-plaintiff.

VIII. Bottom line

This docket is best understood as a consolidated E.D. Tex. vehicle — Valtrus's NTT data-center case leavened with Vertiv's transferred DJ action — in which the fights that mattered were (1) jurisdiction/standing (Valtrus lost its Rule 12(b)(1) motion in March 2026; §281/KPI issues pervade the family), (2) claim construction of the '277 "atmospheric map" terms (submitted October 2025), (3) §299 joinder (Valtrus's 25-defendant, 200-Doe counterclaim struck in October 2025), and (4) a dense 2026 SJ/Daubert exchange, all shadowed by IPR2025-00668 on the '277 patent and the newer MDL 3190 consolidation.

Sourcing caveats: docket numbers/dates above are drawn from CourtListener entries for 2:24-cv-00361, PTAB PTACTS filings, and the archived Markman transcript; the NTT defendants' current status, any Markman written order, and any trial outcome are items I could not confirm and should be verified on PACER (or via the E.D. Tex. docket for 2:24-cv-00361) before being relied upon.

I'll research the counsel of record for Valtrus Innovations Ltd. in this case.

Let me dig into the docket and primary documents to confirm roles and firm details.

Let me verify the complete attorney roster and roles from the docket and other sources.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. NTT Data Services, LLC, 2:24-cv-00361-JRG

Short answer: Valtrus is represented by the litigation boutique Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP ("RJLF") as lead trial counsel, with Eric H. Findlay of Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, Texas) serving as local counsel. The core team is unchanged from the May 14, 2024 complaint through the 2025–26 claim construction and joinder fights. All appearances compiled below are drawn from the docket and from signed filings; I found no in-house counsel of record (consistent with Valtrus being a patent-monetization entity affiliated with Key Patent Innovations Ltd.).

Confirmed counsel of record

Sources for the above: Complaint signature block, Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. NTT Data Services, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00361 (E.D. Tex. filed May 14, 2024), gov.uscourts.txed.230090.3.0.pdf; P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Dkt. 117 (Aug. 11, 2025), CourtListener; Dkt. 376; Dkt. 197 (Oct. 21, 2025); CourtListener docket 68526786.

Counsel appearing in the case but not yet confirmed as "of record" in this docket number

• Sean M. McCarthy — Listed on the redacted Markman/hearing transcript (Dkt. 409) among Valtrus's RJLF attorneys. He is unquestionably part of the Valtrus team (he made an attorney appearance for Valtrus/Key Patent Innovations in the N.D. Ill. NTT Global Data Centers matter transferred to E.D. Tex. in 2026), but I could not confirm a standalone notice of appearance under this case number. Treat his of-record status as unverified.
• Khue V. Hoang (Reg. No. 44,767), RJLF New York — PTAB back-up counsel for Valtrus (e.g., IPR2025-00418) and listed for Valtrus in the Federal Circuit's In re SAP America, Inc. order (Apr. 10, 2025). That order also names Navid Cyrus Bayar and Brian C. Baran (Washington, D.C.) for Valtrus. I did not find these attorneys on the 00361 docket sheet — they appear in the parallel PTAB/appellate tracks, so I would not list them as counsel of record here without docket confirmation.
• Stuart Hene — Appears in one PTAB exhibit's reproduction of an E.D. Tex. consolidated-docket attorney list as "representing Valtrus Innovations Ltd." Because that list aggregates multiple consolidated/member cases, I cannot confirm Hene as counsel in 2:24-cv-00361 specifically. Flagged as unverified rather than asserted.

Practical notes for your analysis

1. Two-layer structure, no in-house team. Valtrus (with Key Patent Innovations Ltd. as the trust beneficiary/related plaintiff) outsources all litigation to RJLF, with Findlay Craft providing Texas-local presence. There is no in-house litigation counsel of record in any of the ~8+ Valtrus suits filed in 2023–2026.
2. Berkowitz is the anchor. He is the only attorney consistently designated "LEAD ATTORNEY" across the Valtrus filings, and he also argued the In re SAP America Federal Circuit matter for Valtrus — useful if you need to assess continuity of the plaintiff's strategy across the district court, PTAB, and appellate tracks.
3. Posture caveat. The case is now a consolidated lead case (member: Vertiv's DJ action, 2:24-cv-00907-JRG-RSP), with Vertiv intervening and Valtrus's own counterclaims joining data center operator counterclaim-defendants. Vertiv's counsel (e.g., Bo Davis of Davis Firm and others) appear on the same joint filings, so signature blocks on joint documents must be read carefully to separate Valtrus's team from Vertiv's.
4. No sealing issue for counsel identity. Counsel identities here are from public filings; the only sealed item I encountered was Valtrus's in camera Houghton declaration supporting the § 299 joinder brief (Dkt. 316 sidebar), which does not obscure the identity of counsel.

Confidence: High for Berkowitz, Colsher, Morris, Houghton, and Findlay (multiple independent confirmations: complaint, P.R. 4-3 filing, substantive briefs, and the docket). Moderate for the withdrawal of Mann (well sourced: two docket entries plus the April 2026 order). Low/unverified for McCarthy, Hoang, Bayar, Baran, and Hene as counsel of record in this case number.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the NTT defendants' counsel specifically.

Let me look at the docket directly and search for additional NTT counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendants (NTT entities)

Bottom line: The only defendant-side counsel I can confirm by name from public filings is Roger J. Fulghum of Baker Botts L.L.P. (Houston), who appears in the lead-case docket as counsel for NTT Data Services, LLC and NTT Data Americas, Inc. Beyond that, the record is thinner than it looks, because this "lead case" has been procedurally swallowed by Vertiv's consolidated declaratory-judgment action — and Vertiv, by contract, controls the defense. I flag the gaps explicitly below rather than filling them.

1. Confirmed appearances

Sources: docket-role listing in the IPR filings reproducing the district court appearance list ("Roger Joseph Fulghum representing NTT Data Americas, Inc. (Defendant), NTT Data Services, LLC (Defendant)") — PTAB petition attachment; Baker Botts profile — bakerbotts.com/People/F/Fulghum-Roger; Legal 500 profile. Fulghum has also represented NTT Global Data Centers Americas in the later Valtrus suit, 1:26-cv-03945 (N.D. Ill., transferred to E.D. Tex. as 2:26-cv-00679) — PacerMonitor.

2. The defense is contractually controlled by Vertiv — so its counsel matter here

Vertiv's filings state that under its customer agreements "Vertiv has the right to select counsel, direct and control the defense of the claims directed to Vertiv technology, and generally control settlement negotiations." (Vertiv response brief, E.D. Tex.). Vertiv's team — which in practice is litigating the Valtrus patents for the customer-defendants — is:

Sources: P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Aug. 11, 2025) — gov.uscourts.txed.230090.117.0.pdf; Markman hearing transcript/minute entry, Dkt. 195 — CourtListener.

3. Gaps — what I could not verify (do not treat as confirmed)

• NTT Communications Corp. and NTT Data, Inc.: I found no notice of appearance, answer, or counsel attribution for these two named defendants. They may have been dismissed, severed, or voluntarily dropped early; I cannot confirm either way from the sources I reached.
• NTT local counsel in Marshall/Tyler: I did not locate a Texas local-counsel designation for the NTT entities specifically (as distinct from the Davis Firm's role for Vertiv). This may exist in an appearance notice I could not pull.
• Whether Fulghum remains active for NTT: the appearance listing I found is reproduced in a 2025 IPR filing and carries a possible "terminated" marker in the aggregated docket data. Vertiv's brief elsewhere states that of the customer suits against Digital Realty, CyrusOne, Dawn and NTT, "only the action against Digital Realty remains," which suggests the NTT infringement claims were resolved or subsumed. Yet the March 24, 2026 order (Dkt. 266) still carries the caption "Valtrus Innovations Limited v. NTT Data Services, LLC." I could not obtain the full attorney/party docket sheet to reconcile this — a PACER pull of the live docket (party/attorney tab and Notices of Appearance) is needed to state definitively who is currently counsel for each NTT entity.
• Redactions/sealing: no sealing issue affects the appearance data, but the substantive filings are heavily sealed (e.g., Dkts. 255–265, 280–307), so I did not attempt to infer counsel from sealed material.

4. Plaintiff-side counsel (for contrast, and because they appear in every listing)

Valtrus is represented by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Matthew G. Berkowitz (lead), Patrick Colsher, Aaron Morris (Redwood Shores, CA), Connor S. Houghton, Khue Hoang, Ariane S. Mann (Washington, DC; Ms. Mann withdrew per an unopposed motion in April 2026), plus local counsel Eric H. Findlay, Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, TX), and Stuart Hene. (Sources: complaint signature block, txed.230090.1.0.pdf; IPR2025-00667 patent-owner counsel designation, PTAB.)

Recommended verification step: request the E.D. Tex. live docket attorney list (CM/ECF "Attorneys" tab) for 2:24-cv-00361-JRG-RSP, filtered to the four NTT parties, to confirm which Baker Botts attorneys other than Fulghum have entered and whether NTT Communications Corp./NTT Data, Inc. ever appeared.