Litigation

Vertiv Corporation v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

active

2:24-cv-00907-JRG

Patents at issue (1)

6718277

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Vertiv declaratory-judgment action consolidated with 2:24-cv-00361-JRG. Vertiv is also an intervenor in customer suits; Valtrus moved to dismiss for lack of case or controversy, and Vertiv opposed. Vertiv's DJ complaint pleads non-infringement of U.S. Patent 6,718,277.

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 thoroughly using multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper on the patents, the IPR proceedings, and the parties' corporate backgrounds.

Case Overview: Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00907-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Vertiv Corporation is the operating company and plaintiff/declaratory-judgment (DJ) plaintiff here. It is a Westerville, Ohio–based supplier of critical digital infrastructure — uninterruptible power, thermal management, and data-center cooling equipment (it was spun out of Emerson Network Power in 2016) — and it does not operate data centers itself. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. is the defendant and patent owner: an Irish non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) based in Dublin. Valtrus is the successor-in-interest to a large patent portfolio created by Hewlett-Packard/HPE (the '277 patent was originally assigned to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.), and in May 2021 it acquired roughly 1,500 patents (~half U.S.) from HPE. Valtrus is a subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI"), also Irish; Valtrus holds the patents in trust for KPI, which was joined as a counterclaim-plaintiff. According to a Valtrus officer declaration, it has licensed its portfolio to 50+ entities without litigation and works with a licensing agent, Patent Platform Services; Unified Patents has profiled Valtrus/KPI as "backed by [an] Irish patent monetization platform" with "multiple parallel assertion programs" targeting cloud, data-center, storage, and open-source technology. Vertiv is represented by Nixon Peabody LLP and the Davis Firm PC; Valtrus by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Findlay Craft, P.C.

The accused technology. The dispute is not over a Vertiv product per se but over methods of operating data-center cooling systems. Valtrus sent demand/licensing letters and then filed suits against data-center operators (e.g., NTT Data, CyrusOne, Digital Realty, DataBank, TierPoint, Lumen, and others), alleging those operators directly infringe method claims by using cooling equipment — much of it supplied by Vertiv (e.g., CRAC/cooling units) and by other suppliers such as Stulz — to perform claimed cooling/atmospheric-control methods inside their data centers (Valtrus's lead-case complaints identify the accused methods as, e.g., claim 1 of the '277, '287, '179, and '870 patents). Vertiv, which says it is contractually obligated to indemnify and defend its operator customers, intervened in those customer suits and filed its own DJ action seeking a declaration that its products do not infringe and that the patents are invalid — turning the supplier into the plaintiff. Valtrus's answer/counterclaim expressly alleges that "Vertiv's customers' use of the Vertiv products infringes" each asserted patent and names ~20+ Vertiv customers as counterclaim-defendants.

The patents. The prompt's metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 as the patent-at-issue, and that is the patent the DJ pleadings and the Federal Circuit-style jurisdictional fight center on; however, the operative DJ complaint and the consolidated lead case actually implicate four patents, all HPE-origin data-center thermal-management patents:

  • U.S. 6,718,277 ("the '277 patent") — "Atmospheric Control Within a Building." Filed April 17, 2002; issued April 6, 2004; inventor Ratnesh Sharma; 24 claims. One-line sketch: sense atmospheric parameters at many locations, generate an "empirical atmospheric map," compare it to a "template atmospheric map," identify "pattern differentials," and vary the quantity/quality/distribution of conditioned fluid (targeted cooling vs. room-level cooling). It expired in 2022 (before suit), which matters to the jurisdiction analysis.
  • U.S. 6,854,287 ("the '287 patent") — method for cooling a room housing a plurality of computer systems (heat-exchanger units supplied with cooling fluid from an air-conditioning unit); also expired 2022.
  • U.S. 6,862,179 ("the '179 patent") — method of cooling racks in a data center using controllable partitions/zones and cooling fluid (expired 2023).
  • U.S. 7,031,870 ("the '870 patent") — method of evaluating data-center components by "calculating indices of air re-circulation" (expired 2023/2024). Vertiv also argued 29 claims are indefinite.
  • Valtrus's counterclaims add '287, '179, and U.S. 6,868,682 (agent-based energy-management control); other Valtrus suits assert '683, '284, '967, and '855.

Procedural posture and venue. Vertiv originally filed this DJ action in the Northern District of Texas (No. 3:24-cv-01152, filed May 14, 2024), while Valtrus's first-filed customer actions were pending in E.D. Tex. Valtrus moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no case or controversy) and, in the alternative, to transfer under §1404(a). Chief Judge David C. Godbey transferred the case to the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (order Oct. 15, 2024), where it was consolidated into lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG on Nov. 7, 2024 (Dkt. 42). It is now before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The schedule set Markman at Oct. 15, 2025; Valtrus's renewed motion to dismiss was denied — Magistrate Judge Payne recommended denial (Dkt. 253) and Judge Gilstrap adopted the R&R and overruled objections on March 24, 2026 (Dkt. 266), holding there is a justiciable controversy. Venue matters because E.D. Tex./Marshall is the nation's leading patent and NPE venue (Unified Patents reports E.D. Tex. drew ~44% of 2025 NPE filings) and because Judge Gilstrap's docket carries Valtrus's customer cases, giving the court pull toward coordinated resolution.

Why it is notable. First, it is a textbook supplier-vs-NPE indemnity campaign: Valtrus sued the users of cooling methods, not the manufacturer, and Vertiv responded with a DJ action built on its indemnity obligations — the "battlefield on which the larger fight is being fought" — squarely raising Microsoft v. DataTern / Arris / Mitek declaratory-judgment standing doctrine. Second, it is a live IPR linkage case: Vertiv filed IPR2025-00667 ('287), IPR2025-00668 ('277), and IPR2025-00669 ('179) on Feb. 26, 2025 (with a John P. Abraham declaration and prior art such as Bishop and Nakanishi). On July 31, 2025, the Acting Director denied institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a), citing parallel trials (April 6 and June 22, 2026), the unlikelihood of a final written decision before trial, no evidence of a likely district-court stay, and the ~20-year "settled expectations" of the patents — an instance of the record 2025 wave of PTAB discretionary denials (Unified reports 607 procedural denials in 2025, a >630% increase). Third, the commercial backdrop is the AI/data-center build-out: cooling and thermal-management IP has become a high-value assertion target, and Valtrus's sprawling campaign against operators and suppliers has now been coordinated — the JPML designated an MDL (No. 3190) for the Valtrus data-center litigation in June 2026, with cases transferring into E.D. Tex.

Sourcing caveats: party identities, counsel, docket numbers, the consolidation (Dkt. 42), the motion-to-dismiss denial (Dkt. 266), the P.R. 4-3 statement (Dkt. 117), and the PTAB decision are grounded in the PTAB/CourtListener/PACER records surfaced above. Some figures (e.g., the ~1,500-patent portfolio count and the 50+ licenses) come from Valtrus's own declarations, and the MDL-3190 reference and settlement/dismissal inferences for related cases (Digital Realty, TierPoint) derive from PatSnap/JPML reporting rather than a primary opinion I directly reviewed; treat those as well-sourced but not court-confirmed.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research the docket and key rulings directly. Let me run a broad set of searches.

Let me dig into claim construction, the IPR denials, and the MDL.

Let me get the claim-construction outcomes and the trial/post-trial status.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

I have strong leads. Let me verify individual counsel details, firms, and the lead/local counsel designations.

Now let me verify the remaining Vertiv-side attorneys, local counsel, and the docket's lead-counsel designation.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Vertiv Corporation (2:24-cv-00907-JRG)

Scope note. In this member case Vertiv Corporation is the declaratory-judgment plaintiff (and a Consolidated Plaintiff/Intervenor in the lead case, Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. NTT Data Services, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG). The team below is the group that has entered appearances, signed filings, or been designated on Vertiv's behalf. It is drawn from the Justia docket mirror for No. 2:24-cv-00907, the RECAP/CourtListener docket and filings in the consolidated lead case, and Vertiv's PTAB filings in the parallel IPRs. Where I could not confirm a fact (firm, role, or current affiliation), I say so rather than guess.

Important disambiguation: Eric H. Findlay (Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX) and the Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg team (Patrick Colsher, Matt Berkowitz, Aaron Morris, Connor Houghton, Ariane Mann, et al.) represent Valtrus, not Vertiv. Do not attribute them to the plaintiff side.

A. National / lead trial counsel — Nixon Peabody LLP

Attorney Role Firm & office Notes
Timothy P. Maloney Lead trial counsel (de facto); Vertiv's designated Petitioner counsel in the parallel IPRs Nixon Peabody LLP, 70 W. Madison St., Suite 5200, Chicago, IL 60602 Veteran first-chair patent trial lawyer; USPTO Reg. No. 38,233. Co-chaired the litigation group at Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery before that team joined Nixon Peabody. Lead counsel for Vertiv in Vertiv Corp. v. OptiCool Technologies LLC (W.D.N.Y. 2021–22) (data-center rack cooling). Has argued the Federal Circuit (e.g., No. 23-1455, argued for appellant; Rule 36 judgment, June 5, 2024). Primary role in 100+ PTAB trials; Chambers USA–ranked for IP in Illinois.
Daniel J. Schwartz Partner; principal briefing/first-chair support; primary signer on Vertiv filings (e.g., Dkt. 117) Nixon Peabody, Chicago IP litigator (Northwestern J.D. 1995), formerly at Seyfarth; appointed Deputy Leader of Nixon Peabody's IP practice in Sept. 2024 (previously led the IP Litigation team). Broad patent/trade-secret docket — chemical engineering, 3-D vision, wireless, GIS, QR codes. Appeared for Vertiv in this case from the outset (see Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 8, May 22, 2024).
Allison E. Strong Associate (appeared for Vertiv; USPTO Reg. No. 79,349) Nixon Peabody, Chicago Registered patent attorney with a chemical-engineering background (Purdue); IP litigation associate since 2022. Also listed on Vertiv's PTAB power of attorney in the '277/'287/'179/'870 IPRs.
Randal S. Alexander Of counsel / additional Nixon Peabody counsel (signature block, Dkt. 117) Nixon Peabody, Chicago Listed on the P.R. 4-3 joint claim construction statement as "Attorney for Plaintiff Vertiv Corporation." I could not confirm his year of bar admission or a specific patent-case profile from public sources — treat his seniority level as unverified.
Nicole Danielle Sims Of counsel / Texas-barred team member (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 22, Aug. 27, 2024) Nixon Peabody LLP, 799 9th St. NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001 Texas Bar No. 24051343; her Texas admission is significant because Vertiv initially obtained leave to proceed without separate local counsel (see § C below). Signatory on Vertiv's transfer opposition (Sept. 3, 2024).
Matthew A. Werber Additional Nixon Peabody counsel (of record as representing Vertiv in the consolidated action) Nixon Peabody, Chicago Listed in the consolidated-case attorney roster and on Vertiv's PTAB power of attorney (mwerber@nixonpeabody.com); supports the patent-validity/IPR workstream.

B. Local counsel in the Eastern District — The Davis Firm, P.C.

Attorney Role Firm & office Notes
William E. ("Bo") Davis, III Local counsel; first-named signatory on Vertiv filings in E.D. Tex. The Davis Firm, PC, 213 N. Fredonia St., Suite 230, Longview, TX 75601 Texas Bar No. 24047416. He "introduced co-counsel and announced ready" for Vertiv at the Markman hearing (Magistrate Judge Roy Payne presiding) per the Oct. 14, 2025 hearing minute entry. Long-standing E.D. Tex./Marshall-division practice.
Ty William Wilson Local counsel The Davis Firm, PC, Longview, TX Texas State Bar No. 24106583; co-signatory with Davis on the P.R. 4-3 joint claim construction and prehearing statement (Dkt. 117, Aug. 11, 2025).
Rudolph "Rudy" Fink, IV Local counsel (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 9, May 31, 2024) The Davis Firm, P.C., Longview, TX Appeared for Vertiv early in the case (while it was pending in the Northern District of Texas) and remains on the Davis Firm team for Vertiv in the related 2026 Vertiv v. Valtrus/Key Patent Innovations DJ action (2:26-cv-00084).

Representative signing block (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Lead Case Dkt. 117 (Aug. 11, 2025), pp. 3–4): William E. Davis, III and Ty Wilson (Davis Firm PC, Longview) — "Attorneys for Plaintiff Vertiv Corporation," together with Timothy P. Maloney, Daniel J. Schwartz, Allison Strong, Randal Alexander (Nixon Peabody, Chicago) and Nicole Sims (Nixon Peabody, Washington, DC).

C. Procedural facts bearing on the appearance record

  • Case history: filed in the Northern District of Texas in May 2024, transferred to E.D. Tex. (Marshall) and docketed there Nov. 6, 2024, and consolidated with the lead case 2:24-cv-00361-JRG. The earliest Vertiv appearances on the 907 docket are Maloney (Dkt. 8) and Fink (Dkt. 9), followed by Sims (Dkt. 22).
  • Leave to proceed without local counsel: the docket shows an electronic order granting a motion for leave to proceed without local counsel on Aug. 9, 2024 (Dkt. 17, resolving Dkt. 16), entered while the case was still in N.D. Tex. The docket summary I reviewed does not clearly identify the moving party; I would verify the motion text before relying on it. In any event, Vertiv did ultimately retain Davis Firm as E.D. Tex. local counsel.
  • An attorney named "Patrick Doyle" was added to the docket as counsel for Vertiv Corporation (per the Justia docket mirror). I could not confirm his firm, office, or role from public sources — treat him as unverified, and note he may no longer be active on the case.
  • In-house: no Vertiv in-house attorney has entered an appearance. However, Eric Broxterman (Vertiv in-house counsel) submitted a declaration in support of Vertiv's opposition to Valtrus's motion to dismiss (Declaration of E. Broxterman, Ex. 28 to Dkt. 87 in the lead case), attesting to Vertiv's customer indemnity obligations. He is a witness/declarant, not counsel of record.
  • No formal "lead counsel" designation by Vertiv appears in the docket entries I reviewed. Functionally, Maloney is lead (he is Vertiv's designated lead in the PTAB proceedings), with Davis as E.D. Tex. local counsel; note that Valtrus (not Vertiv) expressly designated a "LEAD ATTORNEY" — Matthew G. Berkowitz — in its signature blocks.

D. Parallel PTAB representation (same core team)

Vertiv is Petitioner in IPR2025-00667 ('287), IPR2025-00668 ('277), and IPR2025-00669 ('179), each against Valtrus. Vertiv's filings list Petitioner counsel as Timothy Maloney et al. (Nixon Peabody; with Allison Strong, Matthew Werber, Daniel Schwartz, Nicole Sims, and Ty Wilson also appearing on the powers of attorney). IPR2025-00667 received a discretionary denial (institution decision and termination July 31, 2025) — relevant context for counsel's workstream but not an appearance issue.

E. Separate, later-filed case (do not conflate)

Vertiv filed a new DJ action, Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00084-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed Feb. 2, 2026), naming Valtrus and Key Patent Innovations. Its counsel roster is essentially the same Nixon Peabody + Davis Firm team plus Michael William Gray and Alvaro Cure Dominguez (Nixon Peabody). Those two names appear in the 2026 case docket, not in 2:24-cv-00907, so I have not listed them above as counsel of record in this case.

Bottom line: The plaintiff's side in 2:24-cv-00907-JRG is staffed by Nixon Peabody LLP (Timothy P. Maloney and Daniel J. Schwartz leading, with Allison Strong, Randal Alexander, Nicole Sims, and Matthew Werber) as national counsel, and The Davis Firm, P.C. (William E. "Bo" Davis III, Ty W. Wilson, Rudolph Fink IV) as E.D. Tex. local counsel. The only name on the docket I could not source (Patrick Doyle) and role-level details for Randal Alexander should be independently confirmed against PACER, since the free docket mirrors used here are aggregated and may omit sealed or recently filed entries.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record through multiple targeted searches.

I have strong docket evidence. Let me now get attorney bios and verify roles/experience.

Let me verify a few remaining details: local counsel's bio, the Ariane Mann withdrawal, and the current docket appearance list.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.)

Case: Vertiv Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00907-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), member case consolidated into lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00361-JRG (Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. NTT Data Services, LLC et al.), before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Bottom line: Valtrus is represented by a two-firm team that has been consistent across the DJ action, the customer suits, and the parallel IPRs — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF) as national/lead counsel and Findlay Craft, P.C. as East Texas counsel. Matthew G. Berkowitz (RJLF, Silicon Valley) is the attorney designated on the docket as "LEAD ATTORNEY." KPI (joined as a counterclaim-plaintiff/third-party plaintiff) is represented by the same team. This is consistent with the prior case-overview section; no contradiction found.

Defense team by attorney

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Matthew G. Berkowitz Lead counsel — designated "LEAD ATTORNEY" on E.D. Tex. docket; RJLF's attorney-in-charge Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, 100 Marine Parkway, Ste. 300, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (Silicon Valley) Chambers USA–ranked patent litigator (Band 3, CA); launched Shearman & Sterling's IP litigation practice; lead counsel in 20+ district court and post-grant proceedings; Federal Circuit arguments. IAM Patent 1000 (2026). Reg. No. 57,215.
Patrick Colsher Partner; Valtrus's lead PTAB counsel (lead counsel of record in IPR2025-00667/668/669) and district-court counsel RJLF, 400 Madison Ave., Ste. 14D, New York, NY 10017 (also Silicon Valley) Registered patent attorney (EE/BME, Duke); "nearly 100 trials" in IPR/PGR/CBM at the PTAB; Patexia Top 100; represents Nichia, Honda, LED manufacturers; Legal 500 Elite IP. Reg. No. 74,955.
Aaron Morris Associate; district-court and PTAB team member RJLF, Redwood Shores, CA (Silicon Valley) IP litigation focus, patent/IPRs; former Northrop Grumman engineer (MIT aero eng.); joined from Shearman & Sterling 2023. Listed as backup counsel in the Valtrus IPRs.
Connor S. Houghton Associate; primary filer on many briefs (signature-block filer on Valtrus's §299/joinder briefing and joint motions) RJLF, 1909 K St. NW, Ste. 800, Washington, DC 20006 Made IAM Patent 1000 debut (2026); filed the in camera Houghton declaration on the §299 good-faith-basis issue in the counterclaim-joinder fight. Reg. No. 77,830; backup IPR counsel.
Sean M. McCarthy Counsel (appears on filings for Valtrus; also on related KPI/Malikie matters) RJLF (New York) Appears in signature blocks of Valtrus filings in this consolidated proceeding.
Ariane S. Mann Formerly counsel; withdrew RJLF, 515 Congress Ave., Ste. 1900, Austin, TX 78701 Long-time Valtrus/KPI team member (appeared in the customer suits and the Equinix case). Valtrus filed an unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney for Ariane Mann on April 17, 2026 (Dkt. 319). Treat her as no longer on the team; I could not confirm the order granting withdrawal. TX Bar No. 24140399.
Eric H. Findlay Local / East Texas counsel (and a substantive contributor) Findlay Craft, P.C., 7270 Crosswater Ave., Ste. B, Tyler, TX 75703 TX Bar No. 00789886; widely regarded as far more than nominal local counsel — professes appearances in ~1,000 patent cases, dozen+ patent trials in Texas, and argued in VirnetX v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.). Best Lawyers "Lawyer of the Year," Tyler (IP Litigation, 2016); Super Lawyers (2008–10, 2017–25).

Additional RJLF attorneys identified on Valtrus PTAB papers (not yet confirmed as district-court counsel of record in the '907 case):

  • Khue V. Hoang (RJLF, Managing Partner of the New York office) — designated backup counsel in Valtrus's IPR2025-00667/668/669 mandatory notices; a Kove IO v. AWS ($673M verdict) trial lawyer. Reg. No. 44,767. She appears for KPI/Valtrus in related matters (e.g., Malikie Innovations v. SAP America), so she may be working the campaign behind the scenes, but I did not find a district-court appearance by her in the '907 docket itself.
  • Michael Polka — copied on Valtrus IPR correspondence; no confirmed district-court appearance.

Sourcing and confidence

Well grounded (primary docket/filing documents):

  • The recurring Valtrus signature blocks listing Berkowitz, Colsher, Morris, Houghton, Mann and Findlay as "Attorneys for Defendant/Plaintiff Valtrus Innovations Ltd." appear in multiple filings in the consolidated proceeding, including the P.R. 4-3 joint claim-construction statement (Dkt. 117), the §299 joinder briefing (Dkt. 197), and joint scheduling motions (Dkt. 376). The docket also flags Berkowitz as "LEAD ATTORNEY."
  • Ariane Mann's withdrawal motion is docket entry 319 (E.D. Tex., Apr. 17, 2026) — I have the docket text but not the granting order.
  • PTAB role designations (Colsher = lead; Berkowitz, Hoang, Houghton, Morris = backup) come from Valtrus's mandatory notices in the IPR2025-00667/668/669 family (dated Mar. 17, 2025).

Well sourced but secondary: attorney bios, rankings, office addresses, and prior-case experience are from RJLF's and Findlay Craft's own websites, Chambers USA/IAM/Legal 500/Benchmark profiles, and a June 2023 Lawdragon/press-release announcement of the Shearman & Sterling patent team's move to RJLF.

Gaps / caveats:

  1. No in-house counsel has entered an appearance on this docket that I could verify; Valtrus/KPI appear to rely entirely on outside counsel.
  2. I could not independently pull the live PACER docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00907 in this session; the appearance list above is reconstructed from RECAP/CourtListener copies of filings, PTAB exhibits, and third-party docket aggregators. A PACER "attorney list" query would confirm the current, post-withdrawal roster.
  3. Attorney name spellings vary in OCR of these filings ("Matthew Berkowtiz," "Crossword Avenue"); I've used the correct forms.
  4. Role labels are my characterization — E.D. Tex. does not formally designate "lead" vs. "local" counsel in the docket, other than the "LEAD ATTORNEY" flag; Findlay functions as both East Texas counsel and a substantive litigator.