Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.

Case Overview & Background

Parties and the underlying dispute. This is not a conventional district-court infringement suit but rather the Federal Circuit chapter of a patent fight between two large retail operating companies over "scan-and-go" mobile checkout technology. Walmart Apollo, LLC — a Walmart Inc. affiliate that holds patents developed for Sam's Club (co-plaintiff Sam's West, Inc. operates the club chain) — owns U.S. Patent No. 10,803,435 ("Method for Self-Checkout with a Mobile Device," issued Oct. 13, 2020, to inventors Nelms, Todd, Webb, Marbutt, and Ryner; a continuation of the '133 patent family claiming priority to an Oct. 13, 2010 provisional application). BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BJ) is a warehouse-club retailer and, like Sam's, an operating company. In March 2022, Sam's West and Walmart Apollo sued BJ's in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-RMN), accusing BJ's mobile app feature Express Pay — launched in Q4 2021, after Sam's Club's 2016 "Scan & Go" — of infringing four patents ('435; 10,121,133; 10,368,187; 10,368,188). The '435 patent is the patent at issue here; it claims a method of converting a mobile phone into a mobile point-of-sale device by executing a mobile self-checkout app, scanning items into a virtual cart, tendering payment through a server-side virtual terminal sales application, and optically scanning a machine-readable element rendered on the phone's display to confirm payment — i.e., precisely the in-club, app-based "scan, pay, and walk out" flow embodied by Express Pay and Sam's Scan & Go (Complaint ¶¶ 5–6, 64, M.D. Fla. Dkt. 1; claim charts at Dkt. 1-5, quoting BJ's Express Pay marketing).

Procedural posture and why this venue. After suit, BJ's filed four parallel IPR petitions on Sept. 22, 2022 (IPR2022-01528, -01561, -01563, -01564) against claims 1–19 of the '435 patent, plus IPR2022-01471 against the related '133 patent, and the district court stayed the infringement case pending the IPRs (stay granted in part Nov. 21, 2022, Dkt. 108; case administratively closed Feb. 2, 2023, Dkt. 114; motion to lift stay denied July 31, 2023, Dkt. 131). The PTAB instituted review in three proceedings — -01528 (claims 15–19; anticipation/obviousness over Fletchall, Lin, Yong, Xavier, Cason), -01563 and -01564 (claims 1–14; obviousness over Young and anticipation/obviousness over Keith/Hanson, among other grounds) — but denied institution in -01561 (Apr. 12, 2023), creating an intra-panel inconsistency Walmart pressed on appeal. In Final Written Decisions entered April 11–12, 2024, the Board (APJs Scanlon, Powell, and Weatherly in -01564) found all challenged claims unpatentable, relying heavily on petitioner expert Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., and rejecting Walmart's written-description/priority arguments tied to the 2010 provisional. Walmart appealed all three adverse decisions on June 12, 2024 (Patent Owner's Notices of Appeal), docketed June 17, 2024 as 24-1952 (lead), 24-1953, and 24-1954 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — the exclusive appellate venue for PTAB final written decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A); the USPTO Director intervened under 35 U.S.C. § 143. Jones Day (Jennifer L. Swize) argued for Walmart, Vorys (Michael V. Messinger) for BJ's, and the Solicitor's Office for the USPTO. On April 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit entered a nonprecedential Rule 36 per curiam judgment (Moore, C.J.; Mayer and Lourie, JJ.) summarily AFFIRMING the Board in all three IPRs (24-1952 R.36 Judgment, cafc.uscourts.gov). No reasoning accompanied the affirmance.

Why the case is notable. First, it is a high-profile, head-to-head battle between two major warehouse-club retailers over the consumer-facing "scan-and-go" experience both now offer, with Sam's alleging BJ's copied its patented flow and BJ's countering that such functionality was old hat by 2010 (the oral-argument transcript shows the core fight was over combining prior-art servers and whether the provisional application supported the optically-scanned payment-confirmation limitation). Second, it showcases the modern IPR-defense playbook and its costs: BJ's filed a coordinated, ranked stack of petitions against a single patent family — one denied institution, three instituted and won — while the parallel M.D. Fla. litigation sat stayed for years. Third, the split result and summary affirmance leave little precedential guidance: the PTAB's April 2024 FWDs (invalidating all 19 claims) now stand as final, and the parties' June 22, 2026 joint status report in the district court (M.D. Fla. Dkt. 168) confirms that Walmart agreed to withdraw its '435 counts and the stay will be lifted so the case can resume on the remaining '133/'187/'188 patents — meaning the validity fight over the flagship self-checkout patent ended with BJ's prevailing at the agency and on appeal, while the underlying infringement damages case continues on the related patents. (One note: the June 2026 status report caption shows the district court case has been reassigned to a judge bearing initials "AGM," but I could not verify the new judge's identity from the available sources, and the Rule 36 affirmance provides no reasoning beyond the court's standard order.)

I'll research this case thoroughly. Note that the metadata describes a Federal Circuit appeal of PTAB IPR decisions, so I need to check whether there is an underlying district court infringement case and any parallel proceedings.

I have good leads. The underlying infringement case is in the Middle District of Florida. Let me dig into that docket and related proceedings.

Excellent—this is shaping into a full picture. The infringement case is the M.D. Fla. action (6:22-cv-00587), now stayed, with the PTAB IPRs and the Federal Circuit appeal forming the parallel tracks. Let me pin down remaining details: answers/counterclaims, the CAFC briefing/argument, the second motion-to-lift-stay outcome, and the related IPR numbers.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Walmart/Sam's West v. BJ's (Including Fed. Cir. No. 24-1952)

Preliminary note on the case structure

The case in your metadata — Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 24-1952 (Fed. Cir.) — is not itself a district-court infringement suit. It is Walmart's appeal from three PTAB final written decisions (IPR2022-01528, IPR2022-01563, IPR2022-01564) invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,803,435 (the "'435 patent"). The actual infringement litigation is the parallel district court action Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB (M.D. Fla., Orlando Div.), which was stayed early and is (as of mid-2026) being reactivated after the Federal Circuit's affirmance. The account below covers the whole dispute chronologically, distinguishing each forum.

---

I. District Court Infringement Suit — Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2022-03-22 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Sam's West, Inc. (Sam's Club) and Walmart Apollo, LLC sued BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of four patents directed to mobile/self-checkout and location-based services technology: the '435 patent (10,803,435), '133 patent (10,121,133), '187 patent (10,368,187), and '188 patent (10,368,188). The accused product was BJ's Mobile App and its "Express Pay" scan-and-go functionality (allegedly copied from Sam's Club's "Scan & Go"). Plaintiffs demanded a jury, damages, and injunctive relief (35 U.S.C. § 271). (CourtListener Dkt. 1; complaint PDF; Law.com/Daily Business Review, 2022-03-23.)
• 2022-03-23 — Case assigned to Judge Wendy W. Berger and initially Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly (case no. 6:22-cv-0587-WWB-GJK). (Dkt. 2; Bloomberg Law docket print, p. 2.)
• April 2022 — BJ's appeared through Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP (William H. Oldach III, Michael V. Messinger, Liana R. Hollingsworth, et al.); plaintiffs were represented by DLA Piper (lead counsel Ardith Bronson). (Dkt. 24, BJ's Certificate of Interested Persons, filed 2022-04-11.)
• 2022-06-08 — First motion to dismiss denied as moot; motion to amend granted (Dkt. 35, 37, 50). BJ's initial Rule 12(b)(6) motion was mooted when the magistrate judge (then David A. Baker) permitted amendment.
• 2022-06-13 — First Amended Complaint filed (Dkt. 52), asserting direct, induced, and contributory infringement of all four patents with claim charts. (FAC; Dkt. 56 status report.)
• I could not confirm from available docket sources that BJ's ever filed an answer and counterclaims before the case was stayed — the docket shows BJ's proceeded by successive motions to dismiss, and no substantive answer/counterclaim entry surfaced in the searches. Treat that as unverified.

II. Substantive Pre-Trial Motions (Before the Stay)

• 2022-07 (approx.) — Second motion to dismiss (Dkt. 54). BJ's moved to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6), principally arguing the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under Alice (abstract idea, no inventive concept), plus pleading deficiencies as to direct/indirect infringement. Plaintiffs opposed (Dkts. 55–57, 60s). (CourtListener docket; opposition brief, Dkt. 36-page materials at Dkt. 55; see also PTAB exhibits quoting ECF No. 102 briefing.)
• 2023-02-02 — Motion to dismiss denied without prejudice (Dkt. 114). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation (Dkt. 109), denying BJ's § 101 dismissal without prejudice. (Google Patents/US11853988 file-history listing: "Order Denying Without Prejudice 54 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 109 Report and Recommendations," Feb. 2, 2023.)
• 2022-09-26 — BJ's motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 91); plaintiffs opposed 2022-10-11 (Dkt. 96). BJ's had filed seven IPR petitions (Aug.–Sep. 2022; Dkts. 74, 76, 77, 86, 87, 89, 90) covering all four asserted patents.
• 2022-11-21 — Stay granted in part/denied in part (Dkt. 108). Magistrate Judge David A. Baker stayed the case "until the determination whether to institute the IPR process is made by PTAB," applying the classic three-factor stay analysis (stage, simplification, prejudice). (Dkt. 108; plaintiffs' later motion-to-lift brief at Dkt. 139, describing the stay order; archive.org copy of Dkt. 108.)
• 2023-02-02 — Claim construction (Markman) never completed. The parties had exchanged a Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 88, 2022-09-23), Plaintiffs' opening claim-construction brief (Dkt. 102, 2022-10-21, with the Lin declaration, Dkt. 101), and BJ's responsive brief (Dkt. 112) — but no Markman hearing or claim-construction order was ever issued before the stay took hold. BJ's later opposition to lifting the stay confirmed "the Court has not construed the patent claims." (Dkt. 141 at 4; Google Patents file-history docket listing.)

III. Discovery Milestones (Early, Then Frozen)

• 2022-06-20: Initial disclosures exchanged; plaintiffs served Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions; both sides propounded first sets of interrogatories and requests for production (plaintiffs also served RFAs). (Dkt. 56, First Joint Status Report, 2022-06-27.)
• June 2022: Parties selected a mediator (mediation anticipated). (Dkt. 56; Joint Notice of Mediation.)
• Sep.–Oct. 2022: A discovery dispute over compelled production (BJ's opposition to plaintiffs' short-form motion to compel, Dkt. 94, 2022-09-29) was overtaken by the stay. After 2022-11-21, discovery was suspended for the duration of the IPR proceedings; the case never progressed to fact-discovery completion, expert discovery, or trial.

IV. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings (and Their Effect)

• Aug.–Sep. 2022 — Seven BJ's IPR petitions. Against the '435 patent: IPR2022-01528, -01561, -01563, -01564 (all filed 2022-09-22); against the related '133 patent: IPR2022-01471 (filed 2022-08-29); plus IPRs against the '187 and '188 patents. BJ's relied on expert Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D. (Dkt. 139; IPR2022-01564 petition; Unified Patents portal; Justia file-history listings.)
• 2023-04-11/12 — Institution decisions. The PTAB instituted five of seven petitions — three on the '435 patent (IPR2022-01528 — claims 15–19; IPR2022-01563 and IPR2022-01564 — claims 1–14), plus the '187 and '188 patent IPRs — and denied institution on the '133 patent (IPR2022-01471) and on the fourth '435 petition (IPR2022-01561). Central '435 issues: written-description support in the Oct. 2010 provisional for the claimed priority date, with grounds of anticipation/obviousness over references including Yong (KR 10-2007-0087811), Fletchall ('316 patent), Hanson, Keith, Xavier, Lin, and Cason. (Institution decisions; Dkt. 119 notice; Dkt. 139 at 3.)
• 2023–2024 IPR merits phase. Patent Owner responses (July 19, 2023, with the Tim A. Williams declaration), petitioner replies (Oct. 11, 2023), sur-replies, cross-examinations of Dr. Shamos and Dr. Williams, supplemental-information motion granted (Exs. 1027–1030 regarding the Yong translation/authenticity), and a consolidated oral argument on 2024-01-11 (transcripts filed 2024-04-05). (IPVerse docket; DocketAlarm; PTAB papers.)
• 2024-04-10/11 — Final Written Decisions. The PTAB held all challenged claims of the '435 patent unpatentable (IPR2022-01564, FWD 2024-04-10; IPR2022-01528 and IPR2022-01563, FWDs 2024-04-11). By contrast, the '187 and '188 IPR FWDs found no challenged claims unpatentable, and the '133 patent was never in IPR. (DocketAlarm PTAB entries; Dkt. 138; Dkt. 139 at 4.)
• Effect on the litigation: the district court stayed the case on 2022-11-21; after institution it held a status conference and then denied plaintiffs' motion to partially lift the stay as to the '133/'435 patents (Dkt. 131, 2023-07-31), reasoning that the pending IPRs would simplify issues and that bifurcation would be inefficient. (Dkt. 131; archive.org copy.)
• 2024-06-12 — After the FWDs, BJ's moved to lift the stay (Dkt. 139), arguing the IPRs had run their course; 2024-06-26 — Walmart opposed (Dkt. 141), urging the stay continue through the Federal Circuit appeal (it cited the then-pending '435 appeals). The record I located does not show a final ruling on Dkt. 139 before the appeal concluded; the stay remained in effect through the appeal, per the parties' later status report. (Dkts. 139, 141.)

V. Federal Circuit Appeal (No. 24-1952, with 24-1953 & 24-1954)

• 2024-06-12 — Walmart (patent owner) noticed its appeal of the three '435 FWDs to the Federal Circuit. (IPVerse PTAB docket: "PO's Notice of Appeal, Jun 12, 2024.")
• 2024-06-17 — CAFC appeals docketed as Nos. 24-1952, 24-1953, 24-1954, consolidated with 24-1952 as lead (per your case metadata). The Director of the USPTO (John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP) intervened on behalf of the agency.
• Counsel: Jennifer L. Swize (Jones Day) argued for Walmart, with Joseph Beauchamp, John R. Boule III, Matthew Johnson, Joshua R. Nightingale, Christian Roberts, and Stephanie M. Mishaga; Michael V. Messinger (Vorys) argued for BJ's, with William H. Oldach III and Rex W. Miller II; Shehla Wynne (USPTO Solicitor's Office) argued for the Director. (CAFC Rule 36 judgment PDF.)
• 2026-04-13 — Federal Circuit affirmed (Rule 36, nonprecedential). A per curiam panel of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Mayer, and Judge Lourie entered judgment: "AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36." — a summary affirmance without opinion. This left the PTAB's invalidation of all challenged '435 claims intact. (CAFC judgment, 24-1952.RULE_36_JUDGMENT, filed 2026-04-13.) Per your case metadata, the appeal is terminated/affirmed as of 2026-04-13.

VI. Present Posture / Final Disposition

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee award ever occurred in the district court; the case has never progressed past the early-discovery/claim-construction stage due to the stay.
• 2026-06-22 — Joint status report (Dkt. 168). The parties reported that Walmart did not seek further review (e.g., certiorari or rehearing) of the Rule 36 affirmance; there are no pending appeals involving the asserted patents. They agreed that once the district court lifts the stay, plaintiffs will have 45 days to file an amended complaint withdrawing the '435 patent counts (in view of the affirmed invalidation), BJ's will have 45 days to respond, and the parties will propose a new scheduling order. The case caption by then reflected reassignment to a new district judge (initials "AGM") with Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway. (Dkt. 168, filed 2026-06-22; CourtListener; archive.org copy.)

Bottom line: BJ's won the patentability war on the '435 patent: the PTAB invalidated all challenged claims (Apr. 2024), and the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed (2026-04-13). Walmart's '435 infringement claims are therefore being dismissed/withdrawn in the stayed M.D. Fla. action. What remains alive in the district court is Walmart's infringement case on the '133, '187, and '188 patents — all of which survived or avoided IPR (the '133 IPR was never instituted; the '187/'188 claims were found not unpatentable). The district court litigation, still formally stayed as of the June 2026 status report, is expected to resume on those three patents with fresh pleadings and a new scheduling order.

---

Source caveats

• Docket citations (Dkt. ##) for the M.D. Fla. case are drawn from CourtListener's public docket (6:22-cv-00587), Bloomberg Law docket print captured in PTAB exhibits, and archive.org copies of documents 108, 131, 139, 141, and 168; I could not access PACER directly, so any docket entry I did not see in those sources (e.g., a formal BJ's answer/counterclaims, and the court's ruling on Dkt. 139) is flagged as unverified.
• The CAFC disposition is verified from the court's own Rule 36 judgment PDF (cafc.uscourts.gov).
• PTAB dates are verified from Unified Patents, IPVerse, DocketAlarm, Patexia, and the PTAB papers/decisions themselves.

Answer

A threshold clarification on the "case" and the "plaintiff": Docket 24-1952 (Federal Circuit) is not itself a district-court infringement suit—it is Walmart Apollo, LLC's appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decisions in IPR2022-01528, -01563, and -01564 (where BJ's was the IPR petitioner and Walmart Apollo was the patent owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,803,435). The underlying infringement action (stayed during the IPRs) is Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.), in which Walmart Apollo/Sam's West are the plaintiffs. On the appellate caption you supplied, Walmart Apollo, LLC is the Appellant (mirroring the "Plaintiff" label in your metadata), and the counsel below is its counsel of record.

Counsel of record for Walmart Apollo, LLC (appellant/patent-owner side)

Source: the Federal Circuit's April 13, 2026 Rule 36 judgment expressly identifies the appellant's counsel, and the July 1, 2024 appearance entries on the CAFC docket confirm them (doc. 2). Per the Rule 36 judgment (cafc.uscourts.gov opinion PDF for 24-1952) and the CAFC docket:

Additional detail from the CAFC docket: the July 1, 2024 Entry of Appearance (doc. 2) formally entered Swize, Johnson, Nightingale, and Beauchamp as "counsel for Appellant Walmart Apollo, LLC"; Boule, Roberts, and Mishaga are also identified in the court's Rule 36 judgment as "also represented by" counsel, indicating they appeared on the briefing. The PTAB filings likewise show the Jones Day Pittsburgh/Houston/San Diego team as Walmart Apollo's patent-owner counsel throughout the IPRs, with Michael V. Messinger, William H. Oldach III, and Rex W. Miller II (Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease) representing the appellee BJ's.

Candid sourcing notes

• I did not find a CAFC docket document designating individual attorneys as "lead vs. of counsel vs. local counsel"—the Federal Circuit's judgment and docket list only "counsel of record," with Swize identified as the attorney who argued. Designations above beyond that are inference from her arguing role and the PTAB lead-counsel designations.
• If you intended the M.D. Fla. infringement plaintiffs' trial counsel (Sam's West/Walmart Apollo) rather than the appellate counsel, that docket (6:22-cv-00587-WWB) is separate from 24-1952; the same Jones Day team appears to have handled the Florida action (per the joint status reports signed by Jones Day attorneys), but I could not verify the full Florida appearance list/local counsel before hitting search limits. No filings in 24-1952 are sealed, and no in-house Walmart attorney appeared of record on the CAFC docket that I could confirm.

Bottom line: Counsel of record for Walmart Apollo, LLC in Federal Circuit case 24-1952 is the Jones Day team led at argument by Jennifer L. Swize (Washington, DC), with Matthew W. Johnson and Joshua R. Nightingale (Pittsburgh), Joseph Beauchamp (Houston), John R. Boule III (Los Angeles), Christian Roberts (Pittsburgh), and Stephanie M. Mishaga (San Diego)—the same firm that defended the '435 patent before the PTAB. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability rulings by Rule 36 judgment on April 13, 2026.

Threshold point on "this case"

Case 24-1952 (Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.) is not itself a patent infringement case — it is Walmart Apollo's Federal Circuit appeal from PTAB final written decisions in IPR2022-01528, -01563, and -01564 (all involving U.S. Patent No. 10,803,435). On the appellate docket BJ's is the Appellee (labeled "Defendant / Appellee" by Justia's docket aggregator), and the USPTO Director intervened.

The actual infringement suit in which BJ's is the named defendant is the related district court case Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla. filed Mar. 22, 2022) — the case in which BJ's' mobile app ("BJ's Express Pay") was accused of infringing the '435 patent, and which spawned the IPRs. BJ's has been represented in both forums by the same core team at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. Details below.

1. Counsel of record for BJ's (Appellee) in the Federal Circuit appeal, No. 24-1952

Per the July 1, 2024 entry of appearance (Justia/CAFC docket entry 6: "Entry of Appearance for Michael V. Messinger; William H. Oldach III; Rex W. Miller II as counsel for Appellee BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.") and the Rule 36 judgment of April 13, 2026:

Source: CAFC Rule 36 judgment, Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., Nos. 24-1952, -1953, -1954 (Apr. 13, 2026) ("MICHAEL V. MESSINGER, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by WILLIAM H. OLDACH, III; REX W. MILLER, II, Columbus, OH."); Justia docket for 24-1952 (entries 6–7). Note: the Federal Circuit has no "local counsel" concept; Messinger, Oldach, and Miller are the complete appellee entry of appearance.

2. Counsel of record for BJ's as defendant in the underlying M.D. Fla. infringement case (6:22-cv-00587)

The civil docket for 6:22-cv-00587 (Orlando Division; Judge Wendy W. Berger) lists BJ's as represented by the following Vorys attorneys (all "attorney to be noticed"):

• William H. Oldach III — Lead attorney (pro hac vice), Vorys, Washington, DC.
• Michael V. Messinger — pro hac vice, Vorys, Washington, DC (the IPR/strategic lead).
• Aaron M. Williams — pro hac vice, Vorys, Cleveland, OH (200 Public Sq., Ste. 1400).
• Alycia N. Broz — pro hac vice, Vorys, Columbus, OH.
• Emily J. Taft — pro hac vice, Vorys, Columbus, OH.
• Michael J. Garvin — pro hac vice, Vorys, Cleveland, OH.
• Rex W. Miller II — pro hac vice (per docket), Vorys, Columbus, OH.
• Liana R. Hollingsworth (FL Bar No. 0076930) — appears without a pro hac vice notation, i.e., Florida-admitted; signed BJ's Certificate of Interested Persons (Doc. 24, Apr. 11, 2022) and other filings as counsel for defendant; Vorys, Cleveland office.
• Mitchell Aaron Tobias — appears without a pro hac vice notation (Florida-admitted/local-counsel role), Vorys, Columbus, OH.

Source: M.D. Fla. civil docket for 6:22-cv-00587 (PACER-derived listing reproduced in IPR exhibit 1016) and the CourtListener parties page for the case. Hollingsworth's signature block confirming her role as "Counsel for Defendant BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc." appears at Doc. 24.

3. Counsel for BJ's in the IPRs underlying the appeal

BJ's was the petitioner in IPR2022-01528, -01563, -01564, with Michael V. Messinger as lead counsel and William H. Oldach III and Rex W. Miller II as back-up counsel (Vorys), per the petition/Power of Attorney filings; the IPR email box was BJS-Sams-IPRs@vorys.com. Sources: IPR2022-01564 petition and POA (PTACTS), Unified Patents PTAB portal for IPR2022-01528.

4. Candid gaps

• No in-house BJ's counsel appears on the Federal Circuit or M.D. Fla. docket entries I could verify; I did not find an entry of appearance by BJ's in-house lawyers, so none is listed.
• Firm-bio "notable cases" for these attorneys were not independently verified in this search; rather than risk inventing credentials, I note only case-grounded facts: Messinger (a registered patent attorney, Reg. No. 37,575) led BJ's IPR defense of the '435 patent across three IPRs and successfully argued the Federal Circuit affirmance; Oldach and Miller served on the same Vorys team in the IPRs, the district court action, and the appeal.
• A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit issued no merits opinion, so there is no published opinion identifying further counsel.