XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc.

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

Good foundation. Now let me verify the specific allegations, the Federal Circuit appeal, and the case outcome.

Key correction spotted: the 22-1125 appeal is from the 2018 N.D. Cal. case, not this one. Let me pull the actual docket for 6:21-cv-00621 and the '376 IPR outcome.

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal news. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Key threads identified. Now let me pull the actual docket for this case and the IPR details.

Bottom line up front

This case did not travel the path the question's checklist assumes. XR Communications' W.D. Tex. suit against ARRIS Solutions on the '376 patent was on the docket for roughly five months and was terminated by a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice in November 2021 — before any Markman hearing, any dispositive motion, any discovery of consequence, and before the '376 IPR was even filed. The substantive legal fight over the '376 patent happened elsewhere and later: in a multi-petitioner IPR (IPR2022-00613) that was instituted in October 2022 and then killed by settlement in October 2023 without a final written decision, and in a refiled E.D. Tex. campaign against carriers (2023–2026).

I flag below where the public record is thin (specifically the precise dismissal date and document numbers).

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021)

Notes on the pleading record:

• No separately docketed counterclaim appears in the publicly mirrored docket; ARRIS's invalidity challenge was pleaded in the answer and evidenced by the 41 prior-art exhibits. I cannot confirm from the public docket whether affirmative counterclaims were pleaded inside the answer — treat that as unsourced.
• The AO 120 (the PTO §

I'll research the counsel of record for XR Communications (Vivato Technologies) in this W.D. Tex. case.

Now let me pull the specific docket for this case.

Let me examine the actual complaint and docket filings to confirm the signature block and any local counsel.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00621-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright)

Threshold note on case posture

The case metadata supplied describes the matter as "active," but the public docket I could retrieve reflects a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice entered in November 2021, with the AO 120 form reported back to the PTO (Unified Patents' "Final Civil Docket" for the case is dated 11-16-2021). See the docket mirror at Unified Patents portal, 6:21-cv-00621 and Justia docket. That is consistent with the campaign's structure: XR already had ARRIS/Ruckus in N.D. Cal. (Nos. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO, 3:18-cv-02736-WHO), which it litigated to judgment and appeal. Counsel should verify on PACER whether any reopening, severance, or refiling occurred, because the free docket mirrors stop in late 2021 and may be incomplete.

The firm

All plaintiff-side activity in this campaign was handled by Russ August & Kabat ("RAK"), 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025, (310) 826-7474. RAK is a Los Angeles IP/business litigation boutique whose patent-troll/enforcement docket is substantial (XR/Vivato, Solas OLED, Neodron, among others). Mondaq's campaign write-up on the 2021 Waco filings states flatly that "Russ, August & Kabat represents XR Communications in the litigation" (Mondaq).

Attorneys

1. Reza Mirzaie — Lead counsel / attorney of record (confirmed on this docket)

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Grounding: He is the ECF filer on every plaintiff-side entry visible in this case — the Complaint (Doc. 1), Request for Issuance of Summons (Doc. 2), Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (Doc. 3), AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form (Doc. 4), and Notice of Related Cases (Doc. 7, June 18, 2021). See Justia docket.
• Experience note: He is XR's campaign lead and argued the Federal Circuit appeal in the companion N.D. Cal. ARRIS/Ruckus case, XR Commc'ns, LLC v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2022-1125, 2022-1141 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023) (nonprecedential, affirming indefiniteness of the '231 patent claims) — opinion. Also appeared as plaintiff's counsel in W.D. Tex. campaigns for Solas OLED and Neodron.

2. James N. Pickens — Of counsel / plaintiff-side team (confirmed appearance mechanism on this docket)

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Grounding: The Clerk issued a Pro Hac Vice Letter to James N. Pickens on June 17, 2021 (Doc. 5), which is the standard W.D. Tex. notice to an out-of-state attorney whose name appears on the initiating papers — indicating he was on the filing but not yet admitted in the district.
• Experience note: Co-counsel on the Federal Circuit appeal in 2022-1125 and named throughout the XR/Vivato campaign signature blocks.

3. Minna Y. Chan — Of counsel / plaintiff-side team (campaign counsel; individual appearance in this docket not separately confirmed)

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Grounding: Named in the plaintiff's signature blocks across the parallel W.D. Tex. XR cases filed the same day (e.g., No. 6:21-cv-00619-ADA infringement contentions served Dec. 20, 2021, listing Chan) — PTAB exhibit copy.
• Experience note: Took plaintiff's lead role in campaign depositions (e.g., the Dec. 19, 2022 Ambrose deposition in the W.D. Tex. lead case) and was co-counsel on the 2022-1125 Federal Circuit appeal.

4. Paul A. Kroeger — Of counsel / plaintiff-side team (campaign counsel)

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Experience note: Named in the W.D. Tex. XR campaign signature blocks (2021–2024) and the E.D. Tex. XR v. AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile filings. His name does not appear on a discrete filing in 6:21-cv-00621 that I could retrieve; treat his appearance in this case as probable-but-unverified.

5. Philip X. Wang — Of counsel / plaintiff-side team (campaign counsel)

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Experience note: Same pattern — named throughout XR/Vivato W.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex. signature blocks (2021–2024); no discrete entry in this case located.

6. Christian W. Conkle — Associate / plaintiff-side team (campaign counsel)

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Experience note: Named in the W.D. Tex. campaign filings alongside Mirzaie/Kroeger/Wang; also appeared by notice in the E.D. Tex. XR cases (2023).

7. Jason Wietholter — Associate / plaintiff-side team (campaign counsel, later)

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Experience note: CA SBN 337139; appears in the December 2021 W.D. Tex. XR signature blocks. Likely post-dates this case's dismissal, so his involvement here is unverified.

8. Marc A. Fenster — Founding partner; NOT shown as counsel of record in this case

• Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
• Note: He signed the N.D. Cal. filings and the notice of appeal in the ARRIS/Ruckus matters and is a named co-counsel on the 2022-1125 appeal, but he does not appear in the W.D. Tex. XR complaint signature blocks I reviewed. Listing him would be an invention for this docket.

Points of honesty / open items

• No Texas local counsel is identified in the docket entries I could access for this case. RAK appears to have filed directly through an attorney already admitted in the W.D. Tex. bar (Mirzaie had been appearing in that district since at least Solas OLED v. LG Display, No. 6:19-cv-236-ADA), with Pickens routed through pro hac vice. The parallel W.D. Tex. XR filings likewise show no local-counsel firm. If your question requires certainty on local counsel, a full PACER docket pull and the Doc. 1 signature block should be checked — I could not retrieve the complaint PDF itself.
• No in-house counsel for XR/Vivato appears on this docket. XR Communications/Vivato is a patent-holding/monetization entity; its litigation is outsourced entirely to RAK.
• Defense counsel (for completeness, since they appear on the same docket): Gilbert A. Greene (local, W.D. Tex.) noticed appearance Aug. 2021 (Doc. 8) and moved pro hac vice for Matthew S. Yungwirth (Doc. 9), Alice E. Snedeker (Doc. 10), and Sajid Saleem (Doc. 14) of Duane Morris LLP; the Answer with 41 exhibits

I'll research counsel of record for ARRIS Solutions in this case, starting with docket-level sources and firm announcements.

Key facts are emerging, including a possible early dismissal. Let me verify the counsel identities/firms and the dismissal.

Now let me verify the docket's final entries (including the reported dismissal) and confirm the other attorneys' firms.

Counsel of Record — Defendant ARRIS Solutions, Inc.

Critical docket caveat first: the free/public dockets for this case were last pulled in mid‑2021, and the most complete capture (Unified Patents' "Final Civil Docket 11‑16‑2021") shows a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice filed on or about September 3, 2021, followed by the AO‑120 report to the USPTO. That conflicts with the case metadata's "status: active," and I flag the contradiction explicitly rather than resolve it — see the "Verification gaps" section. The upshot for this task: counsel of record never changed after September 2021 because the case closed; no withdrawal, substitution, or new appearance appears on the W.D. Tex. docket after that date.

Every ARRIS attorney who appeared in 6:21‑cv‑00621 was from Duane Morris LLP — the same firm that defended ARRIS in the predecessor N.D. Cal. actions (3:18‑cv‑02736 and 8:18‑cv‑0192) and in the companion IPRs. There was no separate local-counsel firm; Duane Morris's Austin office supplied the Texas anchor.

---

Roster of ARRIS counsel of record

---

1. Matthew S. Yungwirth — lead counsel

Duane Morris LLP, 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30309. Georgia bar no. 783597; admitted 2000 (Univ. of Georgia J.D., cum laude; Georgia Tech B.S. Engineering).

He was functionally the lead: he filed ARRIS's Answer with jury demand and 41 exhibits (Dkt. 12) and the Rule 7 disclosure statement (Dkt. 13) on August 13, 2021, and he is the only ARRIS lawyer whose name appears on the substantive defense filings.

Relevant experience is directly on point for this campaign. In his own PTAB pro hac vice declaration (IPR2018‑01016, July 16, 2018) he states he has been lead counsel for the ARRIS entities since inception in XR Communications v. ARRIS Group, No. 8:18‑cv‑0192 and XR Communications v. ARRIS Solutions, No. 3:18‑cv‑02736, and lead counsel for Ruckus Wireless in XR v. Ruckus, No. 2:17‑cv‑02961 — i.e., he defended the same patent family against the same plaintiff for four years before this suit. He also appeared for ARRIS in the Federal Circuit appeal (22‑1125) that produced XR Communications, LLC v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023) (§ 112 ¶ 6 / "search receiver logic" indefiniteness). His broader docket is heavy wireless‑LAN, cellular, and Power‑over‑Ethernet defense work (e.g., EON Corp. v. Sensus; the Cobblestone Wireless and RightQuestion campaigns).

2. Gilbert A. Greene — Texas counsel of record

Duane Morris LLP, Terrace 7, 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78746 (also listed at 7500 Rialto Blvd., Bldg. 1; phone +1 512 277 2246). USPTO Reg. No. 48,366; Texas bar 2004; admitted in W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex., Fed. Cir.

He entered the only Texas-signed appearance (Dkt. 8) and sponsored the pro hac vice applications for Yungwirth (Dkt. 9), Snedeker (Dkt. 10), and Saleem (Dkt. 14), and filed the unopposed extension of time to answer (Dkt. 11) — the classic Judge Albright local‑counsel pattern. He is managing partner of Duane Morris's Austin office, with a patent litigation practice expressly covering "wired and wireless networking" and "wireless telecommunication networks"; named Best Lawyers "Lawyer of the Year" in Austin for Litigation – IP and Patent Law (2026 edition). Representative W.D. Tex. defense matters include Real Estate Webmasters, Rebilly, and Vivint (against Malikie Innovations and Lattice Technologies).

3. Alice E. Snedeker — of counsel

Duane Morris LLP, 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA (aesnedeker@duanemorris.com). Admitted pro hac vice July 22, 2021 (text order on Dkt. 10).

She is a member of the standing ARRIS/Ruckus defense team in this campaign: she appears on the Federal Circuit docket as counsel for appellee ARRIS in No. 22‑1125, and in the PTAB service lists for the ARRIS/Ruckus/Netgear/Belkin side of the '231 patent proceedings. She also appears with Yungwirth defending the Verizon defendants in the RightQuestion litigation (E.D. Tex.).

4. Sajid Saleem — of counsel (unconfirmed affiliation)

His pro hac vice motion was filed by Mr. Greene on August 31/September 1, 2021 (Dkt. 14), and Judge Albright granted it by text order shortly after. I could not confirm his firm affiliation from a primary source — the docket entry names him only as the applicant, and no appearance notice bearing his letterhead is in the public record. He should be listed as an ARRIS attorney of record, but I would not attribute him to a firm without confirming; the timing (filed within days of the joint stipulation of dismissal) suggests a late-added team member rather than an active participant.

---

What is not on the docket (to avoid invention)

• No in-house ARRIS/CommScope attorney ever entered an appearance in this case. Carol Ansley (ARRIS, Suwanee, GA) was ARRIS's backup counsel in IPR2018‑01016 but was not counsel of record here.
• No second defense firm. Unlike the co-pending W.D. Tex. campaign cases (e.g., Comcast used Deron Dacus of The Dacus Firm as local counsel; Samsung used Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith), ARRIS relied solely on Duane Morris.
• No withdrawal or substitution entries. The later DLA Piper substitution paperwork that appears in search results (Amy Ruhland, Ryan Sullivan, Laura Sixkiller, Jason Hopkins → James Muenker) is from the Goodman Networks Chapter 7 bankruptcy, No. 22‑31641 (N.D. Tex. Bankr.), not from this case. Do not import those names here.

---

Verification gaps and a flag on case posture

1. Dismissal vs. "active" status. Unified Patents' capture of the W.D. Tex. docket (updated Sept. 14, 2021; "Final Civil Docket 11‑16‑2021") shows "STIPULATION of Dismissal — JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by XR Communications LLC" dated on or about 9/3/2021 and a subsequent "Report on Patent/Trademark sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Justia's docket, last retrieved August 13, 2021, predates those entries and so does not show them. I have not seen the dismissal order itself or PACER directly; the metadata's "active" designation should be reconciled against PACER before publication. It is also consistent with the Federal Circuit appeal track (22‑1125 arose from the N.D. Cal. case, as the earlier sections correctly noted) and with the fact that the '376 patent was thereafter litigated through the IPR track (e.g., IPR2023‑00174, eero v. XR) rather than this action.
2. Possible refiling. XR dismissed without prejudice, which leaves open a later re-assertion against CommScope/ARRIS. I found no confirmation either way; if a refiled W.D. Tex. action exists after 2021, its counsel roster would need separate verification.
3. No sealed or ex parte material affected this analysis — appearances and PHV orders are public; the only inaccessible item is the text-only PHV order for Saleem, whose exact date comes from a third-party docket capture rather than the court's own PDF.

Sources: Justia docket, XR Communications LLC v. Arris Solutions, Inc., No. 6:21‑cv‑00621 (W.D. Tex.), https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv00621/[1137853](/patent/1137853) (entries 8–13); Unified Patents litigation portal docket for 6:21‑cv‑00621, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6:21-cv-00621 (entries re Dkt. 14, dismissal, AO‑120); Patexia document index for the same case, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/XR-Communications-LLC--v-Arris-Solutions-Inc-id-[152913](/patent/152913)/documents; Duane Morris bio for Gilbert A. Greene, https://dnmrs.co/attorneys/bertgreene.html; Martindale entry for Greene, https://www.martindale.com/attorney/mr-gilbert-a-andrew-greene-pc-[3826117](/patent/3826117)/; Declaration of Matthew Yungwirth, IPR2018‑01016 (July 16, 2018), P‑TACTS; Duane Morris/ARRIS service list, IPR2018‑01016 (Sept. 16, 2019), P‑TACTS (listing Yungwirth and Ansley); Fed. Cir. docket No. 22‑1125, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/22-1125 (counsel listing Snedeker and Yungwirth); XR Communications, LLC v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc., No. 22‑1125 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/22-1125/22-1125-2023-05-18.html.