XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Belkin International, Inc.

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press to give you a grounded overview.

Now let me dig into the PTAB fates and the consolidated lead case proceedings.

Case Overview: XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Belkin International, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-04914 (C.D. Cal.)

The parties. Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC, doing business as Vivato Technologies, is a Delaware LLC with a stated principal place of business in Venice, California (per its parallel W.D. Tex. complaints, e.g. No. 6:21-cv-00623). It is a non-practicing patent assertion entity: it does not develop, manufacture, or sell products. The "Vivato" name is a revival of Vivato, Inc., a genuinely venture-backed wireless startup founded in 2000 that raised roughly $80 million and built Wi-Fi phased-array/beamforming base stations before collapsing around 2005; the patent portfolio was later acquired through Global Solutions Engineering → Wayout Wireless → Vivato Networks for a reported ~$1.4M, and is now held by XR Communications (RPX/Mondaq campaign analysis; defendants' characterization in the C.D. Cal. consolidation briefing). Belkin International, Inc. is an operating company and consumer networking manufacturer; critically, the products actually accused in this case are Linksys-branded (Belkin acquired Linksys in 2018), and the C.D. Cal. consolidated litigation later added Linksys USA, Inc. (Irvine, CA) as a co-defendant. Belkin/Linksys are the operating-company defendants here, and they framed the dispute bluntly in the 2017 round: plaintiff "is not involved in the development or sale of any products," and the patents are "vestiges of that failed company."

The accused technology. The asserted theory is that ordinary Wi-Fi 6 / IEEE 802.11ax (and backward-compatible 802.11ac) access points, routers, mesh systems, and extenders supporting MU-MIMO infringe. The June 16, 2021 complaint identifies Belkin RT1800/RT3200 routers and a long list of Linksys products — MX12600, MX8503, MX4200, MX5 Velop AX, MX10 Velop AX, MR9600, MR7500, MR7350, E7350, E8450, the RE7350 extender — and walks through the Linksys MR9600 (4x4 Wi-Fi 6, 4x4 MU-MIMO, OFDMA) as the exemplary product. The technical hook is standards-based: the complaint maps claimed "probing signal" / feedback / "steering matrix" limitations onto the 802.11ax sounding protocol (NDP Announcement, HE sounding NDP, compressed beamforming feedback), and maps the claimed "smart antenna" onto the device's multiple antenna elements. That standards-compliance theory is the case's central vulnerability as well as its leverage — it invites construction fights over 2002-era claim terms ("smart antenna," "processor," "transceiver") applied to modern chipsets, and it points liability at Broadcom/Qualcomm/MaxLinear chipset functionality rather than Belkin's own R&D.

Patents, posture, and why it matters. The complaint asserted two patents from the same seven-member family (earliest priority November 4, 2002): U.S. 7,729,728, "Forced Beam Switching in Wireless Communication Systems Having Smart Antennas" (claim 4, beam switching among smart-antenna beams), and U.S. 10,594,376, "Directed Wireless Communication" (claim 1, a processor/transceiver/smart-antenna apparatus that generates probing signals to two clients, receives feedback, and places transmission peaks and nulls accordingly). Note a discrepancy with your case metadata: the '376 patent is listed as the sole patent at issue, but the operative 2021 complaint pleaded both the '728 and '376 patents; the '376 patent became the sole asserted patent in the February 6, 2024 amended complaint in the lead case (8:17-cv-00596, Dkt. 586). Procedurally, 2:21-cv-04914 had a very short independent life: filed 6/16/2021 before Judge Mark C. Scarsi, transferred on 6/25/2021 to Judge David O. Carter with Magistrate John D. Early as a related case under General Order 21-01 (Dkt. 16), and then consolidated into lead case SA CV 17-00596-DOC (JDEx) and administratively closed on 6/28/2021 (Dkt. 17) — so "active" status really attaches to the consolidated 2017 case, not to this docket. Venue matters because C.D. Cal. is both the plaintiff's home forum and where the entire Vivato campaign was coordinated before one judge for common claim construction, and because Judge Carter's court adopted a Special Master's claim construction (Report & Recommendation, Jan. 27, 2022; Order Adopting, Apr. 18, 2022) that then fed the parallel W.D. Tex. Markman proceedings before Judge Albright. The case is notable on three axes: (1) it is a textbook second-wave NPE campaign — XR filed the original 2017 suits against Aruba, ASUSTeK, Belkin, Cisco, D-Link, NETGEAR, Ruckus, Ubiquiti, Extreme, and Amped, litigation was stayed for nine IPRs, the PTAB cancelled the asserted claims of the '296 patent and claim 16 of the '728 patent while the '231 patent survived (Fed. Cir. 2020-1105 affirmed), and XR then re-filed in June 2021 on new continuations ('376, '235) plus surviving '728 claims; (2) it is a study in IPR-as-settlement-lever — Samsung/Google/Cisco's IPR2022-00613 was instituted on all of claims 1–34 of the '376 patent on Oct. 20, 2022, Netgear/Aruba's IPR2023-00136 was instituted and joined on May 22, 2023, and both were terminated as settled on Oct. 3, 2023, while eero's IPR2023-00174 and Ubiquiti's IPR2024-00148 also challenged the '376 patent; and (3) it sits inside a broader Wi-Fi 6/6E/7 licensing wave in which XR has sued AT&T/Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia, Samsung, Cisco, Dell, ASUS, Comcast, Amazon/eero, and others, with most resolving by dismissal or settlement rather than judgment.

Sourcing caveats. I could not verify from the sources retrieved (a) whether any IPR on the '376 patent reached a final written decision on the merits — the two instituted proceedings I confirmed (IPR2022-00613, IPR2023-00136) both show "Terminated–Settled" on Oct. 3, 2023, and the outcomes of IPR2023-00174 and IPR2024-00148 are unconfirmed; (b) the current (October 2026) docket status of the consolidated 8:17-cv-00596 case as to Belkin/Linksys, including whether a settlement, dismissal, or trial occurred; and (c) whether Belkin/Linksys ever filed a substantively distinct IPR of the '376 patent beyond the Netgear/Aruba joinder. The Belkin entity details, complaint contents, and docket entries above are grounded in the RPX litigation document for Dkt. 1 and the UniCourt/Unified Patents dockets for 2:21-cv-04914; the Vivato corporate history and IPR outcomes are grounded in RPX/Mondaq campaign reporting and PTAB records. Those three open items should be confirmed against PACER before any further reliance.

I'll research the consolidated docket and PTAB trail for the '376 patent and the earlier '728/'296 family.

Now let me drill into the consolidated C.D. Cal. orders on the '376 patent and the 2024 disposition.

Bottom line

There is no merits judgment, no verdict, and no appellate ruling on the '376 patent. The Belkin/Linksys strand of this campaign — 2:21-cv-04914, consolidated into lead case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC (JDEx) — ended not in a trial or a final written decision but in settlement-driven dismissal: the consolidated case closed 2024-05-16 per RPX's docket tracking (last docket activity 2024-12-10), two months after XR had narrowed the case to the '376 patent alone by amending its complaint to add Linksys USA (Dkt. 586, 2024-02-06). The PTAB proceeding that would have decided '376 validity — IPR2022-00613 — was instituted on all of claims 1–34, ran all the way through oral argument, and was terminated as settled on 2023-10-03, three weeks before the statutory final-written-decision deadline. Ubiquiti's later attempt to revive it failed on 2024-05-06.

So the case's true "outcome" is twofold: (1) XR extracted a resolution on the '376 patent without ever facing a validity ruling on it, and (2) XR's older patents in the same family ('296, '728, '231) were all wiped out — by PTAB cancellation and by collateral-estoppel invalidity judgments that the Federal Circuit affirmed.

---

Chronology of key developments

Phase 1 — The 2017 case and the first-wave IPR stay (2017–2020)

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

Let me dig into the actual complaint signature block and docket entries.

Now let me get the exact signature block on the complaint and the later consolidated-case filings.

Bottom line

Counsel of record for XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies in 2:21-cv-04914 is the Los Angeles patent-litigation boutique Russ, August & Kabat ("RA&K"), 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025. The case was opened by Reza Mirzaie on June 16, 2021, and every substantive filing on the 21-04914 docket was made by him. Notably, no separate local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no co-counsel firm ever appeared in this docket — RA&K is itself the C.D. Cal.–local firm, so "local counsel" and "lead counsel" roles collapse into one.

One threshold caveat that materially affects the answer: this case no longer has its own live docket. On June 28, 2021 — twelve days after filing — Judge David O. Carter consolidated LA CV 21-04914 into the long-running lead case SA CV 17-00596-DOC (JDEx) and administratively closed 21-04914, ordering that "[a]ll future filings shall be filed only under the low number case" and that any counsel not listed on the lead case file a Notice of Appearance there (Dkt. 17, entered 6/29/2021). So the "counsel of record" in 21-04914 is frozen as of June 2021; anything after that sits on the 17-00596 docket.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

The attorney roster above is corroborated by the 21-04914 docket's party-counsel listing (UniCourt/Justia aggregation of the PACER docket), which names Wang, Chan, Fenster, Pickens, Conkle, and Mirzaie for the plaintiff, and by RA&K signature blocks in the same campaign.

Where the docket evidence comes from

• Dkt. 1 (6/16/2021) — Complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,729,728 and 10,594,376 against Belkin, filed by Reza Mirzaie, with Exhibits A–B. Docket text expressly records "(Attorney Reza Mirzaie added to party XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies (pty:pla))."
• Dkts. 8–11, 13, 15 — civil cover sheet, corporate disclosure statement, AO-120 patent report, related-case notices, and summons request, all filed by Mirzaie. Dkt. 15 lists the thirteen related campaign cases (including 8:21-cv-01063 D-Link, 2:21-cv-04912 HPE/Aruba, 2:21-cv-04942 NETGEAR, 8:21-cv-01065 Ubiquiti).
• Dkt. 16 (6/25/2021) — General Order 21-01 related-case transfer from Judge Mark C. Scarsi / Mag. Judge Alka Sagar to Judge David O. Carter / Mag. Judge John D. Early.
• Dkt. 17 (6/28/2021) — consolidation into SA CV 17-00596-DOC (JDEx); administrative closure.
• PTAB record — Vivato's mandatory notices in the IPRs arising from the '376 patent identify "XR Communications, LLC v. Belkin International, Inc., Case No. 2-21-cv-04914 (CDCA)" as a related proceeding and list RA&K (Wang lead / Mirzaie backup as of 11/22/2023; Mirzaie lead / Wang backup as of 4/6/2022 and 1/25/2023, depending on the proceeding).

Explicit gaps and caveats

1. There is no sealed or withheld counsel information here — the complaint and all filings in this docket are public. The limitation is different: 21-04914 is a 17-entry docket, so no notice of appearance, pro hac vice application, or substitution of counsel was ever filed in this case number. The expanded roster (Wang, Chan, Fenster, Pickens, Conkle) surfaces through the docket's counsel table and through filings in the consolidated/related matters, not through appearances docketed at 21-04914.
2. Your metadata says "active," but the docket says otherwise for this case number. 21-04914 was administratively closed and JS-6 terminated on June 29, 2021. The substantively live matter is 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDEx, where Vivato re-asserted only the '376 patent against Belkin and Linksys USA in a February 6, 2024 complaint (Dkt. 586, Page ID #51554). If you need current counsel of record for the Belkin-facing litigation, that must be pulled from the 17-00596 docket, not 21-04914. I was not able to pull a current 17-00596 docket sheet in this session, so I cannot confirm whether additional RA&K attorneys (e.g., Adam S. Hoffman, Jacob Buczko, Neil A. Rubin, Paul A. Kroeger, Brian D. Ledahl) have since noticed appearances in the Belkin/Linksys track specifically.
3. One open question on Fenster. Fenster is listed in the aggregated counsel table for 21-04914 and is unquestionably Vivato's lead appellate/trial counsel in the campaign, but I did not locate a 21-04914 docket entry bearing his signature. Treat his "counsel of record in 21-04914" status as docket-table-derived rather than signature-verified.
4. Related-case counsel of record for context: at the July 6, 2022 consolidated-case hearing, Reza Mirzaie appeared for XR/Vivato and Sajid Saleem of Duane Morris appeared for Belkin and NETGEAR — useful if you need the defense-side counterpart, though Duane Morris's appearance in 21-04914 itself is not docketed (Belkin never answered before consolidation).
5. No in-house counsel for XR Communications appears anywhere in the record; Vivato's address of record in PTAB filings is 444 S. Cedros Ave., Suite 210, Solana Beach, CA 92075, but no Vivato employee-attorney has entered an appearance.

Suggested verification step: pull the current 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDEx docket sheet on PACER (or CourtListener RECAP) and filter for "Notice of Appearance" / "Appearance of Counsel" entries after June 2021 to confirm the present Belkin-facing team. If you want me to do that, say so and I'll run it.

I'll research the docket and filings to identify defense counsel of record.

Let me drill into specific counsel records and any post-2024 changes.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant(s)

Threshold point on where the appearances actually live. No defense appearance was ever docketed on the face of 2:21-cv-04914. That docket closed on June 28, 2021, when Judge Carter consolidated the case into lead case SA CV 17-00596-DOC (JDEx) and administratively closed it, ordering that "any party / counsel not listed on the low numbered case shall file a Notice of Appearance in that case" (Dkt. 17 in 2:21-cv-04914; confirmed in the Unified Patents final civil docket for 2:21-cv-04914, last retrieved 6/28/2021). So the operative defense appearances are in 8:17-cv-00596-DOC (JDEx). The single defendant-side filing traceable to the 2021 Belkin complaint is the July 2, 2021 stipulation extending Belkin's time to answer to August 13, 2021 (lead case Dkt. 217), signed by Matthew S. Yungwirth — i.e., Belkin was represented by the same Duane Morris team from day one and simply never needed a separate appearance on the new docket.

Belkin's counsel is a Duane Morris LLP team, Atlanta-based with a Los Angeles local-counsel anchor, fielded jointly for Belkin and NETGEAR (and earlier for Ruckus) in this consolidated litigation.

Lead counsel

Matthew S. Yungwirth — lead counsel for Belkin International, Inc.

• Duane Morris LLP, 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30309 (404-253-6935). Admitted pro hac vice in C.D. Cal.
• He is the through-line of Belkin's defense. He signed Belkin's answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims in the consolidated case (Dkt. 233, Aug. 13, 2021, with his supporting declaration), the joint protective-order motion (Dkt. 281), the corrected motion to stay pending the '376 IPR (Dkt. 398, Sept. 2, 2022), and Belkin/NETGEAR's summary-judgment motion on the '376 patent (Dkt. 422, Sept. 2, 2022). He was already listed as Belkin's attorney on the 2018 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 83). His own PHV declaration describes him as a Duane Morris partner in Atlanta and patent litigator with district-court, Markman, trial and ITC experience, and he served as lead counsel for Ruckus and the ARRIS entities in the companion XR suits (IPR2018-01016 PHV declaration, July 16, 2018 — where Belkin itself was a petitioner). He has since been lead counsel for Verizon/Cellco, Ericsson and Nokia of America in XR's later E.D. Tex. campaign (e.g., No. 2:23-cv-00470, Dkts. 14, 21) and for HPE/Cisco in Cobblestone Wireless v. Cisco/HPE (IPR2024-00707, Ex. 1015).

Local counsel of record (C.D. Cal.)

Daniel B. Heidtke — local counsel; the California anchor for Belkin (and NETGEAR, and previously Ruckus)

• Duane Morris LLP, Los Angeles office (865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90071 — the firm's L.A. address used in this case).
• Added as counsel of record for Belkin and NETGEAR on Sept. 28, 2018 (Dkt. 159) and repeatedly designated the local counsel in pro hac vice orders for the joint Belkin/NETGEAR team (e.g., Dkt. 297 granting Marandola PHV; Dkt. 343 granting Forte PHV). He also signed the LANE PHV application for Belkin/NETGEAR (Dkt. 360) and Belkin's answer-related filings in 2021–22. He took over the Ruckus appearance in March 2020 (Dkt. 185), showing he was the firm's C.D. Cal. coverage lawyer across the Vivato campaign.

Other counsel of record / of counsel on the team

Alice E. Snedeker — of counsel/partner, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta (1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700). Appeared for Belkin as early as the 2018 Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 83) and signed the 2018 telephonic-appearance request on behalf of Belkin, Aruba, D-Link, Extreme and NETGEAR (Dkt. 162); she also filed the joint motion for entry of the stipulated protective order (Dkt. 281) and the Aug. 23, 2022 stipulation regarding XR's validity expert (Dkt. 390), and is the notice contact for the Belkin/NETGEAR address change (Dkt. 200).

Tyler R. Marandola — pro hac vice, Duane Morris LLP (Atlanta). Granted PHV on March 25, 2022 with Heidtke as local counsel (Dkt. 297). He was the workhorse on the inequitable-conduct/patent-acquisition counterclaim theory, filing Belkin and NETGEAR's motion for leave to amend their answers with the 39-exhibit declaration (Dkt. 368, July 20, 2022), the reply and errata exhibits (Dkts. 369, 382, 456, 458), and proposed orders (Dkt. 436). That motion produced the Court's order permitting the amended pleadings (Dkt. 400, Sept. 2, 2022) and Belkin's amended answer and counterclaims (Dkt. 447).

Jennifer H. Forte — pro hac vice, Duane Morris LLP. PHV applied May 27, 2022 and granted May 31, 2022, for Belkin and NETGEAR, with Heidtke as local counsel (Dkts. 339, 343).

Alexandra A. Lane — pro hac vice, Duane Morris LLP. PHV application filed July 6, 2022 on behalf of Belkin and NETGEAR (Dkt. 360); granted with Heidtke as local counsel (Dkt. 386).

Sajid Saleem — Duane Morris LLP. Granted PHV in this consolidated case in February 2018 (Dkt. 108, for Ruckus) and appears in the record as counsel "representing Defendants Belkin and NetGear" at the July 6, 2022 deposition of Edward Brooks (transcript, XR Commc'ns v. D-Link, 8:17-cv-00596, excerpt filed in E.D. Tex. No. 2:23-cv-00202, Dkt. 182-4).

Superseded appearances

• Audra Lynn Thompson — Duane Morris LLP, Los Angeles; Belkin