XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Comcast Corp. et al.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB proceedings, and industry coverage.

Key finding: the Comcast case appears to have closed in November 2021. Let me verify the dismissal, the accused products, and the PTAB outcome.

Let me pin down the complaint specifics, the accused products, and the Vivato/XR background.

XR Communications v. Comcast — Case Overview

At a glance: XR Communications, LLC (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) sued Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC on June 16, 2021 in W.D. Tex., Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,594,376. Important correction to the case metadata: the docket does not show this case as active. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. 19, Nov. 12, 2021; corrected at Dkt. 20, Nov. 17, 2021), and third-party dockets record the case as closed on November 17, 2021 after 155 days (RPX Insight; Patexia docket).

The parties. XR Communications is a Los Angeles-based patent-holding entity that does not appear to make or sell any product; it monetizes the Vivato portfolio and is characterized in litigation databases and defense briefing as a non-practicing entity/PAE. "Vivato" is not a marketing alias invented for the campaign — it is the name of the original operating company. Vivato was founded in 2000 as a venture-backed Wi-Fi infrastructure startup (XR's own complaints describe roughly $80 million in venture funding and 400+ global deployments) that built beamforming phased-array base stations with "packet steering," and its engineering roster included Siavash Alamouti, Vahid Tarokh, and Ken Biba. Vivato ceased operations in the mid-2000s and XR Communications now holds the portfolio, which XR describes as 17+ issued patents (XR complaint language reproduced in PTAB filings). Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC are the largest U.S. cable broadband provider and the entity that designs/deploys the Xfinity customer-premises equipment at issue. Plaintiff's counsel is Russ August & Kabat (Reza Mirzaie, Philip X. Wang, Minna Y. Chan, Paul A. Kroeger, Christian W. Conkle); Comcast appeared through local counsel Deron R. Dacus with pro hac vice admissions for Krishnan Padmanabhan, John Drosick, and Saranya Raghavan (Dkts. 10, 12–14, 17).

The accused technology and the patent. The accusation is not against Comcast's network core but against Comcast's consumer Wi-Fi gateway/router hardware that implements multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) under IEEE 802.11ac (Wi-Fi 5) and 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6). RPX records seven accused products in this case and a single patent-in-suit (RPX). I could not retrieve the Comcast complaint text itself, so I will not assert specific Comcast model numbers for this 2021 case; the same plaintiff's later Comcast suit (7:25-cv-00590, filed Dec. 24, 2025) names the xFi Gateway XB6/XB7/XB8/XB10, xFi WiFi Router XER10, and Wireless Gateway 3 — useful context but not proof of the 2021 list. The sole patent is U.S. 10,594,376, "Directed Wireless Communication" (issued Mar. 17, 2020 from App. No. 15/486,245), a member of a seven-patent family that also produced the '296 and '728 patents, with priority tracing to a November 2002 provisional. Technical sketch: claim 1 recites a data-communications networking apparatus whose processor generates a probing signal to at least two client devices plus separate data streams for each; a transceiver and a "smart antenna" with at least two antenna elements receive feedback information from both clients; the apparatus then determines where to place transmission peaks and nulls in "spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals" based on that feedback and transmits both streams simultaneously, with a peak at each client's location. In plain terms, it is a claim to MU-MIMO beamforming/sounding — and XR's infringement theory tracks the 802.11 sounding protocol almost element-by-element (NDP announcement, NDP, compressed beamforming/CQI report, steering matrix), effectively arguing that practicing the Wi-Fi standard infringes. Note the scope tension: the '376 claims are drafted on a 2002-era "smart antenna" architecture but asserted against commodity Wi-Fi

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Key finding already: the docket shows this 2021 case was closed 2021-11-17 by joint stipulation of dismissal. Let me dig into the specifics, including the parallel IPRs on the '376 patent.

Let me dig into the specifics of the Comcast docket — the answer/counterclaims, and why it was dismissed in November 2021.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — XR Communications (d/b/a Vivato) v. Comcast Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00624 (W.D. Tex.)

Headline: This case never reached the merits — it was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, five months after filing

Important correction to the case metadata: the prompt lists the status as "active." The docket does not support that. The case was closed on 2021-11-17 by joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. 20), and the AO-120 report was sent to the USPTO the same day (Dkt. 21). RPX Insight records the case as "Closed: 11/17/2021" with 155 days in litigation. (RPX Insight; Patexia docket)

Consequently, most of the categories you asked about — Markman, summary judgment, discovery milestones, trial, JMOL/new trial/fees, appeal — do not exist in this case. I flag that explicitly below rather than filling the gaps with inference.

---

Chronological development

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

Let me get the detailed docket sheet to confirm appearances filed by plaintiff's counsel.

Let me pull the actual complaint and docket to confirm which counsel signed and whether any Texas local counsel was designated.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented exclusively by Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles, CA) — no Texas local counsel and no in-house counsel ever appeared on this docket. The case was short-lived (filed 6/16/2021; joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice 11/17/2021, ECF Nos. 19–21), and all plaintiff-side substantive filings were signed by Reza Mirzaie.

Sourcing and confidence notes

• Attorney list per third-party docket compilations (UniCourt case page for 6:21-cv-00624; Patexia docket for the case) and the Unified Patents litigation portal docket, which together reproduce ECF Nos. 1–21. All plaintiff-side filers are attributed to "(Mirzaie, Reza)" in the docket text.
• The Los Angeles address, bar numbers, and USPTO registration numbers are corroborated by RAK's own signature blocks in PTAB filings for the same patent-owner (XR Communications power of attorney and mandatory notices for U.S. Patent No. 10,594,376, IPR2022-00376 / IPR2023-00174, Jan. 25, 2023 and Apr. 6, 2022) and in XR's W.D. Tex. filings in the companion case No. 6:21-cv-619-ADA (Dec. 20, 2021).
• Unverified / caution: I did not retrieve the four corners of ECF No. 1 itself; the complaint's caption block, which would show the exact originally-named counsel (including Pickens), is inferred from the Clerk's PHV letter. Also, I found no evidence of any Texas-admitted local counsel for plaintiff — unusual for W.D. Tex., so the most likely explanation is that Mirzaie and colleagues were already admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar (no PHV motions were filed for them). Treat that as inference, not a documented fact.
• Outcome: joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice (ECF 20, 11/17/2021; AO-120 report at ECF 21). I found no public ruling, settlement agreement, or license document explaining the dismissal — do not attribute it to a settlement without further sourcing.
• Related PTAB thread worth flagging for the merits narrative: XR listed this Comcast case in its mandatory notices for the '376 patent in multiple IPRs (including IPR2022-00613, per the case summary), where RAK's Mirzaie/Wang again acted for the patent owner.

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

Docket data confirms the defense team. Now let me verify firm affiliations and offices.

Counsel of Record for Comcast Corp. & Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Comcast Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00624 (W.D. Tex.)

Important framing note: This case is closed. Judge Alan D. Albright's docket reflects a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice filed Nov. 17, 2021 (Doc. 20), with the Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO the same day (Doc. 21); RPX records the case as closed 11/17/2021. No claim construction, summary-judgment, or merits ruling ever issued. So the defense roster below is a complete, closed snapshot of who actually appeared — and, consistent with that short 155-day life, the team is small: one Texas-admitted local counsel plus three Winston & Strawn lawyers admitted pro hac vice. No Comcast in-house counsel appeared of record, and there is no indication of any sealed appearance.

The four attorneys of record

One-line experience notes

• Deron R. Dacus — Board-certified civil trial lawyer and CPA who advertises having handled "well over 1,000 patent cases" in the Eastern District of Texas and dozens of patent trials to verdict; in this campaign he was the recurring Texas local counsel for Comcast-family defendants, and he continues to appear as local counsel for Apple, SK Hynix, and Dell in W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. patent suits.
• Krishnan Padmanabhan — Winston's New York office managing partner (named Feb. 2025) and co-chair of its Technology, Media & Telecom industry group; a telecom/networking patent litigator and former semiconductor engineer who is the firm's go-to lawyer for Comcast in patent matters, including the Entropic Communications v. Comcast/TI and Cox campaign in C.D. Cal. and the related IPR work. He is the natural "lead counsel" designation here.
• John E. Drosick — Winston & Strawn Chicago associate (Notre Dame Law '17; Illinois bar) in the product liability/mass torts group, whose practice expressly includes patent infringement and complex commercial litigation, with Comcast listed among his technology-company clients; this case is consistent with that Comcast relationship rather than a standalone patent-specialist role.
• Saranya Raghavan — appeared pro hac vice on Comcast's behalf in this matter; her practice profile and firm were not independently verified in my searches.

Sourcing caveats — please read

1. Raghavan's firm and office are not confirmed. The docket shows only that Dacus moved for her pro hac vice admission on Comcast's behalf (Doc. 14) and that the motion was granted by text order. Her association with Winston & Strawn is an inference from the pattern of the filing (all three PHV motions filed together by Dacus, two of whom are confirmed Winston lawyers) and from Winston's known role as Comcast's patent counsel. I did not access the underlying PHV application PDF, which is where her firm and address would be stated. Treat that row as provisional; PACER Doc. 14 would confirm it.
2. No firm website confirmed Dacus's 2021 affiliation beyond his own firm. The Dacus Firm has been his firm throughout, and PACER records in later cases (e.g., Headwater v. Verizon, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00352; R2 Solutions v. Databricks) list him at The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler — but I did not retrieve a contemporaneous 2021 Comcast engagement letter or press release.
3. Lead-counsel designation is functional, not formal. W.D. Tex. filings do not carry a "lead counsel" label. I designate Padmanabhan as lead because he is the Winston partner and Comcast's established patent counsel; the Answer and disclosure statements were filed under Dacus's signature as the ECF attorney, which is standard local-counsel practice, not evidence that Dacus argued the case.

Context on the plaintiff's side (for completeness)

XR Communications was represented by Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles) — Reza Mirzaie, Christian W. Conkle, Minna Y. Chan, Paul A. Kroeger, and Philip X. Wang — with a pro hac vice letter issued to James N. Pickens (Doc. 5). The same day this suit was filed (6/16/2021), XR filed a companion case against ARRIS Solutions as No. 6:21-cv-00621 asserting the '728 and '376 patents, per the AO 120 form in the USPTO record.

Practical takeaway for your litigation-history work

Because the case died on a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice before any substantive motion practice — and before the '376 patent's parallel IPR2022-00613 was even instituted — there is no Comcast-authored briefing in this docket beyond the 30-page Answer (Doc. 15) and Rule 7 disclosure (Doc. 16). If you need Comcast's substantive '376 positions, the productive sources are the IPR2022-00613 papers (where Padmanabhan appears as backup counsel) and the surviving XR campaign dockets, not this file.