XR Communications, LLC v. ARRIS International plc et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good initial results, but there's important nuance to sort out: the C.D. Cal. case appears short-lived and separate from the N.D. Cal. case that produced the appeal. Let me dig deeper.

Bottom line first — a metadata correction

The case named in the prompt, C.D. Cal. No. 8:18-cv-00192 (XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. ARRIS International plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., Ruckus Networks), did not itself reach claim construction, judgment, or appeal. Per RPX's docket profile it was filed 2018-02-02 and closed 2018-05-07 — 95 days later, after only pleading-extension orders (RPX Insight, 8:18-cv-00192). The '231 merits fight — and the appeals numbered 22-1125 / 22-1141 cited in the case metadata — actually arose in the N.D. Cal. successor/companion cases that Vivato filed against the same corporate family: No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO (Ruckus Wireless, Inc.) and No. 3:18-cv-02736-WHO (ARRIS Solutions, Inc.), consolidated under 01992. Those appeals also produced the Federal Circuit's 2023 affirmance holding claims 1–9 and 12 of the '231 patent invalid as indefinite.

So the honest chronology has to follow the '231 campaign as a whole, flagging which event happened in which courthouse. I do that below, and I mark the points where I could not verify a fact from a primary source.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (C.D. Cal., Feb.–Apr. 2018)

Why the case was filed at all. The complaint is essentially a corporate-successor/alter-ego pleading. Vivato alleged that in the January 2018 Ruckus Wireless hearing, Ruckus's counsel represented that Ruckus Wireless, Inc. "probably doesn't exist any more" following its December 2017 acquisition by ARRIS, that Ruckus's counsel refused to permit ARRIS entities to be added by amendment to the 2017 case, and that Vivato therefore sued ARRIS International, ARRIS Group and "Ruckus Networks" directly, including on an alter-ego theory (Compl. ¶¶ 6–9). This is the strategic key to the February 2018 filing and to why it was quickly superseded.

Answer/counterclaims in 8:18-cv-00192. I found no answer, counterclaim, or Rule 12 motion docketed in the C.D. Cal. case; the publicly mirrored docket (UniCourt, last updated 2020-07-15) ends at Dkt. 21 and the case closed on 2018-05-07. ⚠️ Caveat: the free docket mirrors are incomplete, so I cannot affirmatively state that no answer was filed — only that none is captured in the available record.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

In 8:18-cv-00192: none. There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1404/1406 transfer motion, no stay motion, and no summary-judgment motion — only stipulated extensions and the General Order 16-05 related-case reassignment.

In the successor N.D. Cal. cases (where the real pretrial work happened):

• 2018-05-30 — ARRIS Solutions answered with a jury demand and affirmative defenses in No. 3:18-cv-02736 (Dkt. 24), and Judge Orrick entered an order relating 02736 to 3:18-cv-01992-WHO (Dkt. 25).
• 2018-06-04 / 2018-06-05 — stipulated stay of the entire litigation pending the inter partes reviews, granted by Judge Orrick (Dkt. 27 stipulation; Dkt. 28 order). This single order removed the case from active litigation for roughly two years and is the reason the '231 case produced no discovery or Markman activity until 2021.
• 2021-09-01 — Claim construction order in No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO, Dkt. 191 (25 pages), resolving the sole disputed term against Vivato.
• 2021-10-15 — Stipulation of Final Judgment; and Order (Dkt. 193) and Judgment (Dkt. 194) in 01992; parallel Dkts. 48–49 in 02736.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman) outcome — the dispositive ruling

This is the heart of the case. In the September 1, 2021 order (No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO, Dkt. 191), Judge Orrick wrote that "[t]he parties agree on the proper claim construction of each term of the

I'll research the counsel of record for XR Communications in this case.

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

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented exclusively by Russ August & Kabat LLP (RAK), Los Angeles — no local-counsel or in-house appearance is reflected on the docket. The same RAK team carried the case through the N.D. Cal. consolidation and the Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 22-1125/22-1141, plus the C.D. Cal. collateral-estoppel companion appeals, Nos. 22-1785 et al.).

Attorneys (as listed in the C.D. Cal. docket's plaintiff-side attorney block)

Notes and caveats

• No formal "lead counsel" designation exists at the district level here. The role labels above are inferred from signature blocks, argument assignments, and the Federal Circuit appearances, not from a court order. Fenster and Mirzaie are the two attorneys who most consistently signed and argued for Vivato.
• No separate local counsel. Unlike many C.D. Cal. patent matters, no local-counsel firm appears on the plaintiff side; RAK (a Los Angeles firm) served as both trial and appellate counsel.
• Non-district counsel, for completeness only: In the parallel PTAB proceedings XR Communications used Noroozi PC — William P. Rothwell (Reg. No. 72,522), lead, Sugar Land, TX, and Kayvan B. Noroozi, Santa Monica, CA (per the March 14, 2018 Patent Owner mandatory notices). These attorneys were not counsel of record in 8:18-cv-00192 and should not be listed as such.
• Procedural flag worth verifying on PACER: RPX records 8:18-cv-00192 as closed 05/07/2018 (95 days), and ARRIS's 10-Q references both 8:18-cv-00192 (C.D. Cal.) and 3:18-cv-01992/3:18-cv-02736 (N.D. Cal.) as the operative '231 matters. The likely path is dismissal/refiling or transfer into the N.D. Cal. consolidated cases (3:18-cv-01992 lead, 3:18-cv-02736), but I could not confirm the precise closing docket entry from open sources — the Justia/UniCourt-derived docket snapshots end at late March 2018 and do not show the closing event. That entry is the one item in this section I would verify against PACER before publication.
• Nothing in this case appears to have been filed under seal insofar as counsel identification is concerned; the attorney list is drawn from the public docket and public filings, so counsel has not been withheld.

Key sources: Justia docket (C.D. Cal. 8:18-cv-00192) and UniCourt docket extract (plaintiff attorney block); RPX Insight litigation page for 8:18-cv-00192 (filed 2/2/2018, closed 5/7/2018); RAK signature blocks in XR Communications v. ARRIS Int'l Doc. 1 (2/2/2018) and in the N.D. Cal. Notice of Appeal (11/2/2021, RAK caption block); Fed. Cir. Nos. 22-1125/22-1141 opinion (5/18/2023) and petition for rehearing (6/20/2023, signed by Mirzaie); Fed. Cir. No. 22-1785 opinion (5/18/2023, listing Fenster, Chan, Ledahl, Mirzaie, Pickens); Patent Owner Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2022-00367 (5/4/2023, designating Wang/Mirzaie/Conkle); Noroozi PC mandatory notices (3/14/2018).

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

Counsel of Record — Defendants (C.D. Cal. No. 8:18-cv-00192-AG (JDEx))

Bottom line: This was a short-lived case (filed 2/2/2018; closed 5/7/2018 per RPX, ~95 days in litigation). Only one defense-side attorney appears on the face of the docket: Audra Lynn Thompson, who entered appearances for Arris Group, Inc. and Ruckus Networks. I found no appearance by any attorney for Arris International plc, no local-counsel designation, no pro hac vice applications, and no in-house counsel entry on this docket. Everything below is drawn from docket aggregators (Justia, UniCourt, RPX Insight) because I could not pull the raw PACER docket; treat firm attribution as inferred where noted.

---

1. Audra Lynn Thompson — Lead (and only) defense counsel of record

Sourcing caveat: Justia and UniCourt both list her as the sole "Defendant Attorney" for this case; RPX confirms the case's closure but its docket extract is truncated, and I could not see docket entries after ~4/2018.

2. Richard L. Seabolt — related-case counsel (NOT confirmed on this docket)

• In the companion N.D. Cal. action (XR Communications v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.), Dkt. 134 is a "Notice of Substitution of Counsel by Richard L. Seabolt / Notice of Withdrawal of Audra Thompson as Counsel of Record for Defendant Ruckus Wireless, Inc."
• Seabolt is a Duane Morris partner (San Francisco), which is the basis for my inference that Thompson's firm in this case was Duane Morris. I did not find any Seabolt appearance in 8:18-cv-00192 itself, and I did not verify the Dkt. 134 text beyond the UniCourt docket summary.
• One-line: long-time patent/IP litigator at Duane Morris who took over the Ruckus defense in the related XR Communications matter; not counsel of record here.

3. Arris International plc — no appearance located

The complaint named Arris International plc, Arris Group, Inc., and Ruckus Networks (plus alter-ego allegations against the Ruckus/Brocade entities — see Complaint ¶¶ 6–10). Only Arris Group and Ruckus Networks filed the extension stipulations/motions (Dkts. 16–19). I found no notice of appearance for Arris International plc on this docket. Because the case closed within ~95 days, it appears the ARRIS entity appearances were handled through the Arris Group filing rather than a separate entry — but I cannot confirm this from the available sources, and I did not locate a waiver of service or an answer.

4. In-house counsel

None identified. No in-house attorney signed any filing captured in the aggregator dockets. Do not assume an ARRIS/Ruckus legal-department appearance without a PACER pull.

---

What I could not verify (be careful with these in any filing or memo)

• Firm name for Thompson in 2018 — the Duane Morris attribution rests on (a) a Martindale address match and (b) the Seabolt substitution in the sister case. Confirm via PACER docket entry 15 (the G-123 Notice of Appearance) or the CM/ECF attorney roll.
• The closure mechanism on 5/7/2018 — RPX shows "Closed: 05/07/2018." I could not retrieve the dismissal/transfer order. Given the related N.D. Cal. case (XR Communications v. Ruckus Wireless, No. 4:18-cv-01992) and ARRIS's 10-Q disclosure that "the litigation has been stayed pending completion of the IPR proceedings," the likely disposition is dismissal or consolidation into the Northern District track, but I have no docket citation for that and will not assert it.
• No sealed filings found in the entries I could see; the docket is thin enough that this is a low-confidence negative.
• No Law360 or Reuters Legal coverage of this specific C.D. Cal. case surfaced in my searches; the press coverage attaches to the N.D. Cal. Ruckus case and the Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 22-1125/22-1141), not this 2018 ARRIS action.

Practical next step

Pull the PACER docket report for 8:18-cv-00192 (it is short — roughly 22–30 entries) and read Dkt. 15 and Dkt. 17 directly. Those two entries will give you Thompson's firm, bar number, and email at the time of appearance, plus whether any co-counsel was listed in the signature block.