Litigation

XR Communications, LLC v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc.

consolidated

4:18-cv-02736

Filed
2018-05-09

Patents at issue (1)

6611231

Summary

2018 Northern District of California case involving the '231 patent. It was related/consolidated by order on May 30, 2018, and resolved via appeal.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across dockets, opinions, and PTAB records.

Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC, doing business as Vivato Technologies, is a Delaware LLC with a stated principal place of business in Venice, California, and is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. Despite the operating-company-sounding name, XR is best characterized as a patent-holding entity: the complaints in this campaign describe Vivato as the successor to Vivato, Inc., a venture-backed Wi-Fi access-point startup founded in 2000 (reportedly $80–100M in venture funding, with engineers such as Siavash Alamouti, Ken Biba, and Vahid Tarokh) that developed phased-array/"packet steering" Wi-Fi base stations and accumulated a portfolio of roughly 17+ issued patents. XR adopted the Vivato name and monetizes that portfolio through litigation, represented throughout by Russ August & Kabat (Reza Mirzaie, Kent Shum, Marc Fenster, Philip Wang, Minna Chan, Christian Conkle, and others). Defendant ARRIS Solutions, Inc. is the networking/broadband-equipment subsidiary of ARRIS International plc, which acquired Ruckus Wireless in 2017 (ARRIS itself was later absorbed by CommScope). Consistent with that corporate link, ARRIS was sued alongside Ruckus Wireless, Inc., and defendants were represented by Duane Morris (Matthew Yungwirth and Alice Snedeker) among others.

Accused technology and the patent. The single patent asserted in this N.D. Cal. case is U.S. Patent No. 6,611,231, "Wireless Packet Switched Communication Systems and Networks Using Adaptively Steered Antenna Arrays" (issued Aug. 26, 2003), with claims 1–9 and 12 at issue. In one line: it claims a wireless routing device (e.g., a Wi-Fi access point) with an adaptive/steered antenna array plus control logic that transmits "multi-beam electromagnetic signals" having selectively placed transmission peaks and nulls, and "search receiver logic" that updates the device's routing information from cross-correlated signal information. The accused instrumentalities are the defendants' enterprise/consumer Wi-Fi access points and related equipment alleged to implement 802.11 beamforming and MU-MIMO (the court described the patent as "directed towards … Wi-Fi/802.11 access point technologies"). RPX's docket summary lists eight accused products, but I could not independently retrieve the complaint's model-by-model list (Dkt. 1) through the sources available here, so the exact accused SKUs should be treated as unverified.

Procedural posture and why it matters. XR filed this action on May 9, 2018 in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (docketed as No. 3:18-cv-02736, initially before Judge Jeffrey S. White and reassigned on May 31, 2018 to Judge William H. Orrick III). On May 30, 2018 Judge Orrick found it related to XR's earlier-filed suit against Ruckus Wireless, No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO, which became the lead case; the two were litigated together and the parties and court treated them as consolidated. On June 5, 2018 the court granted the parties' stipulated stay pending nine inter partes reviews filed in 2018 against XR's three-patent family — the '231 patent (Aruba, IPR2018-00701; Cisco, IPR2018-00762; Ruckus/ARRIS/Netgear/Belkin, IPR2018-01016) plus the '296 and '728 patents (IPR2018-00725, -00764, -01017, -01018). The Board denied institution in IPR2018-00701 (Aug. 27, 2018) and IPR2018-01016 (Oct. 31, 2018) but instituted in IPR2018-00762 (Sept. 19, 2018); I could not verify the final written decision outcomes from the sources retrieved, and in any event the case was ultimately resolved on a different ground. After the stay lifted (status reports in Nov. 2018 and Aug. 2020), the court issued a claim construction order on September 1, 2021 (2021 WL 3918136), holding that "search receiver logic" is a means-plus-function term under § 112 ¶ 6 and that the specification disclosed no adequate corresponding structure — rendering the asserted claims invalid as indefinite. The parties then entered a stipulated final judgment on October 15, 2021 (Dkt. 48/49), and XR appealed (notice filed Nov. 2, 2021).

The case is notable for three reasons. First, it is a textbook PAE campaign built on 2000–2003-era Vivato patents asserted against modern 802.11ac/Wi-Fi 6 gear, originally rolled out against roughly ten defendants in the Central District of California and later re-launched in 2021–2023 against Apple, Dell, HP, Amazon, Google, Samsung, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile in W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and N.D. Cal. Second, the N.D. Cal. indefiniteness ruling became the decisive event for the whole '231 campaign: on May 18, 2023 the Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion by Judge Prost (No. 2022-1125, joined by No. 2022-1141), and the same day affirmed the C.D. Cal. D-Link/ASUS/Cisco/Extreme appeals (Nos. 2022-1785 et al.) solely on the collateral-estoppel effect of the N.D. Cal. judgment. Third, XR's en banc petition — arguing the panel's § 112(f) analysis conflicted with Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp. — was denied on July 24, 2023 (mandate July 31, 2023), leaving a live tension in Federal Circuit means-plus-function doctrine that patent prosecutors and litigators still cite.

Sourcing caveats: Party, judge, docket-number, and judgment facts are grounded in the RPX docket summary (insight.rpxcorp.com, case 3:18-cv-02736), the Justia/UniCourt docket entries (Dkts. 24–30), the Sept. 1, 2021 Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 191 in No. 3:18-cv-01992, reproduced in the appellate record), and the Federal Circuit opinion and rehearing order (law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/22-1125; fedcircuitblog.com). Note a metadata/docket discrepancy: the case is captioned here as "4:18-cv-02736," and some PTAB papers list it as "4-18-cv-02736 (C.D. Cal.)," but the actual docket is No. 3:18-cv-02736-WHO in the Northern District of California; the "4:" prefix and C.D. Cal. label appear to be clerical artifacts that propagated through filings. The IPR final-written-decision results and the precise accused-product list are the two points I could not verify and should be confirmed against PACER/PTAB before being relied on.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the core docket and outcomes.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the IPR proceedings and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Now let me pin down the docket specifics — the stay, lifting, and the 2021 claim construction/judgment sequence.

XR Communications, LLC v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-02736-WHO (N.D. Cal.)

Bottom line

This case never reached trial. It was stayed 27 days after the answer pending IPRs, sat largely dormant for roughly three years, and then collapsed at claim construction: on 2021-09-01 Judge Orrick construed "search receiver logic" in the '231 patent as a means-plus-function term with no corresponding structure in the specification, rendering the asserted claims invalid as indefinite. The parties converted that ruling into a stipulated final judgment on 2021-10-15, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2023-05-18, denying rehearing en banc on 2023-07-24 (mandate 2023-07-31). The '231 patent is effectively dead against these defendants and, via collateral estoppel, against the rest of the industry.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Date Event
2018-02-02 XR (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) files a parallel C.D. Cal. action against ARRIS entities, No. 8:18-cv-00192.
2018-03-20 Judge Andrew Guilford transfers the related Ruckus Wireless case to N.D. Cal. (the "nesting dolls" order), setting up the refiling.
2018-05-09 Complaint filed, N.D. Cal. No. 3:18-cv-02736 (originally opened in the San Francisco division, later renumbered 3:18). Asserts infringement by ARRIS access points/routers, including SURFboard and Touchstone cable modems, under § 271. The docketed patents-in-suit are the '231, '296 and '728 patents; the case ultimately narrowed to the '231 patent only.
2018-05-30 Answer (Dkt. 24) with jury demand and affirmative defenses. Notably, the docket text reflects affirmative defenses only — no counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity/noninfringement appear on the docket.
2018-05-30 Order Relating Case (Dkt. 25) to XR Commc'ns v. Ruckus Wireless, No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO — the Ruckus case became the lead consolidated case.
2018-05-31 Case reassigned from Judge Jeffrey S. White to Judge William H. Orrick (Dkt. 26).

Plaintiff's counsel: Russ August & Kabat (Reza Mirzaie, Marc Fenster, Kent Shum, Philip Wang, Minna Chan, Christian Conkle). ARRIS's counsel: Duane Morris (Matthew Yungwirth, Alice Snedeker, Patrick Salceda; Richard Seabolt withdrew 2018-06-26, Dkt. 30).

2. The stay pending IPR — the dispositive early motion

This was not a contested motion; it was a stipulated stay, and it determined the case's entire trajectory.

  • 2018-06-04: Joint stipulation and proposed order to stay pending IPRs (Dkt. 27), with a declaration from Kent Shum.
  • 2018-06-05: Order granting stay (Dkt. 28).

No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, and no motion to dismiss for improper venue was litigated in this case (the venue fight had already been fought and lost by XR in C.D. Cal.). No summary judgment motions were ever filed. The case was effectively frozen from June 2018 until 2021, with only status reports filed (Dkt. 31, 2018-11-26; Dkt. 38, 2020-08-10), plus counsel changes (Dkts. 33–40, 2019–2021).

3. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '231 patent

The '231 patent was hit with three separate IPR petitions in 2018, which is what drove the stay:

Proceeding Petitioner(s) Filed Outcome
IPR2018-00701 Aruba Networks 2018-02-26 Institution denied
IPR2018-00762 Cisco Systems 2018-03-15 Instituted; FWD held claims 1–9, 12 not shown obvious over Agee
IPR2018-01016 Ruckus Wireless, ARRIS Solutions, ARRIS Enterprises, NETGEAR, Belkin 2018-05-03 Institution denied 2018-10-31 (Paper 17)

The critical twist — and the strategic hinge of the whole case. In IPR2018-01016, the Board adopted XR's narrow construction of "cross-correlated signal information that is received by said receiver," i.e., that the signal information must be cross-correlated at the time it is received. That construction defeated institution. The Board's construction was then challenged by Cisco in IPR2018-00762 and affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2020-11-25 in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. XR Communications, LLC, No. 2020-1105 (nonprecedential, Moore, J.) ("Because Cisco's petition was filed before November 13, 2018, we give claims in the unexpired '231 patent their broadest reasonable interpretation").

So XR won the IPR war — and that win killed it in district court. Because XR had successfully locked in a narrow, "already cross-correlated" construction, the district court in 2021 held the parties to that construction, then found the specification disclosed no structure for performing the corresponding function. XR's PTAB success supplied the premise for its own indefiniteness loss.

⚠️ Sourcing note: I did not independently confirm whether ARRIS was a real party in interest or petitioner in IPR2018-00762 (Cisco-led); ARRIS was a named petitioner in the Ruckus-led IPR2018-01016. IPR2018-00701's denial date is not confirmed in my sources.

4. Claim construction (Markman) — 2021-09-01

Activity resumed in 2021 (docket entries 41–45, Feb.–Mar. 2021, including what appears to be a hearing transcript filed by the court reporter on 2021-03-31; the exact contents of Dkt. 41/42 are not confirmed in my sources — treat the reopening mechanism as a stipulated order rather than a contested motion to lift stay).

Claim Construction Order, 2021-09-01, Dkt. 191 in No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO (and parallel in 2736), reported at 2021 WL 3918136. Key holdings:

  1. Only one term was disputed: "search receiver logic" in claims 1 and 12. Vivato argued plain meaning; defendants argued nonce word invoking § 112 ¶ 6.
  2. Judge Orrick held the term invokes § 112 ¶ 6 despite the absence of "means," because the rebuttable presumption was overcome: the term recites function without sufficient structure for performing it. The court framed the test as whether a POSITA would understand the term as sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of updating routing information — not merely as some structure in the abstract. The court acknowledged a POSITA might know "search receiver" from electronic warfare or GPS, but held that irrelevant.
  3. On step two, the court rejected Vivato's proposed corresponding structure — "search receiver 164" in Fig. 18 and steps 610/612 of Fig. 22 — finding the specification describes only generic functional flow.
  4. Result: claims invalid as indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2.

The order also addressed a Local Rule 3-13(b) notice regarding XR's 2021 follow-on suits (XR v. Ruckus Wireless, No. 3:21-cv-04679-WHO, on the '728/'376/'939 patents; XR v. ARRIS, No. 6:21-cv-00621, W.D. Tex., on the '728/'376). Orrick declined to transfer or coordinate, noting this case involved only the '231 patent.

Defendants' expert was Dr. Kevin Negus; Vivato's was Dr. Vojcic.

5. Discovery milestones

There was very little case-specific discovery here, and that is itself the story:

  • Venue/alter-ego discovery (C.D. Cal., pre-2018-03-20) — multiple rounds of venue-related discovery in the Ruckus/ARRIS C.D. Cal. actions, including alter-ego discovery aimed at ARRIS. Judge Guil

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Short answer

Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC dba Vivato Technologies was represented in N.D. Cal. No. 3:18-cv-02736 (originally opened as 4:18-cv-02736, then related to and litigated with lead case No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO, XR Communications v. Ruckus Wireless) exclusively by the Los Angeles patent boutique Russ August & Kabat LLP ("RAK"), 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025. No in-house counsel and no separate local-counsel firm appear on the public docket; no Noroozi PC attorney (who handled the parallel IPRs) appears as counsel of record in the district court docket that I could review.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Attorney Role Firm / office Notes on experience
Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067) Lead trial/appellate counsel; RAK founding partner Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, CA Signed the Nov. 2, 2021 notice of appeal (Dkt. 50) from Judge Orrick's Oct. 15, 2021 judgment; argued the Federal Circuit appeal that produced XR Communications, LLC v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc., Nos. 22-1125/22-1141 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023) (affirming indefiniteness of "search receiver logic"), and the companion C.D. Cal. appeal, No. 22-1785.
Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953; USPTO Reg. 69,138) Principal day-to-day counsel of record; filed and signed nearly all plaintiff papers RAK, Los Angeles, CA ECF filer on the complaint (Dkt. 1, 5/9/2018), corporate disclosure (Dkt. 4), related-case notice (Dkt. 6) and the IPR stay stipulation (Dkt. 27, with Shum declaration); executed the Mirzaie declaration supporting Vivato's claim-construction briefing in the lead case (Dkt. 176‑1 in 3:18-cv-01992); named plaintiff counsel across the XR/Vivato campaign in C.D. Cal., W.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex. and back-up PTAB counsel.
Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189) Of counsel / case attorney RAK, Los Angeles, CA Listed on the docket as plaintiff's attorney; supplied the declaration supporting the June 2018 stipulated stay pending the Ruckus/ARRIS IPRs (Dkt. 27‑1). Long-time Vivato portfolio counsel in the related C.D. Cal. actions.
Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239; USPTO Reg. 74,621) Of counsel / case attorney; PTAB lead RAK, Los Angeles, CA Listed on the § 27 stipulation and related filings; designated lead PTAB counsel for XR Communications in IPR2022-00367 ('235 patent) with Mirzaie and Conkle as back-up.
Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374) Associate/of counsel RAK, Los Angeles, CA Listed as plaintiff's attorney on the N.D. Cal. docket; PTAB back-up counsel for Vivato and co-signer on later E.D. Tex. claim-construction papers (2024).
Minna Y. Chan (CA SBN 305941) Associate/of counsel RAK, Los Angeles, CA Listed on the docket; identified in the Federal Circuit's 22‑1785 disposition as part of Vivato's appellate team (with Fenster, Ledahl, Mirzaie, Pickens).
Brian D. Ledahl Appellate counsel (Federal Circuit only) RAK, Los Angeles, CA Listed on the CAFC docket for No. 22‑1125 and named in the 22‑1785 opinion as appearing for Vivato; not listed on the N.D. Cal. docket excerpts.
James N. Pickens (CA SBN 307474) Case attorney appearing mid-litigation (party attribution not verified) RAK, Los Angeles, CA Notice of appearance filed 1/26/2021 (Dkt. 39) and named in the 22‑1785 appellate appearance; the excerpted docket text does not state which party he appeared for, so treat the plaintiff-side attribution as probable but unconfirmed.

Important qualifications

  • Docket basis. The plaintiff-side roster above comes from the party/attorney listings derived from the N.D. Cal. docket (Justia/UniCourt mirrors of 3:18-cv-02736, e.g. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2018cv02736/[326365](/patent/326365) and https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db1-xr-communications-llc-v-arris-solutions-inc-[756945](/patent/756945)) plus RAK signature blocks on public filings. I did not obtain the underlying PACER images for the pro hac vice / admission orders (Dkts. 7–23), and I could not verify a formal "lead counsel" designation — N.D. Cal. does not require one, so "lead" above reflects who signed the operative papers and argued the appeal, not a court order.
  • Not invented. Attorneys appearing later in the docket (D. McCloskey, N. Johnson, M. Killian, and possibly J. Pickens) are most consistent with defendant ARRIS/Ruckus's Duane Morris team (M. Yungwirth, A. Snedeker, R. Seabolt, P. Salceda), who were ARRIS's counsel of record; I have not confirmed party attribution for those entries.
  • No sealed-counsel issue identified. Nothing suggests plaintiff's counsel was sealed or under a protective order anonymization; the docket reflects an ordinary public appearance record. XR Communications is a patent-licensing entity (dba Vivato Technologies), so no in-house counsel of record would be expected.
  • PTAB counsel are separate. In IPR2018-00762/01016 and related reviews of the '231 patent, Vivato was represented by Noroozi PC (Kayvan B. Noroozi, Joel P.N. Stonedale, William P. Rothwell, later James A. Milkey and Karly Valenzuela), per Patent Owner mandatory notices — but those attorneys do not appear on the district court docket.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Good initial data. Let me dig into individual attorneys and the later docket entries.

Counsel of Record — Defendant ARRIS Solutions, Inc.

XR Communications, LLC v. ARRIS Solutions, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-02736-WHO (N.D. Cal.) (docketed in N.D. Cal. as 3:18-cv-02736; some PTAB papers mis-cite it as "4:18-cv-02736" / "C.D. Cal.")

All appearances for ARRIS were from a single firm, Duane Morris LLP, with the Atlanta office acting as national patent counsel and the Bay Area offices serving as local counsel under N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-1/11-3. The case was related (Dkt. 25) and effectively consolidated with the Ruckus Wireless case, No. 3:18-cv-01992-WHO, before Judge William H. Orrick III, and the same Duane Morris team defended both defendants. **No ARRIS in-house lawyer entered an appearance on this docket.

Attorneys who appeared

Attorney Role Firm / office Docket Note
Matthew S. Yungwirth Lead counsel (national), admitted pro hac vice Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA (1075 Peachtree St. NE) Pro hac vice granted 5/29/2018 (Dkt. 22); filed ARRIS's answer with jury demand and affirmative defenses (Dkt. 24, 5/30/2018); filed status reports (Dkt. 31–32, 38) Self-described lead counsel for the ARRIS entities "since their inception" in both this case and XR Commc'ns v. ARRIS Group, No. 8:18-cv-0192 (C.D. Cal.), and lead counsel for Ruckus in the related cases; also lead petitioner's counsel in the parallel IPRs, incl. IPR2018-01016 on the '231 patent; long-time Duane Morris Cisco patent-litigation team member.
Alice E. Snedeker Of counsel / core team (national), admitted pro hac vice Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA Pro hac vice granted 5/29/2018 (Dkt. 23) Patent litigator (Georgia Tech B.S. mechanical engineering; former law clerk, N.D. Ga.); representative matters include Oyster Optics v. Coriant (Cisco, E.D. Tex.), Implicit LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, and the Yahoo/Droplets defense; 802.11 wireless LAN and wireless-chipset experience directly relevant here. Now a Duane Morris partner and repeat "IP Star" (Georgia).
Richard L. Seabolt Local counsel (initial), then withdrew Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA Consent/declination to magistrate judge (Dkt. 14, 5/16/2018); withdrawal as counsel of record (Dkt. 30, 6/26/2018) Veteran N.D. Cal. patent litigator, Duane Morris's San Francisco IP litigation partner (e.g., represented Cisco in N.D. Cal. cases). He was replaced on the local side within weeks of the case being stayed.
Patrick Shaw Salceda Local counsel (replaced Seabolt) E-filed from San Francisco; firm affiliation for this appearance is not confirmed in the sources I could reach (Bay Area Duane Morris local-counsel role is the likely fit) Notice of appearance (Dkt. 29, 6/18/2018); amended certificate of interested entities (Dkt. 33, 4/29/2019); notice of change in counsel / withdrawal (Dkt. 35, 5/31/2019) Appeared and withdrew on the same day the local-counsel baton passed to Daniel McCloskey — a routine substitution, but I cannot source a firm bio for him, so treat his affiliation as unverified.
Daniel T. McCloskey Local counsel (from May 2019) Duane Morris LLP, Palo Alto, CA (2475 Hanover St.) Notice of appearance (Dkt. 34, 5/31/2019) California IP litigator (admitted 1997; Pepperdine J.D.) who handled N.D. Cal. patent cases for Duane Morris clients such as Dynatrace and GoPro. He left Duane Morris in 2019 for the San Mateo County Counsel's Office, so his appearance here reflects work done at/near the end of his firm tenure; his later departure may explain subsequent notices of change in counsel.
Nicole Elizabeth Johnson Associate / supporting appearance (probable Duane Morris) Likely Duane Morris (Atlanta); not independently confirmed Notice of appearance (Dkt. 36, 1/7/2020) Entered after the case had been stayed pending IPR, i.e., a maintenance appearance. A Duane Morris "Nicole E. Johnson" appears in contemporaneous N.D. Cal. filings alongside Snedeker, but I could not verify her bar/firm record directly — flag as unconfirmed.

Also on the docket (not defense counsel)

  • James Nathan Pickens (notice of appearance, Dkt. 39, 1/26/2021) and Meghan Charlene Killian (notice of change in counsel, 4/27/2021) appear on this docket in the plaintiff-side lineup; Pickens is a Russ August & Kabat attorney who signed XR Communications' November 2, 2021 notice of appeal. Do not attribute these to ARRIS.
  • Counsel for plaintiff throughout: Marc A. Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, Philip X. Wang, Christian Conkle, Minna Y. Chan, James N. Pickens (Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles), with Kent N. Shum on the stay papers; IPR work for XR was handled by Noroozi PC (Joel P.N. Stonedale, Kayvan B. Noroozi).

What happened to the case, for context

  • ARRIS answered on May 30, 2018 (Dkt. 24), one day after its pro hac vice admissions; the case was related to No. 3:18-cv-01992 on May 30, 2018 (Dkt. 25) and reassigned to Judge Orrick (Dkt. 26).
  • The parties stipulated to a stay pending IPRs on June 4, 2018, granted June 5, 2018 (Dkt. 27–28), with Duane Morris's Yungwirth driving the parallel PTAB petitions (IPR2018-01016 et al., '231 patent).
  • After the stay lifted, Judge Orrick issued the claim construction order on September 1, 2021 (Dkt. 191 in the lead case), construing "search receiver logic" under § 112 ¶ 6 and holding the claims indefinite; stipulated final judgment entered October 15, 2021 (Dkt. 48 here / Dkt. 193 in 3:18-cv-01992).
  • XR appealed (Nos. 2022-1125, 2022-1141); the Federal Circuit affirmed on May 18, 2023, denied rehearing/rehearing en banc on July 24, 2023, and issued the mandate July 31, 2023.

Caveats

  • No sealing issue affects counsel identification here: the only sealed filing on this docket is ARRIS's Rule 7.1-1 certification and notice of interested parties (Dkt. 21, granted May 29, 2018), which does not obscure who appeared.
  • Firm/office details for Salceda and Johnson are the two items I could not confirm against a firm source; everything else above is tied to a specific docket entry or a Duane Morris/PTAB filing. Appellate counsel of record for ARRIS in the Federal Circuit appeal was not verified in the sources reviewed, so I have not named anyone for the appeal.