XR Communications, LLC v. ASUS Computer International et al.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the parties, patents, and docket history.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the patent specifics, IPR history, and party background.

Now let me verify the consolidation/stay sequence and the PTAB outcomes in detail.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC, d/b/a Vivato Technologies ("Vivato") is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business at 2809 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. It is not an operating Wi-Fi vendor today; it is a patent-holding/assertion entity that owns the portfolio of the original Vivato, Inc., a venture-backed wireless start-up founded in 2000 with more than $80 million in funding and a founder/engineering bench that included Siavash Alamouti, Ken Biba, William Crilly, James Brennan, Edward Casas, and Vahid Tarokh. XR's complaints describe Vivato's early beamforming/phased-array base stations and "over 400 deployments globally," while defendants' briefs characterize XR as "adopting the name of Vivato, Inc., a failed wireless technology company" to "resurrect Vivato, Inc.'s patent holdings by broadening claims drafted nearly two decades ago to cover Defendants' present-day technologies" (Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief, *XR Commc'

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and appellate history.

Now let me dig into the docket entries and the IPR proceedings.

Let me get the IPR details and the parallel N.D. Cal. case that drove the estoppel ruling.

XR Communications, LLC v. ASUS Computer International, No. 2:17-cv-02948-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: This case never reached Markman, trial, or a verdict in its own right. ASUS won on two independent dispositive tracks that arrived in sequence: (1) six PTAB final written decisions cancelling every asserted claim of the '296 and '728 patents, and (2) a collateral-estoppel judgment on the '231 patent borrowed from a parallel N.D. Cal. indefiniteness ruling. Final judgment entered 2022-04-15; the Federal Circuit affirmed 2023-05-18; mandate issued 2023-06-27.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2017)

Strategic read: XR filed a ten-defendant wave of Wi-Fi router/AP suits on the same three patents in April-May 2017 (Aruba 2:17-cv-02945, ASUS -02948, Cisco -02951, Extreme -02953, Netgear -02959, Ruckus -02961, Ubiquiti -02968, Belkin 8:17-cv-00674, Xirrus 3:17-c

I'll research the docket and related sources for plaintiff's counsel of record.

Good initial hits. Let me pin down the complaint-stage counsel, the lead-counsel change, and any later additions/admissions.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — XR Communications, LLC dba Vivato Technologies

XR Communications was represented throughout this case by a single firm, Russ August & Kabat (RAK), Los Angeles, California. RAK is California-based, so no separate local counsel was ever retained in the C.D. Cal. proceeding, and I found no in-house counsel entering an appearance on the docket. The full RAK team appeared in signature blocks on filings in this case, including a May 9, 2022 filing captioned in No. 2:17-cv-02948-DOC that lists all six attorneys as "Attorneys for Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC dba Vivato Technologies."

Sourcing and caveats

• Docket-stage evidence: Dkt. 13 (Notice of Change of Lead Counsel, Marc Fenster, 4/26/2017); Dkt. 35 (First Amended Complaint, Kent Shum, 7/27/2017); Dkt. 36 and Dkt. 40 (Christian Conkle, Aug.–Sept. 2017); Dkt. 46 (Final Judgment, 4/15/2022, Reza Mirzaie signature block), available at docketalarm PDF.
• Full RAK signature block in this case: RPX Insight litigation document 14746431 (dated May 9, 2022, Case No. 2:17-cv-02948-DOC) lists Fenster, Mirzaie, Wang, Conkle, Chan and Pickens as "Attorneys for Plaintiff."
• Appellate counsel of record: XR Communications, LLC v. D-Link Systems, Inc., Nos. 2022-1785, -1787, -1789, -1790, -1791, -1792 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023) (nonprecedential): "MARC A. FENSTER, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MINNA CHAN, BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, REZA MIRZAIE, JAMES PICKENS." CourtListener
• Uncertainty flagged: I could not retrieve the counsel list from Dkt. 1 (the original complaint) directly; secondary sources (e.g., the parallel Cisco case docket) indicate Reza Mirzaie was the filing attorney on the original complaint in the Vivato cases, but I have not independently confirmed Dkt. 1 in this docket. Kent Shum's firm affiliation is inferred from his joint appearances with RAK in this and the parallel Vivato matters, not from a confirmed RAK attorney bio.
• No sealed/absent counsel issue: Nothing suggests plaintiff's counsel was sealed or that an appearance is still outstanding. The case is closed (final judgment 4/15/2022; appeal affirmed 5/18/2023), so this is a complete historical list rather than a live roster. Note that after consolidation before Judge David O. Carter in the lead case No. 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE, the same RAK team coordinated briefing across all Vivato cases, so a few RAK attorneys appear in lead-case filings without separate entries in the 02948 docket.

I'll research the counsel of record for the ASUS defendants in this C.D. Cal. case.

Good initial docket data. Let me verify the individual attorneys' firms, roles, and any later substitutions.

Counsel of record for ASUS Computer International & ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.

Bottom line: Every defense-side appearance in this case was filed by a single firm — Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP (later Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, renamed Kasowitz LLP effective June 25, 2025) — out of its Silicon Valley / Redwood Shores, CA office. No separate local counsel ever appeared (the C.D. Cal. does not require one, and Kasowitz is a California-based firm), and no in-house ASUS attorney entered an appearance on the docket. Six Kasowitz attorneys filed notices of appearance in 2017; Jonathan K. Waldrop was lead.

The attorneys

Docket trail (C.D. Cal. No. 2:17-cv-02948-AG-JCG)

Federal Circuit counsel of record for ASUS

The May 18, 2023 opinion in XR Communications, LLC v. D-Link Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir., appeals from Nos. 2:17-cv-02948-AG-JCG et al.) lists: "JONATHAN K. WALDROP, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for defendants-appellees ASUS Computer International, Asustek Computer, Inc. Also represented by MARCUS BARBER, JOHN DOWNING." Darcy Jones appears as appellee counsel on the Federal Circuit docket for the ASUS appeal. Shaw and Kim do not appear at the appellate stage.

Sourcing caveats

• Firm name changes: the firm was Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP when it appeared in 2017, became Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, and renamed itself Kasowitz LLP on June 25, 2025 (the firm filed notices of name/address change in other dockets, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I v. American Airlines, E.D. Tex. No. 4:24-cv-00980).
• No sealed defense filings on this docket. Plaintiff-side materials (e.g., the Rule 7.1 interested-parties notice, Dkts. 19–22) were filed under seal; the ASUS filings I cite are public.
• After April 2022 the case was effectively consolidated into lead case No. 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE, so some later papers (including the motion for judgment on the pleadings on collateral estoppel, Dkt. 274 in the lead case) were docketed there rather than under 2:17-cv-02948. I have not verified a post-2017 withdrawal/substitution notice in this docket; the six names above are the ones who formally appeared for ASUS here.
• Bar numbers are confirmed only where stated; I did not find a public State Bar record for Darcy L. Jones, John W. Downing, Heather S. Kim, or Jack Shaw, so none is given rather than guessed.