XR Communications, LLC v. Newo Corporation d/b/a Amped Wireless

I'll research this case and its patents before drafting.

Good foundation. Let me verify the accused products, the consolidated campaign, and the IPR outcomes.

Case Overview

Parties. The plaintiff is XR Communications, LLC, doing business as Vivato Technologies — a patent-holding/licensing entity (not an operating Wi-Fi vendor) that owns the patent portfolio originating with Vivato, Inc., the early-2000s venture-backed developer of phased-array "smart antenna" Wi-Fi access points. XR's filings, briefs and PTAB papers uniformly use the "d/b/a Vivato Technologies" name, and its litigation counsel throughout the campaign was Russ August & Kabat LLP (Marc A. Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, Philip X. Wang, Kent N. Shum, Christian Conkle; Reza Mirzaie signed the dismissal stipulation in this case). The defendant is Newo Corporation d/b/a Amped Wireless, a Chino Hills, California consumer/SMB Wi-Fi manufacturer known for high-power, long-range routers, access points and range extenders (RTA-series routers, ATHENA-EX/TAP-EX extenders). Public FCC filings identify Amped Wireless as a Newo Corp. trade name whose corporate parent is DPI Inc.

I'll research this case and its related proceedings systematically. Let me start with searches on the case docket and the patents/parties.

Good start. Let me dig into the docket entries, the consolidated lead case, and the parallel IPRs.

Let me examine the full docket and the stay order, plus the IPR landscape for these patents.

XR Communications, LLC v. Newo Corp. d/b/a Amped Wireless, No. 5:17-cv-00744-AG (JCGx) (C.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived member case in XR Communications/Vivato's ten-defendant 802.11

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

Let me pull the docket details and complaint signature block.

Let me get the complaint and dismissal stipulation signature blocks in full.

I'll research the defendant's counsel in this case.

Let me pull the full docket and Newo's filings to confirm all counsel.

Defendant's counsel of record — Newo Corporation d/b/a Amped Wireless

Newo was represented by DLA Piper LLP (US), with a Texas-based lead/PHV team and a Los Angeles-based local counsel designee. Three attorneys appear on the face of the docket and filings.

Counsel table

Docket grounding

• Dkt. 27 (Sept. 18, 2017) — Notice of Appearance adding "Michael A. Piazza as counsel of record for Newo Corporation d/b/a Amped Wireless." (CourtListener docket; mirrored at Patexia)
• Dkt. 30 / Dkt. 32 (Sept. 26, 2017) — Non-Resident Attorney Aaron G. Fountain's application to appear pro hac vice, granted by Judge Andrew J. Guilford, "designating Michael Piazza as local counsel." (Dkt. 32)
• Dkt. 36 (June 21, 2018) — Joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41, subject to the June 15, 2018 confidential settlement agreement, signed "DLA PIPER US LLP … By: /s/ John M. Guaragna — John M. Guaragna, Aaron Fountain, Attorneys for Defendant NEWO CORPORATION" (plaintiff signed through Russ August & Kabat). (full text)

Substantive conduct of the defense

Newo's principal litigated activity was a motion to sever and stay pending resolution of the co-pending cases — arguing the company was "trapped in expensive patent litigation out of all proportion to its small size and limited resources," with a damages exposure estimated at roughly $120,000 against a case pool discussed in the $24M–$100M+ range, and reciting an unanswered November 2017 settlement offer. Newo did not file its own IPR petitions; the IPRs that drove Judge Guilford's April 10, 2018 stay order (IPR2018-00726 et al. on the '728 patent, and the parallel petitions on the '231 and '296 patents) were filed by Cisco, HPE/Aruba, and later ARRIS, Belkin and NETGEAR. (Mondaq case commentary; IPR2018-00726 petition)

Caveats and flags

• Firm attribution for Michael Piazza is not cleanly sourced. The docket identifies him only as "local counsel" without a firm name in the entries I could retrieve. Current professional listings place him at McDermott Will & Emery, Los Angeles (2049 Century Park East, Ste. 3200) — the address in his State Bar of Texas record; Law360's attorney page ties him to both McDermott and this April 19, 2017 Newo case. I could not confirm from available sources whether he was a DLA Piper Los Angeles lawyer, or an independent/local-counsel arrangement, when he appeared in September 2017; he is not listed on the DLA Piper signature block of the dismissal stipulation, which names only Guaragna and Fountain. Treat the "DLA Piper" affiliation as unverified.
• No in-house counsel for Newo appears in the docket entries retrieved. If Amped Wireless in-house counsel participated, it was not as counsel of record.
• No additional law firms (e.g., a separate trial shop or appellate counsel) appear for Newo in the record I could reach. Filings beyond Docs. 27, 30, 32 and 36 were not individually reviewed, so a later-substituted or withdrawn appearance cannot be ruled out — but nothing in the docket index suggests one.
• Termination-date discrepancy: the case metadata and RPX list closure at May 22, 2018 (Judge Guilford's minute order staying all consolidated cases and ordering JS-6 termination, Dkt. 35), while the Rule 41 dismissal stipulation was filed June 21, 2018 (Dkt. 36) and the AO 120 report on Aug. 7, 2019. These are consistent events, not conflicting facts, but the "terminated 2018-06-21" date in the case metadata refers to the dismissal filing rather than the JS-6 closure.
• Consolidation: by minute order of Oct. 2, 2017, this case and nine others were consolidated for all purposes except trial into lead case 8:17-cv-00596-AG (JCGx) (later XR Communications v. D-Link Systems), so many consolidated filings and the Markman record were captioned in the lead case rather than 5:17-cv-00744. Newo's individual counsel identified above remained its counsel of record.