Writing a blog can be a bit like real journalism. More often it's a tedious exercise in easy jokes that amuse only the author, but, sometimes, there's a bit of sneaky sleuthing involved.
You tell me why he has human hands.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
For those who don't click links, the pro hac at issue was for an attorney involved in several of the infamous Mavexar cases. Judge Connolly issued sua sponte orders setting a hearing on the pto hac motion and requiring the attorney in question to submit "a sworn declaration in which he (1) …
This was meant to be more "Jaws" and less "get off my lawn you dang kids" but I can't be bothered to mess with the prompt anymore. A reminder that we are currently accepting applications for the official IP/DE cartoonistAI-Generated, displayed with permission
Today's strand in the tale is an abject lesson in the way certain cases can follow you around for years after they've ostensibly died. It comes to us by way of a pro hac motion, of all things. Filed without fanfare and totally unopposed, one would have expected it to be granted within a day or so.
Things went a little differently in WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Tracki Inc., C.A. No. 25-799-CFC (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2025) where an unopposed pro hac motion sat dormant for a full 11 days until the Court issued this ominous Oral Order:
So that the Court may properly consider Plaintiff's application for the pro hac admission of William Ramey, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Ramey shall file with the Court no later than October 31, 2025 a sworn declaration in which he (1) identifies all the cases he has participated in or is currently participating in as counsel of record in this District and (2) avers whether he has ever been found by a court or state bar disciplinary body to have violated a rule, order, code, or norm of professional conduct. If Mr. Ramey has been found by a court or state bar disciplinary body to have violated a rule, order, code, or norm of professional conduct, he shall identify in the declaration the court or disciplinary body as the case may be and the date and nature of the finding and he shall submit with the declaration a copy of any order, opinion, or other document issued by the court or state bar disciplinary body in connection with that finding.
This is the first time I've seen an order like this. Me being a reporter (sorta), I looked to see what the lawyer's history was in the district. Unsurprisingly, an old Mavexar case popped up.
Counsel in question represented plaintiffs in a series of cases around the time of the Mavexar hearings, including Missed Call, LLC v. Freshworks Inc., C.A. No. 22-739-CFC. In that case, counsel failed to attend a scheduled in-person hearing. This led Chief Judge Connolly to order ...
AI refuses to draw a judge without an old-school judicial wig. This is the best I could do.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Chief Judge Connolly held a second Mavexar-related hearing yesterday, this time in Swirlate IP LLC v. Quantela, Inc., C.A. No. 22-235-CFC (D. Del.). This was after the one in the Backertop action that we just posted about.
Chief Judge Connolly questioned both the out-of-town attorney who represented Swirlate as lead counsel in the action, and the sole member of the Swirlate NPE
The Court addressed several topics with the attorney, including:
Gaps and redactions in the court-ordered document production, which was supposed to include communications with his client.
There was another hearing this morning in the still-ongoing Mavexar saga, this time in Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., C.A. N. 22-572 (D. Del.).
If you recall, this is the case where the sole member of the patent assertion LLC is a litigation paralegal from Texas who was the wife of a Mavexar attorney.
She appeared in one of the first Mavexar hearings back in November 2022. She later accused the Court of "mansplaining" and "gender harassment and intimidation," and she refused to appear in person to testify a second time, incurring a $53,000 fine. She appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Long slumbering, but always alert, the Mavexar saga moved step closer to its inevitable conclusion today when Chief Judge Connolly issued a memorandum order in Swirlate IP LLC v. Quantela, Inc., C.A. No. 22-235-CFC (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2024) (Mem. Order).
This order dealt with a pair of cases that have largely flown under the radar, being stayed during the pendency of the Nimitz appeals. But the story here is similar in the broad strokes to that in Backertop and Nimitz. The putative plaintiff is an LLC with a sole owner who was assigned the patent in suit by IP Edge or Mavaxar. The attorneys in the case largely communicated …
Last month, we wrote about the Mavexar-related witness who spent about $44,400 and counting just to avoid a trip to Delaware. Our post was prompted by the Federal Circuit affirming Judge Connolly's order imposing sanctions for her failure to appear in-person (even though, oddly, she agreed to appear remotely) for questioning by the Court related to potential misbehavior by her LLC, its attorneys, and Mavexar/IP Edge.
Well, yesterday the Court set a new hearing date, once again ordering the witness to appear for an in-person examination by the Court:
At Wilmington on this Twenty-third day of August in 2024, having received the Federal …
Is it such a long flight?AI-Generated, displayed with permission
It's hard to believe it has been almost a year, but last August we wrote about a Mavexar-related witness who refused to travel to Delaware to testify, instead insisting that she would offer testimony only remotely.
The Court fined her $200 per day for contempt of Court. She immediately appealed, arguing that the Court cannot force her to attend as she is outside of the 100-mile subpoena radius permitted under FRCP 45. The Court denied her motion to stay the fine pending appeal.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued an order affirming the contempt sanction (and doing so pretty enthusiastically). The Federal Circuit made clear that the Court's inherent authority absolutely …
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Waverly Licensing LLC, C.A. No. 22-1554-CFC (D. Del), is one of my favorite complaints ever. Waverly -- allegedly one of the Mavexar companies -- sued Power Integrations for infringement in Texas right before Judge Connolly held his first hearing in the Mavexar matters in November of 2022.
In a truly inspired move, Power integrations then filed a DJ complaint in Delaware (its state of incorporation) alleging that "Defendants have engaged in a broad and aggressive campaign to harass and threaten many companies, including Power Integrations, with assertions of patent infringement liability . . . ." Id. at D.I. 1. Notably, they managed to get this complaint on file by the end of November 2022.
The complaint is well worth a read, but the best bit is definitely when they point out that Waverly's official address is actually an empty shelf in a Staples:
In an assignment filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the ’246 patent, defendant Array IP LLC identified itself as having the same address that defendant Waverly Licensing LLC lists in the Waverly-PI complaint as its principal place of business (3333 Preston Road, Suite 300, Frisco, Texas 75034). (Id.) However, that address is actually a Staples store . . . Moreover, the specific box number that defendant Waverly occasionally lists in its court filings as its “principal place of business” within that “suite” is an open shelf.
Id. at paragraphs 12-13.
There are pictures and everything, it's really great.
This complaint prompted all of the DJ defendants -- which included Waverly, Mavexar itself, and several others -- to ...
Here you can see Mavexar, IP Edge, and their counsel after yesterday's opinion.Mae Mu, Unsplash
Wow! Today, in the Mavexar cases, Chief Judge Connolly issued a huge, 102-page opinion referring plaintiffs' counsel to the Texas Supreme Court's Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the PTO, and the Department of Justice to determine whether counsel violated various rules—or federal laws:
As it appears that [three Mavexar employees] engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, I will refer them to the Texas Supreme Court's Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee.
* * *
I believe it appropriate to bring these matters to the attention of the PTO and the Department of Justice to allow them to conduct further inquiry into whether the PTO's rules or [18 U.S.C.] § 1001 were violated. The Department may also deem it appropriate to investigate whether the strategy employed by IP Edge to hide from the defendants in these cases and the Court real parties in interest, including France Brevets, violated any federal laws.
Nimitz Technologies LLC, v. CNET Media, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1247-CFC, D.I. 34 at 98, 100 (D. Del. Nov. 27, 2023).
If you're not familiar with them, Mavexar appears to be an entity that recruits people to serve as the sole members of shell LLCs that assert patents. The recruited individuals may not fully understand what is going on, and may get something like 5-10% of the proceeds of the patent infringement suits in exchange for accepting all of the risk. It looks like Mavexar sets up the entities, hires the attorneys, and does the work of selecting targets and even drafting claim charts.
The opinion goes through exactly what these entities and attorneys did—at least, as far as the Court can tell from the factual record and their production, which was apparently full of holes.
In short, the attorneys acted as if they were attorneys for Mavexar and IP edge rather than their nominal clients (the LLCs asserting the patents). They generally didn't communicate with their clients until Chief Judge Connolly started pressing them, which was months after they had been asserting and settling these cases.
Instead, the Court describes how they worked almost exclusively with Mavexar / IP Edge employees. Given that Mavexar ...
As you may recall, the witness initially attempted to appear via teleconference, citing financial concerns and responsibilities at home and at work. Judge Connolly denied the request, and she ultimately failed to appear for the hearing. Thus began a running fine of $200 per day (that the Court is open) until she appears.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Shortly thereafter, Backertop moved to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal. Judge Connolly denied that motion in a short opinion today noting that success on appeal was unlikely:
I think it unlikely that Backertop and Ms. LaPray will prevail in their appeal. Indeed, were Ms. LaPray's reading of Rule 45 to be adopted by the Federal Circuit, a resident of Hawaii (which is more than 100 miles from any other federal judicial district) could form a shell LLC, give the LLC no assets except for a questionable patent, assert the patent in frivolous infringement lawsuits filed under the LLC' s name in the other 93 federal judicial districts, and have the LLC engage in fraudulent and sanctionable conduct through the course of those suits with impunity
Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., C.A. No. 22-572-CFC, D.I. 62 at 5-6 (D. Del. Oct 3, 2023)
Given the track record of Mavexar appeals so far, this seems a fair assessment.
And so the fine continues to pick up steam. By my count, it has currently been building for 31 taxable days. for a total of $6,200 smackeroos.
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
