Control Sync Systems LLC (CSS) sued Sony, in the Eastern District of Texas; then LG Electronics (LGE), in the District of New Jersey; VIZIO (3:25-cv-02602), in the Northern District of Texas; and TCL (TTE Technology) (8:25-cv-02352), in the Central District of California, all over a patent generally related to controlling the "video and audio parameters of a display device and a play device". CSS has disclosed to the Northern District of Texas that it has no parent, concurrently submitting a required "complete list" of financially interested entities that purportedly includes only the named parties. Elsewhere, both before and after, CSS has disclosed a parent; it is unclear why that parent is missing from its North Texas filing, since it is presumably still CSS's parent as well as, obviously, a financially interested nonparty.
Comprising a family of one, the asserted patent (7,812,889) issued to Coretronic in October 2010. It has an estimated priority date in July 2005, based on the filing of a foreign application. Coretronic assigned the '889 patent to CSS on October 14, 2024. It is the only transfer to CSS in currently available USPTO records. The attachment to the assignment record reads in relevant part, "For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the terms herein being incorporated into the Patent Transfer Agreement signed by Coretronic Corporation and Patent Asset Management Advisors, LLC".
Patent Asset Management Advisors, LLC is a Florida entity formed in Florida in March 2019 by Leigh M. Rothschild, a prolific inventor who has turned to patent monetization over the past decade. A shift occurred in 2017, when Rothschild formed Patent Asset Management, LLC (PAM) in Florida. Per state records, Rothschild is the manager of PAM (as well as of Patent Asset Management Advisors), an arrangement previously confirmed in deposition testimony given during the course of a state court action filed by former Rothschild colleague Constance Kazanjian against Rothschild and various of his controlled entities.
Kazanjian pleaded in that state court case that she helped (at minimum) to build the structure through which Rothschild had been operating, indicating that she took inspiration from the setup of previously prolific Texas monetization firm IP Edge LLC. (IP Edge has seen a sharp reduction in its activity level since the fall of 2022, when its operation came under intense scrutiny from Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly; for details, see here.) Kazanjian sought from Rothschild, among other things, payment of "10% of all monies received from pending cases under $500[K] and . . . 20% of all monies received of pending cases over" $500K.
Having been sued by Rothschild-linked plaintiff Analytical Technologies, LLC (also a Wyoming plaintiff), Starbucks filed counterclaims against Rothschild himself (and others), thereafter challenging the whole operation as "an extensive thimblerig" intended to shield Rothschild from any negative litigation repercussions. In doing so, Starbucks relies on the Kazanjian narrative in an attempt to use the "alter ego exception to the fiduciary shield doctrine" to reach Rothschild, arguing that Rothschild is the alter ego of Analytical Technologies (and other plaintiffs) through, among other things, undercapitalization, commingled finances, unobserved corporate formalities, and perpetration of fraud.
In the Analytical Technologies case, Starbucks notes that Rothschild owns (or is an owner of) PAM, which in turn owns (or is an owner of) Analytical Technologies. (In litigation filed by Rothschild plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC, Rothschild is identified as the sole member of PAM.) This pattern—of forming plaintiffs in Wyoming under the management of PAM—has been in place since Kazanjian filed her complaint. Often, then-existing Rothschild plaintiffs have transferred a litigated patent to another Rothschild plaintiff for further assertion, perhaps in light of the claim to proceeds that Kazanjian made in her five-year (2017-2022) litigation.
Against that backdrop, in the CSS case against Sony, filed on August 27, 2025, CSS initially disclosed that had no "parent corporation" and that no publicly traded corporation owns ten percent or more of its "stock". Steven G. Kalberg of Direction IP Law signed that initial disclosure (over a signature block that includes David R. Bennett of the same firm). CSS sued LGE on September 11, 2025. There, Antranig Garibian of Garibian Law Offices, P.C. signed a disclosure that indicates that PAM (a Florida LLC) is CSS's parent after all. Bennett's name appears as "of counsel" on the signature block.
RPX noted that discrepancy on September 14. The next day, CSS amended its Eastern District of Texas disclosure, in the case against Sony, to state that its parent company is indeed PAM. This time, Bennett signed the disclosure directly. The Northern District of Texas, though, requires parties to certify a "complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the case". There, Bruce C. Deming has signed a certificate disclosing that CSS has no parent and that only the named parties are on that list. Unless something had changed over the prior weeks, it seems likely that CSS should have disclosed PAM, identified as CSS's parent elsewhere, as its parent in North Texas as well—and should have disclosed PAM as having a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Since the list is required to include "all persons", it would seem Rothschild, at a minimum, should also have been placed on it.
The disclosures of Control Sync in connection with its most recent case, the one against TTE in the Central District of California, suggest that nothing has changed. The Central District also imposes heightened disclosure requirements on litigants. There, Control Sync has listed, among parties with a financial or nonfinancial interest in the outcome of the case, PAM, Direction IP Law, and SML Avvocati. Stephen M. Lobbin of SML Avvocati signed that document, over a signature block that includes Bennett.
Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap presides over the case against Sony. Last week, Sony filed an unopposed motion to change venue to the District of New Jersey, where District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo has been assigned to preside. Garibian has sponsored the pro hac vice application of Bennett there, which has been granted. In Bennett's attached certification, he attests that he has "never been disbarred, suspended, or otherwise disciplined by any court or agency, nor have I been subject to any formal disciplinary proceedings".
Of note here is that Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly indicated that he would refer Bennett to "his bar's disciplinary counsel" given that the record in the Delaware cases of plaintiff Swirlate IP LLC "is very clear that [Bennett] never obtained the informed consent of Swirlate to file and settle lawsuits on its behalf"—i.e., never obtained the informed consent of its "sole owner", Dina Gamez, otherwise a "stay-at-home mom" from Sugarland, Texas. That planned referral came after Judge Connolly subjected multiple plaintiffs tied to Texas firm IP Edge LLC to intense scrutiny over the apparent practices of that monetization operation. (For details, see here.) It is unclear whether that referral "subjected" Bennett to a "formal disciplinary proceeding" in Illinois. (Such matters are typically handled privately, unless and until any disciplinary action might be taken.)
The District of New Jersey local rules require litigants to disclose information regarding nonrecourse litigation funding. Litigants in New Jersey federal court must disclose, within 30 days of filing an initial pleading or the transfer of a case to the district, the identity of their funder(s), including their name, address, and if a legal entity, its place of formation; whether the funder's approval is necessary for litigation decisions or settlement decisions in the action—and if the answer is in the affirmative, the nature of the terms and conditions relating to that approval; and a brief description of the nature of the financial interest. More than 30 days have passed since the CSS complaint was filed against LGE in New Jersey. CSS has not made a disclosure under this rule.
Judge Connolly reportedly modeled his funding-related standing order, adopted in April 2022, off of this District of New Jersey local rule. Note that later in 2022, a set of cases that Watchy Technology Private Limited filed in Delaware were assigned to Judge Connolly. Subject to that April 2022 standing order at that point, Watchy filed a funder disclosure stating "that the sole Third-Party Funder for Plaintiff is Patent Asset Management Advisors, LLC ('PAMA'), a Florida limited liability company, with an address of 1 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. The approval of PAMA is not necessary for litigation or settlement decisions in this action. The nature of the financial interest of PAMA is a split of any recoveries with Plaintiff".
Per its corporate disclosures in those cases, Watchy Technology is "a private limited company formed under the laws of the Country of India", which, to the best of Watchy's "knowledge and understanding, is formed and operates, at least in part, similarly to a limited liability corporation"—and thus is subject to another Judge Connolly standing order (regarding comprehensive ownership disclosure for certain parties). Watchy then, "out of an abundance of caution", disclosed the name of "every owner, member, and partner" of Watchy, proceeding "up the chain of ownership to name every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest in Plaintiff".
That list includes Sriramkumar Vanamurthi Hariharan; Somasundara Pandian Senthil Kumar; Kapil Bhalla; Morpheus Tritya Business Consultants LLP; The Morpheus Ananta Pte Ltd; Mahesh Cherukumilli; Rajasekar Thangamariappan; Joyson Manickam Rexraj; Prabhod Kesani; Kumaravenkatesh Palani; Radha Krishna Srimanthula; Kantesh Shanbhag; Sridhar Singisetty; Vedhanarayanan Padmanabhan; and Arvind M Jain—but no entity tied to Rothschild. Thus, PAMA may operate as a funder for entities unaffiliated with the Rothschild monetization shop.
District Judge Ed Kinkeade has been assigned to preside over the case against VIZIO. An application for Bennett to proceed pro hac vice in that case has been filed as well. That application requires an applicant to attest that he or she has "never been subject to grievance proceedings or involuntary removal proceedings—regardless of outcome—while a member of the bar of any state or federal court or tribunal that requires admission to practice" (except as provided). Bennett responded "N/A". He also indicates that he has been admitted pro hac vice in the district in several other cases (all linked to Rothschild) since March 2024.
The suit against TTE Technology has yet to be assigned to a judge. 9/25, VIZIO, Northern District of Texas; 10/16, TTE Technology, Central District of California.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
